Prince Sihanouk has offered, under certain conditions, to share power with the existing regime in Cambodia in order to keep out the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese need to withdraw their troops from Kampuchea, but the Chinese, who back the Khmer Rouge, can afford to play for time. The USA has been reluctant to use its influence.
Gareth Porter is on the faculty of The American Universitys School of International Service. He edited Vietnam: A History in Documents.
For many years the conflict over Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia appeared intractable: Vietnam refused to negotiate except with China, while China flatly refused to negotiate; Hanoi would not consider any settlement in which the Khmer Rouge had a role, while the Khmer Rouge, backed by China, insisted there could be no settlement that did not include them. Cambodia seemed to be condemned indefinitely to Vietnamese military occupation, on one hand, and the continuous threat of the return to power of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, on the other.
But since former Cambodian chief of state Prince Norodom Sihanouk opened direct negotiations with the Vietnamese-sponsored People’s Republic of Kampuchea last December, a peace settlement has for the first time become a real possibility. Indeed, the broad outlines of such a settlement, built around Sihanouk’s return to Cambodia, have begun to emerge. Although the negotiations could still be snagged on the problems of power-sharing in a transitional Cambodian regime and insulating national elections against Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge army, the international context is far more conducive to a peace agreement today than it was in the early 1980s. Hanoi’s interest in a negotiated settlement has increased as it has encountered difficulties with its plan to withdraw unilaterally all of its troops by the end of 1990. The passage of time has also brought a more pragmatic Chinese attitude toward Cambodia and a new configuration of relations among the United States, China and the Soviet Union that gives both China and Vietnam reasons for wanting an early settlement.
II
Underlying the diplomatic stalemate that prevailed over the Cambodian war for so many years was the bitter conflict between China and Vietnam. Although an element of geopolitical rivalry over influence in Laos and Cambodia was undoubtedly involved, the conflict was fueled primarily by Chinese animosity and Vietnamese fears. Chinese leaders were angered by Vietnam’s "ingratitude" for China’s aid in the war against the United States and "betrayal" following a series of "anti-Chinese" actions after 1975. For their part, the Vietnamese, recalling a thousand years of Chinese efforts to sinicize them, believed Beijing was reverting to its historical policy of trying to keep weak and pliant states on its southern border.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia poses problems for US foreign policy in the region. The USA should cease to take the lead from ASEAN and should pursue a policy taking greater care of US interests, in the light of the Soviet involvement in Vietnam (particularly at Cam Ranh). The USA must be pragmatic and move forward from policies based on the experience of the 1970s. Some normalization of relations with Vietnam is recommended. China's attitude may make all the difference to the solution of the Cambodian question, but the Chinese are seen as having such an interest in maintaining good relations with the USA that they would not jeopardize them for the sake of Cambodia.
Considers how the USA should (1) best encourage evolution towards democracy in Asia's socialist states, covering China after the Tienanmen Square demonstrations, North Korea's improving dialogue with South Korea, and Vietnam's withdrawal from Cambodia (2) resolve its trade policy differences with Japan, before issues become "thrust into the heat of the domestic political arena".
The Clinton administration inherits strained bilateral relations with the leading powers of Asia and no coherent policy for the Asia/Pacific region as a whole. Trade, security and diplomatic style are the overarching challenges--and on all three counts prominent Asians are worried. They fear a president bent on building trade walls, bringing home American troops and lecturing on human rights. Yet respect for the United States remains instinctive throughout the region, particularly given convincing progress in rejuvenating the American economy. Asia's quest for economic growth and more democratic government awaits leadership from Washington.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.