U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–812PDF 2018

CAMBODIA’S DESCENT: POLICIES TO SUPPORT

DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 12, 2017

Serial No. 115–97

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TED S. YOHO, Florida, Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Olivia Enos, policy analyst, Asian Studies Center, Davis Institute for 

National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation .................... 12

Ms. Monovithya Kem, deputy director-general of public affairs, Cambodia 

National Rescue Party (daughter of Kem Sohka, president, Cambodia National Rescue Party) ............................................................................................. 24

Mr. Kenneth Wollack, president, National Democratic Institute ........................ 32

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Ms. Olivia Enos: Prepared statement .................................................................... 15

Ms. Monovithya Kem: Prepared statement ........................................................... 26

Mr. Kenneth Wollack: Prepared statement ........................................................... 35

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

(1)

CAMBODIA’S DESCENT: POLICIES TO 

SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Yoho (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. YOHO. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Members present will be permitted to submit written statements 

to be included in the official hearing record. Without objection, the 

hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record subject to 

length, limitations, and the rules. 

Well, good afternoon, everybody. And I can tell by the amount of 

participation in this room, this is a very important topic. And I 

want to thank you, the ranking member, my colleagues, and the 

panel for joining us today to discuss the events in Cambodia. We 

are holding this hearing at a consequential moment for Cambodia 

with serious implications for over 6 million of its citizens and for 

Southeast Asia and for democracy and human rights in the region. 

Cambodia is set to hold general elections in July 2018, which 

were predicted to be particularly significant for the country’s 

progress toward genuine democracy. Recent elections, including the 

2013 general elections and recent local elections, saw unprecedented gains for the Cambodia National Rescue Party, a consolidated opposition movement. 

Many observers believe that in 2018, the CNRP would win an 

unprecedented parliamentary majority. Unfortunately, Cambodia’s 

authoritarian leader had other plans. Hun Sen, the sitting prime 

minister, has been in power for more than 30 years, and has no intentions of relinquishing power. In face of strengthening support 

for the opposition, it seems Hun Sen has decided that he can no 

longer dominate the polls, even in a rigged election system. He will 

retain power through force. 

Over the last years, his brutal consolidation of powers played out 

on numerous fronts. Hun Sen has chilled support for the opposition 

by threatening to deploy the miliary if elections do not go his way, 

and has used his control of the government to dismantle threats to 

his grip on power. 

2

Two years ago, two CNRP lawmakers were savagely dragged 

from their cars and beaten by Hun Sen’s bodyguards. While the 

perpetrators served token sentences, they were promoted to colonel 

barely 2 weeks after being released. Such is the reward for crushing the opposition. 

In early September, authorities arrested Kem Sokha, the leader 

of the CNRP, and charged him with treason, allegedly for participating in an American plot to undermine Hun Sen’s regime. 

Only last month, Cambodia Supreme Court dissolved the CNRP, 

again citing the party’s involvement in an alleged U.S.-backed plot. 

The chief judge, who is an ally of Hun Sen, relied on legal authorities that were created by the regime’s controlled Parliament this 

year to give the ruling party sweeping powers over competing parties. We are seeing this around the globe. One only needs to look 

at Venezuela, the same thing is happening there. 

To dismantle Cambodia’s only credible opposition came amid a 

slew of other actions to eliminate dissenting—dissent among civil 

society. In August, the regime shut down the Office of the National 

Democratic Institute, a preeminent NGO that is active in promoting democracies around the world. Other NGOs have been investigated and subject to increased scrutiny. 

In recent months, the regime has forced the closure of independent media outlets that challenged its control over information, 

including Radio Free Asia, the Voice of America, and other publications and radio stations. 

Hun Sen’s corrupt, oppressive regime perpetuates a culture of 

human rights abuses and restrictions of political freedoms. As 

Human Rights Watch finds, his rule has relied on security force violence and politically motivated persecution. Security forces commit 

killings and torture with impunity. The politically powerful have 

carried out forced evictions and illegal land grabs for decades. And 

again, we are seeing this in other parts of the world run by other 

governments. Government officials and judges are mirrored in corruption. 

