What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambodia After the Khmer Rouge: Inside the Politics of Nation Building
This book tells of the events and personalities that shaped Cambodian history during the thirteen-year period between the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979 and the signing of the 1991 peace accords that resulted in U.N.-administered elections. The first study of this turbulent era, it offers a nuanced understanding of complex questions concerning human rights, economic reconstruction, institutional development, and national sovereignty, issues that were framed by the legacy of the Khmer Rouge and by a Vietnamese occupation. Drawing on a range of previously unexplored sources, including more than 1,300 internal government and party documents, Evan Gottesman describes how a handful of former Khmer Rouge soldiers and officials, Vietnamese-trained revolutionary cadres, and surviving intellectuals fought over power and policy. Gottesman discusses the regime's approach toward the Khmer Rouge, the relationship between the Cambodians and the Vietnamese, the treatment of the ethnic Chinese, and the tension between patronage politics and communist ideology. He tracks the careers of Cambodian leaders and their roles in determining the direction of the country and describes how Hun Sen, the current prime minister, rose to power in the 1980s. Gottesman concludes by explaining how the legacy of this period has influenced events in Cambodia to the present time.
- GenresHistory
448 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 20, 2011
A must read for anyone studying Cambodia history, politics, or development. There is a good chunk of information on Chinese in Cambodia during the People Republic of Kampuchea.
April 25, 2021
An incredible book on Cambodia in the 80s. Well written, packed with incredible information, and non judgemental. A must read for people interested in Cambodian history.
January 20, 2021
Author Evan Gottesman has written a definitive work on modern Cambodian state and society. The West’s preoccupation with the Indochina wars and the Khmer Rouge has left little room for discussion of the mornings after. Gottesman, as resident liaison of the ABA’s Cambodian Project, made up for this deficit with a large but readable study of Cambodia under the replacement People’s Republic of Kampuchea.
Every aspect of post KR life is touched upon at adequate length and rewarding depth: building a new government structure and economy, domestic race and international relations, military assistance and resistance, law and human rights, and, finally the transition to “democracy”: a term as precariously nebulous as socialism ever was in local context.
The post-’79 regime was installed by Vietnam for Vietnamese purposes, and any benefits accruing to Cambodia was collateral. Yet Gottesman avoids the term colonialism in describing this relationship. I will disagree. His point is well-taken that Vietnamese rule was not the conspiracy-theory genocide described by the inflamed Cambodian opposition per Prince Sihanouk, a mere rehash of the KR (whose own “genocide” was politically hyped by Vietnam and the West.) But his analysis on this point seems superficial.
European colonialism was not just a projection of racist theories or economic exploitation, as he writes on page 168. It too was based on strategic interests and “humanitarian intervention,” such as ending the African slave trade or rescuing natives from some rival power’s oppression. The “intertwined history” of Vietnamese and Cambodians was no more barrier against mutual bad feeling than between English and Irish or Poles and Russians.
The “satellite status” discussed on page 169 has merit, but this too is colonial in a protectorate sense. Vietnam was not like an east European satellite – it always had military sovereignty – so Cambodia was no sub-satellite, either. Raising a false divide between “control” and “ideology” underscores the blinkered mindset of so much Western analysis. Ideology, or state religion, or civic values are an important aspect of public control in any state. None can rest merely on police power alone, and never has.
Nor is a “unified vision” of the dominant power necessary. Strong differences are found within any society and evolve over time, being diffused with all their contradictions into any subordinate region under its control. Practice and preaching are always distinct and reflect whichever view has the upper hand at a given moment. This can be an asset when laying claims against the inconsistencies of an outside power. Thus policy differences between north and south Vietnamese did not challenge the fact of Vietnam’s colonial dominance of Cambodia.
Yet, even with my caveats, this is the go-to book for anyone interested in the politics, economy, and society of late-20th century Cambodia and southeast Asia.
Every aspect of post KR life is touched upon at adequate length and rewarding depth: building a new government structure and economy, domestic race and international relations, military assistance and resistance, law and human rights, and, finally the transition to “democracy”: a term as precariously nebulous as socialism ever was in local context.
The post-’79 regime was installed by Vietnam for Vietnamese purposes, and any benefits accruing to Cambodia was collateral. Yet Gottesman avoids the term colonialism in describing this relationship. I will disagree. His point is well-taken that Vietnamese rule was not the conspiracy-theory genocide described by the inflamed Cambodian opposition per Prince Sihanouk, a mere rehash of the KR (whose own “genocide” was politically hyped by Vietnam and the West.) But his analysis on this point seems superficial.
European colonialism was not just a projection of racist theories or economic exploitation, as he writes on page 168. It too was based on strategic interests and “humanitarian intervention,” such as ending the African slave trade or rescuing natives from some rival power’s oppression. The “intertwined history” of Vietnamese and Cambodians was no more barrier against mutual bad feeling than between English and Irish or Poles and Russians.
The “satellite status” discussed on page 169 has merit, but this too is colonial in a protectorate sense. Vietnam was not like an east European satellite – it always had military sovereignty – so Cambodia was no sub-satellite, either. Raising a false divide between “control” and “ideology” underscores the blinkered mindset of so much Western analysis. Ideology, or state religion, or civic values are an important aspect of public control in any state. None can rest merely on police power alone, and never has.
Nor is a “unified vision” of the dominant power necessary. Strong differences are found within any society and evolve over time, being diffused with all their contradictions into any subordinate region under its control. Practice and preaching are always distinct and reflect whichever view has the upper hand at a given moment. This can be an asset when laying claims against the inconsistencies of an outside power. Thus policy differences between north and south Vietnamese did not challenge the fact of Vietnam’s colonial dominance of Cambodia.
Yet, even with my caveats, this is the go-to book for anyone interested in the politics, economy, and society of late-20th century Cambodia and southeast Asia.
December 15, 2022
Progress is inevitably waylaid by the unintended effects of change. I suppose this is apparent throughout history. But the sheer volatility of decentralised Cambodian politics makes this explanation even more observable: “Cambodia did not arise from the ashes of the Khmer Rouge with anything approaching ideological clarity. Rather, it emerged– after twelve years of conflict and confusion– a product of many quiet struggles, among its leaders, its foreign patrons, and its citizens”.
September 11, 2023
Fascinating history of largely forgotten People's Republic of Kampuchea, the government which ruled Cambodia, more or less as aVietnamese client state, after the Vietnamese invaded and toppled the genocidal Khmer Rouge. I never imagined this would be such a good read, but it is!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews