Emily Stonebreaker
November 9, 2012
Blog 8
Categorizing
Political Violence: Cambodian Civil War
From 1970-
1975, Cambodia was engaged in a civil war that resulted in the deaths of
hundreds of thousands. This conflict was the result of internal tensions
between Prince Sihanouk, who was growing more leftist in his policies, and
other high-ranking political officials, who remained on the right side of the
political spectrum. Elections in 1966 “brought in a majority of National Assembly members who owed
little or nothing to Sihanouk himself” and the Prince became increasingly
unpopular with the educated elites and conservatives who disliked the fact that
he cut ties with the United States and seemed to favor a “procommunist foreign
policy.”[1] In
March of 1970, while Sihanouk was out of the country, the National Assembly
convened and removed the prince from his office as the head of state, and Lon
Nol, the conservative Prime Minister, took control of the government. War broke
out between government troops, known as the Khmer National Armed Forces (FANK)
and the Cambodian Peoples’ National Liberation Armed Forces (CPNLAF) who were
aided by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.[2]
This particular case will be used to
test David J. Samuels’ definition of civil war. According to Samuels, a civil
war is defined as an “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state
between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of
hostilities.”[3]
This definition works well in this case, in that when the war began in 1970, it
was a sovereign state, and the primary forces in the war, namely FANK and
CPLNLAF were both under the authority of Sihanouk. Sihanouk’s government was recognized as the
“sole legitimate authority” within the state, as of 1954.[4]
Samuels also gives other characteristics of a civil war,
however, that must be considered before we can determine whether or not his
definition works in this case. He states that civil wars are contained within
one country, “foreign meddling” can often be a part of it, and they last a
sustained period of time- at least a year.[5]
The Cambodian civil war was confined within the borders of the state. It did
not extend outwards towards Laos, Vietnam, or any other nearby states. When the
war broke out it was an issue between Cambodians and different views for the
country, but not due to conflicts with any other state. “Foreign meddling” was
also a part of the Cambodian civil war in that the CPNLAF was aided by the
communist forces of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, while FANK was receiving
assistance from the United States. Finally, the civil war lasted five years,
and its effects were felt long after the war came to an end. For Cambodia, the
violence did not come to an end until the Khmer National Armed Forces, who had
been pushed back by insurgents into one city, surrendered in 1975 after the
U.S. Congress refused to provide more aid. However, it wasn’t until 1989 that
the Vietnamese removed their forces from Cambodia and the state was able to
begin rebuilding.[6]
The characteristics, which are attributed to civil wars by
Samuels, are all present in this particular case study. Their presence lends
support to his argument that civil wars are armed conflicts in a sovereign
country, within which subjects are under the same authority at the onset of the
conflict. Furthermore, that they are within the borders of a single state, may
include the presence of foreign powers, and last for at least a year.
[1]
Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/90520/
Cambodia/52488/Civil-war (accessed November 7, 2012).
[2]
Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/
cambodia2.htm (accessed November 7, 2012).
[3]
David J. Samuels, Comparative Politics
(Boston: Pearson, 2010), 259.
[4]
Encyclopedia Britannica.
[5]
Samuels, 259.
[6]
Encyclopedia Britannica.
This case fits the definition to perfection. Give Samuels some props. He must know what he is talking about.
ReplyDelete