Hun Sen’s relentless consolidation of power this year means that 

these widespread abuses will continue. It goes without saying that 

this is an intolerable situation for the people of Cambodia. 

The White House deserves recognition for taking decisive actions 

on these issues. In November, the press secretary issued a strong 

statement on the regime’s action to undermine democracy. And this 

month, the State Department began implementing visa restrictions 

for officials involved in these actions, but more must be done. 

The human rights and democracy in Cambodia have broad implications for the region and the world. Cambodia is a member of 

ASEAN, the premier international forum in Southeast Asia, with 

nine other nations, and accounts for 633 million people, and $2.5 

trillion in trade. Every one of its 10 members must agree in order 

for the bloc to act, so any nation operating outside the bounds of 

humanity and decency will have an outsize effect on the entire 

group. This is such an important issue, not just for the Cambodian 

people, but for that whole region and, really, for the world. 

Hun Sen and his cronies are also clients of China. Chinese aid 

increases Hun Sen’s resilience to international pressure, perpetuates corruption within Cambodia, and gives China undue influVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Jan 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\121217\27812 SHIRL
3

ence within ASEAN. China’s support of Hun Sen’s regime shows 

that its policy’s priorities are dramatically out of step with global 

humanitarian norm, despite China’s rapidly growing global profile. 

It has been a difficult year for the cause of human rights and democracy in Cambodia, and the year ahead may even be harder. So 

in today’s hearing, we will try to determine how Congress can best 

contribute to this cause. 

I thank the panel for helping to guide us in this important work. 

And, without objection, the witnesses’ written statements will be 

entered into the hearing record. 

And I now turn to the ranking member, Mr. Sherman, for any 

remarks he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoho follows:]

4


27812d-1.eps
5


27812d-2.eps
6

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOHO. Do you want my gavel? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, no, you keep your wedding ring. 

The mission of this subcommittee is so important that even another subcommittee is having hearings on Asia, namely, the North 

Korea hearings being held by the Africa and Human Rights Subcommittee. 

Looking at this from a global standpoint, American resources are 

finite. We have a limited amount of foreign aid. We have a limited 

amount of preferential access that we can give to the United 

States’ market, particularly with textiles. And if the Cambodian 

Government is unworthy of this, then perhaps we need to allocate 

it to poorer countries that are moving toward democracy. 

In the past two decades, the United States has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Cambodia to help it on the road of 

recovery and to rebuild after the costly civil war. The international 

community has joined us in efforts to rebuild the country and move 

toward democracy. 

In addition to what we list as the expenses, that special access 

to American markets takes jobs away from Americans, takes jobs 

away from those in AGOA, takes jobs away from those in South 

Asia. Somebody is going to be making those garments, and that is 

an additional advantage we give to Cambodia. 

Organizations such as the NDI, represented here, the International Republican Institute, and Radio Free Asia, have engaged 

with local Cambodian partners in building a capacity for civil society. Despite this, Cambodia has been ruled continuously by Prime 

Minister Hun Sen and the Cambodia People’s Party. Now, they 

were willing to share power in a coalition for some years. Prospects 

for democracy, though, have suffered setbacks in the last 2 years 

because the government has adopted policies aimed at eliminating 

the opposition. 

In 2015, the Cambodian Parliament passed the Law on Associations of Nongovernmental Organizations, LANGO, to revoke the 

registration of certain nongovernmental organizations. In August, 

Cambodia ordered the closure of the National Democratic Institute 

on the theory that it had violated LANGO. We have the president 

of that organization here, and you are to be commended for being 

effective, and that is why your organization was expelled. 

The Cambodian Government has also ordered radio stations to 

stop broadcasting. Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, these are 

vital sources of credible independent information for the people of 

Cambodia. 

Kem Sokha, the leader of the opposition, Cambodian National 

Rescue Party, was arrested just a few months ago on September 3, 

and charged with treason and with conspiring with the United 

States Government to overthrow the Government of Cambodia. We 

have with us Kem Sokha’s daughter, Ms. Kem, who will be a witness at these hearings. And the dedication of your family to the 

people of Cambodia is exemplified by your father’s sacrifice. 

The CNRP’s previous leader, Sam Rainsy, remains in exile. In 

November, Cambodia’s Supreme Court ordered the Cambodian National Rescue Party to be dissolved. And I will point out that the 

charges against Ms. Kem’s father are also charges against the GovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:21 Jan 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\121217\27812 SHIRL
7

ernment and people of the United States claiming that we are trying to ‘‘overthrow the government.’’

The United States and our international partners must act 

quickly to stop this backsliding away from democracy. Toward that 

end, I have co-sponsored legislation with Congressman Lowenthal, 

the co-chair of the Cambodian Caucus, together with Mr. Chabot 

and others who are here. 

Our bill supports the decision announced by the Secretary of 

State on December 6 to restrict entry to the United States for individuals involved in undermining democracy in Cambodia. And it 

urges the executive branch to consider placing all senior Cambodian Government officials implicated in the crackdown on democracy on the list of specially designated nationals so they are subject 

to travel restrictions and freezes. 

We don’t want to hurt the Cambodian people. We don’t want to 

disrupt our investment in Cambodian society, but we do need to reevaluate our foreign aid and our special access. And we need to 

turn to our European friends and remind them that they too could 

be providing special access to poor people in Africa or South Asia, 

or they could be working with a government in Cambodia that is 

increasingly authoritarian. 

We strongly urge Cambodia’s government to reinstate the political opposition, release Kem Sokha, allow civil society and media 

to resume their constitutionally protected activities, allow NDI 

back into Cambodia, and release former Radio Free Asia journalists 

who have been arrested on dubious charges. 

If the Cambodian Government does not take these steps and does 

not bring Cambodia on the path to genuine democracy, it is hard 

to see how the United States and our international partners could 

accept the legitimacy of next year’s elections, or continue the economic aid and concessionary trade that so many other people in 

countries that are moving to democracy have asked to be directed 

in their direction. 

I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your comments. 

And we have the honor and the great pleasure of having the 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Ed Royce, to join us. So thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding 

this hearing today on an issue that really needs worldwide attention and needs it now. And let me say, you know, the demise of 

democracy in Cambodia, the ongoing human rights nightmare in 

Cambodia, the violations that the Hun Sen regime is committing 

against basic human rights and the rule of law, this is the reason 

for this hearing. This is why we are so discouraged, but our hearts 

go out to the people of Cambodia with all they have been through, 

and especially since the elections back in 2013. 

We have seen such gross attacks on those Cambodians that 

peacefully oppose this growing authoritarian trend by the government. Hun Sen’s regime, frankly, has become thuggish. It continues to crack down on the political opposition, arresting and beating those who speak out and oppose in any way they rule. 

Freedom House, you know, does an analysis every year, and it 

consistently rates Cambodia now as not free, but that is putting it 

8

very mildly. Two years ago, opposition lawmaker and American citizen, Nhay Chamroeun, was severely and brutally attacked by 

plainclothes bodyguards. Most of the world saw the photographs in 

the paper about what happened. They repeatedly kicked and 

stomped him. He was hospitalized for months. 

Several months later, Kem Ley, a popular Cambodian political 

commentator, was murdered in broad daylight. And why was he 

murdered? Because he had written. He had spoken out about some 

of these abuses. 

And over the last few months, Hun Sen has dispatched any notion that democracy in Cambodia is going to continue to be maintained under their rule. They have dissolved the CNRP. They arrested its leader, Kem Sokha, who faces very spurious charges, obviously, by the government. And despite deep flaws in 2013, for 

those of us that were watching those elections, there were big gains 

made by the opposition in those elections. And since that time, we 

have seen a complete dismemberment of the political system in 

Cambodia. Make no mistake, the government is now run by an authoritarian thug. That is the unfortunate fact. 

The Trump administration has responded with some positive 

steps: Last week’s announcement of the visa ban on those undermining democracy. That is welcomed. But by no means should this 

be the last stop. 

And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what additional measures we should take to support Cambodia’s democracy. 

That is what we are calling—we are a democracy here, we are calling on other republics around the world, other democratic institutions. Now is the time to come forward. 

And again, I want to thank the chairman for holding this very 

important hearing, Mr. Yoho, on a subject that demands, frankly, 

our attention, and doesn’t get enough of our attention. So thank 

you again for doing this. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for joining us, Chairman Royce. It is an 

honor to have you here. And we are also blessed to have Alan 

Lowenthal, not a member of this committee, but from California, 

but is very passionate. 

And if I hear no objection, I will let him have 5 minutes. 

Hearing none, Mr. Lowenthal, you have 5 minutes, and I look 

forward to your comments. And thank you for being here. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I am 

very pleased that you called this timely hearing on Cambodia’s dissent from democracy. And I also want to comment on Chairman 

Royce. 

You have been a steadfast proponent and champion for democracy, and you have been part of—you have been calling for reforms 

and changes in Cambodia for many years, and so I want to thank 

you too. 

You know, as we have already heard, the situation in Cambodia 

is dire. I am just going to go over a few things, and I think it is 

really important to say them again, because it is really important 

for the United States Congress and all those that are watching to 

understand the importance that we play on the situation in Cambodia today and why we are holding this hearing. 

9

We are witnessing the death of democracy. You know, Cambodian democracy really began in 1991 with the Paris Accord, 

which called for democracy, which called for ongoing free and fair 

elections, which have not occurred. And now we are witnessing this 

death of democracy, not by a single action, but in 1,000 recent cuts 

and 1,000 attempts by the Hun Sen regime. 

He has increased, as we pointed out, the intimidation against the 

opposition, CNRP. He has used political maneuvers to oust the 

former CNRP president, Sam Rainsy. He has arrested the current 

CNRP president, Kem Sokha, as we all know, and charged him 

with treason. And removed the rest of the CNRP from their posts 

in the Cambodian Parliament. 

He began a crackdown on nongovernment organizations, the 

NGOs, and the independent media, all of this in anticipation of the 

election, to eliminate all public comment and opposition to the elections next year. And as has been pointed out, the National Democratic Institute, Radio Free Asia, and others were forced to cease 

operations. 

Individuals related to the these groups were also arrested, such 

as two RFA reporters, who are now facing between 7 and 15 years 

in prison for charges of espionage. The arrest of Kem Sokha by the 

Hun Sen regime, who has sent—when he sent armed forces to raid 

Kem Sokha’s house and arrest him without a warrant and led him 

away in handcuffs. And as we know, the fictitious case against 

Kem Sokha, the Canadian Government has implicated the United 

States as a co-conspirator. I think that is really important for us 

to understand, that we have been identified as a co-conspirator in 

Kem Sokha’s alleged crime of treason to topple the Cambodian 

Government. 

He is now being held in a maximum security prison near the border of Vietnam. And also what is very troubling is that China, in 

a very unusual step, weighed in publicly to support the arrest of 

the Kem Sokha. The Cambodian Supreme Court then ruled to dissolve the CNRP, and the Hun Sen controlled Parliament passed a 

rule, a law to redistribute the seats held by the CNRP to minority 

parties. Fifty-five seats were reassigned from the CNRP to these 

other parties. More than 5,000 commune councilor positions won by 

the CNRP in the June local elections were redistributed to other 

minor political parties or these people were forced to defect if they 

wanted to stay on to the Hun—become part of the Hun Sen party. 

This essentially ended all political opposition to Hun Sen. 

Following these moves, it is to the White House’s credit, that it 

announced that it would no longer support the 2018 election in 

Cambodia, calling it illegitimate. I think it is really critically important that we are seeing the lack of legitimacy on the part. 

As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Cambodia, along with 

my other co-chair, Congressman Chabot, we have introduced a resolution, which is a companion resolution to the U.S. Senate passed 

McCain-Durbin resolution, which really cites the problems that are 

going on in Cambodia. 

I think I would just like to close and say also, I am really here 

to understand what are the next steps that we must do. We must 

support the efforts of our State Department. We must continue to 

educate. We must make sure that Kem Sokha is released. We must 

10

make sure that the CNRP is able to be become a viable political 

party once more. But I think we also must, as Chairman Royce has 

said, we must look at ways to reach out to the world, to our EU 

partners, our partners in Japan, who are the big trading partners 

of Cambodia, and speak with one voice that the world will not 

allow Cambodia to dissent from democracy. 

So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for holding this 

hearing. It is critically important. You know, we spend time talking 

about crises in North Korea, in the Middle East; we are in danger, 

without looking at it as a specific crisis but an ongoing issue, of losing Southeastern Asia, and especially losing the one country that 

was moving toward democracy, which will now be lost. And so I am 

so pleased with you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chair. And I yield 

back. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, I appreciate your comments and your input. We 

will now go to opening statements from members, Mr. Rohrbacher 

from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding this hearing. 

I have been deeply involved with this issue with Congressman 

Lowenthal and Congressman Royce. We have spent a lot of time 

and effort trying to do what is right over the years, and I don’t 

think we have accomplished what we wanted to. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. It has gone in the wrong direction. 

Mr. ROHRBACHER. It has actually gone in the wrong direction, 

like you say. I remember when Cambodia did have hope. I remember that after—we realized that the plight of the Cambodian people 

is something that was set in course because of America’s foolish 

war in Vietnam. This is nothing more than an aftermath of that 

war. And it was a mistake for us to get into Vietnam, and the people of Cambodia are continuing to pay the price. 

The fact is that we know that Hun Sen was actually ferried into 

Cambodia on the back of Vietnamese tanks during an upheaval in 

trying to get rid of Pol Pot, and this type of turmoil has been a horror story for this wonderful group of people in Cambodia who deserve much more than what they have had to experience. 

Let me just say that American’s greatest mistake, I think, was 

in 1993. I was there for that election, and the people actually voted 

against Hun Sen. And it was very clear that Hun Sen had lost the 

election. And our Ambassador at the time decided, oh, my goodness, they are threatening violence if we don’t permit their—if we 

don’t acquiesce to the demand that there be a sharing of power, 

and Hun Sen would be part of the sharing of power. 

That decision, that one decision, has condemned the people of 

Cambodia to oppression and corruption never—we never imagined. 

The fact is, Hun Sen, yeah, he was power-sharing and he brutally, 

slowly but surely, eliminated all the rest of the people who were 

sharing power and eliminated the democratic process. 

Today, what we need, and I am going to suggest this, I would 

like to hear about our witnesses, we should—we have a thing 

called the Magnitsky Act. Now, I happened to have voted—I think 

I voted for the Act, but I was against the name Magnitsky, because 

I didn’t think that that had been proven in that case. However, the 

principle of the Magnitsky Act is exactly the right thing, and that 

11

is, let’s find out the specific tyrants and criminals that are plaguing 

innocent people, like the people of Cambodia, and hold them specifically responsible. And try to find out where they bank—put 

their money, where is their bank accounts, and actually find ways 

of putting the law against them. I would like to have your opinion 

on how we might do that in Cambodia. 

And, finally, let me just say this: If nothing else, today, we are 

telling the people of Cambodia, we are on your side. We are telling 

Hun Sen and his gang of criminals that now keep him in power, 

we are not on your side. We are on the side of the people of Cambodia and the side of a free and democratic Cambodia, and it is 

time for Hun Sen to go. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your comments. 

We will next go to Mr. Chabot from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I happen—as Alan mentioned, I am co-chair of the Congressional 

Cambodian Caucus, and we have been working on this for quite 

some time. I want to thank him for his involvement there, Chairman Royce, and many others. And as Mr. Lowenthal mentioned, 

there is a resolution that we are submitting today, which essentially reaffirms the United States’ commitment to democracy, 

human rights, and the rule of law in Cambodia. 

That being said, although there were some bright spots awhile 

back with respect to Cambodia, I have to say that, under Hun Sen, 

we are about as far from a democracy as you can get. Shutting 

down independent press, suppressing opposition and civil society, 

threatening civil war if your party doesn’t win, jailing your political 

opponent, and then dissolving their party so there is essentially no 

opposition, that is not a democracy. And so they are jeopardizing 

their relationship with the United States and the West. But they 

think, oh, that is okay because we have China on our side. And it 

is not surprising, because that is one of the other countries on this 

globe which has just about as much democracy as Cambodia does 

right now, which is zero. 

And so if they want the human rights and the democracy of the 

PRC, that is what they are—that is what they are getting. And the 

Cambodian people deserve so much better than that, particularly 

when you consider the trauma that this nation has been through, 

where approximately a quarter of the population was wiped out 

under the Khmer Rouge. 

And so, in any event, it is a terrible shame and travesty what 

is occurring in Cambodia right now, because it could be so much 

better. But this leader will not let the people of Cambodia decide 

who is going to control the country and who is going to rule the 

country and who—he wants it for himself. And it is just a shame. 

But, people of Cambodia, know that you have a lot of friends 

here in this country and all around the globe that are pulling for 

you and what is best for you. And so we hope that this hearing will 

draw some attention to that. 

That being said, I also am the co-chair of the Congressional 

Turkish Caucus, and we had a meeting that started at 2 o’clock 

that I have to run to, but I will be back if we get finished there. 

And, Alan, thank you for your hard work in this area. 

I yield back. 

12

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your comments. 

Does any other members have opening statements? Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No, sir. I am just waiting for the witnesses. 

Mr. YOHO. All righty. And we are going to do that right now. 

Ms. Oliva Enos, policy analyst at the Asian Studies Center at 

The Heritage Foundation. Thank you for being here. Ms. Mona 

Kem, daughter of the person that is in jail, your father—I can’t 

imagine how hard this is for you to be here—deputy director-general of public affairs to the Cambodia National Rescue Party, and 

daughter of Kem Sokha, president of the Cambodia National Rescue Party. And Mr. Kenneth Wollack, president of the National 

Democratic Institute. 

If you guys would—you have your timer up there. The green 

light is the beginning, it is 5 minutes. We will gently let you know 

when time comes up, and keep your remarks there. And then we 

look forward to getting your information so that we can help draft 

resolutions and direct policies for our government to, hopefully, 

bring this situation in Cambodia to an end. 

So, with that, Ms. Enos, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MS. OLIVIA ENOS, POLICY ANALYST, ASIAN 

STUDIES CENTER, DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Ms. ENOS. Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon. 

My name is Olivia Enos. I am a policy analyst in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this 

testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing 

any official position of The Heritage Foundation. 

Cambodia’s democracy is in peril. On September 2, Kem Sokha, 

president of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party, 

CNRP, was taken from his home, arrested, and indefinitely imprisoned on trumped up charges of treason. Kem Sokha’s arrest triggered a downward spiral. Just a month later, on October 6, the 

Cambodian Interior Ministry filed a lawsuit to dissolve the opposition party. The CNRP was officialty dissolved by the Cambodian 

Supreme Court on November 16. 

In just 3 months’ time, Hun Sen, the leader of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, CPP, has eviscerated the CNRP, effectively 

crippling the only viable opposition to Hun Sen’s 32-year reign, 

ahead of 2018 elections. 

Since Kem Sokha’s arrest, at least 100 CNRP parliamentarians 

and political leaders fled Cambodia. And the crackdown on civil society is severe. Shortly after Kem Sokha’s arrest, Hun Sen proclaimed that he will rule for another 10 years. 

The CPP’s anemic electoral victory in 2013 was too slim for Hun 

Sen. In 2013, the opposition garnered 55 of the 123 seats in the assembly, leaving the ruling party with only 68 seats. Clearly, Hun 

Sen does not want to risk a potential opposition victory in 2018, 

which is why he has shut down the opposition long before it could 

become a viable threat to his three decades’ long grip on power. 

Since the opposition was dissolved, the White House has stated 

13

that ‘‘on current course, next year’s elections will not be legitimate, 

free, nor fair.’’

The U.S. Government response has gotten increasingly stronger. 

After releasing several statements, the Department of State took 

concrete action by pulling U.S. support for upcoming 2018 elections, and just last week, by restricting travel for individuals involved in undermining democracy in Cambodia. 

Congress has taken similarly positive steps to hold the Cambodian Government to account. A bipartisan resolution introduced 

by Senators McCain, Durbin, and Rubio passed the Senate on November 17, and affirmed U.S. commitment to a democratic Cambodia, reiterated the value of the Paris Peace Agreements, and condemned the crackdown on civil society. The resolution also called 

for Treasury to consider placing all senior Cambodian officials implicated in the abuses on the Specially Designated Nationals list. 

Cambodia is at a crossroads, and the U.S. Government, in conjunction with the international community, should take action to hold 

Cambodian officials accountable. 

In 1993, after the defeat of the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. and 18 

other international signatories to the Paris Peace Agreement 

agreed to ensure the right to self-determination of the Cambodian 

people through free and fair elections. In this regard, signatories 

have a continuing moral obligation to assist Cambodia when the 

political process falters. 

In my written submission, I offer several potential policy solutions to the current crises in Cambodia. Right now I will offer 

three. 

First, the U.S. should consider sanctioning all individuals involved in undermining democracy in Cambodia under relevant 

Treasury Department authorities. Raising the financial risk to engaging in such behavior has the potential to deter future actions 

that erode democracy. Potential mechanisms could include invoking 

the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows individuals to be targeted 

on human rights and corruption grounds, or by placing individuals 

on this Specially Designated Nationals list, as was recommended 

by Senate Resolution 279. 

Second, the U.S. Government should consider forming a Cambodia contact group comprised of key signatories to the Paris Peace 

Agreement. These signatories could include the U.S., Japan, Indonesia, Australia, the U.K., and France. Japan, in particular, has a 

critical role to play, but has thus far not done much in response 

to recent events in Cambodia. Given the severe deterioration in democracy there, the group should reassemble to provide accountability and develop plans to get Cambodia back on the path of political reform. 

Third, and finally, the U.S. should continue to publicly and privately press for the release of Kem Sokha. The U.S., along with 

other partners, such as the European Union, should draw attention 

to threats to democracy in Cambodia. Calling for Kem Sokha’s release is the surest way to do that. In particular, statements from 

high ranking officials, such as the Secretary of State or the Deputy 

Secretary of State, may deter Hun Sen from further degenerating 

democracy in Cambodia. 

14

Thank you for your time and attention. I am now open for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Enos follows:]

15


27812a-1.eps
16


27812a-2.eps
17


27812a-3.eps
18


27812a-4.eps
19


27812a-5.eps
20


27812a-6.eps
21


27812a-7.eps
22


27812a-8.eps
23


27812a-9.eps
24

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your comments there. 

And now we will go to Ms. Kem. 

And, you know, I know this has got to be a hard thing, you know, 

talking about this in front of this committee with your father, Kem 

Sokha, incarcerated right now. So I would love to hear from you, 

and thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MONOVITHYA KEM, DEPUTY DIRECTORGENERAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CAMBODIA NATIONAL RESCUE PARTY (DAUGHTER OF KEM SOHKA, PRESIDENT, CAMBODIA NATIONAL RESCUE PARTY) 

Ms. KEM. Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for this opportunity 

to testify today on the fragile state of Cambodia’s democracy and 

the important role that the U.S. can play to protect the political 

rights of the Cambodian people in the lead up of our national election, which is scheduled for July 2018. 

Twenty-six years after the signing of the Paris Peace Accord, 

Cambodia is once again facing a historic crossroads, which two options present. One, restoring democracy or dissenting into downright dictatorship. 

The fundamental elements of the Paris Peace Accords have been 

violated by the ruling elites, and some of those violations—recent 

violation include, number one, the November 16 dissolution of the 

main opposition party, the CNRP, and the theft and redistribution 

of our seats, 55 seats in the national assembly to unelected smaller 

parties. 

Number two, the unconstitutional and midnight arrest of the opposition leader, Kem Sokha, my father, without warrant, by heavily 

armed police raided into his house after midnight. That violated his 

parliamentary immunity. That echoed the terrifying tactics and divisive rhetoric of Cambodia’s darkest past, the Khmer Rouge. 

And, number three, the banning of 118 CNRP leaders from participating in politics, and the removal of about 5,000 of our commune councillors who were just elected earlier this year in June. 

And, number four, the crackdown on independent media and civil 

society. Most brutally, the broad daylight assassination of the political analyst, Dr. Kem Ley. 

Democracy and freedom are American values that echo universal 

ideals. I believe your country bedrock values resonate well with the 

Cambodian people’s desire for change that is felt by all Cambodians of all walks of life. And it is not only the moral responsibility of the U.S. to protect democracy and human rights in Cambodia, I believe it is also in the U.S. interest. 

The U.S. benefits by staying engaged in Asia to uphold the international rule-based order that underpins the global commerce and 

international security. So it is both in your interest and in protecting your values. The U.S. has already sent a clear signal, I believe, to the Cambodian Government in holding them responsible 

for the regression. 

I want to thank both Houses of Congress. I want to thank the 

White House, the State Department, especially for the banning of—

the visa ban that was placed last week, and also the continuous 

25

call for the release of Kem Sokha, without condition, and of other 

political prisoners, for free and fair election in 2018. 

But it is important now that the U.S. place and force a deadline. 

It is very important to place a deadline with the Cambodian Government. If the Cambodian Government does not reverse course on 

time, as soon as possible, I believe further action needs to be taken 

by the U.S. And that include, number one, placing individual targeted sanctions on Cambodian Government officials that have been 

identified as undermining democracy through the global Magnitsky 

Act, or on the SDN list, as recommended by the Senate. 

Number two, suspending any and all assistance that go directly 

to central Cambodian Government, including security-related assistance, as proposed by the Senate, State, and Appropriation Operation bill. 

Number three, continue to provide democracy assistance to civil 

society, especially the NGOs that work on election-related matters. 

Number four, reviewing Cambodia’s eligibility for the generalized 

system of preferences, and sending a notice of that review as soon 

as possible to the Cambodian Government so that they have incentive to backtrack. 

Number five, coordinating with like-minded countries and entities, such as Japan, the EU, Australia, and South Korea, to use 

their leverages in calling for the Cambodian Government to reverse 

course. 

And, finally, number six, convening key signatories of the Paris 

Peace Accord to organize a synchronized global response to the 

Cambodian Government, because they have been attacking all the 

elements of the Paris Peace Accord. 

The current oppression, I believe, if continued to—if allowed to 

continue, will generate political instability, because oppressed dissent tends to boil over, and then eventually that will lead to economic instability as well. 

So I urge you to remain resolute in your call for the release of 

Kem Sokha and other political prisoners, for free and fair election 

in 2018 in Cambodia. And I believe Cambodia is worth your attention and action, because this crossroad actually presents an unprecedented opportunity that the country has not seen for decades. Big 

changes can happen, and we are an inch away from it. 

Democracy is very much possible and it can happen very soon, 

and the U.S. can play a big role in helping Cambodia, telling an 

inspiring story to the world, that democracy can persist. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kem follows:]

26


27812b-1.eps
27


27812b-2.eps
28


27812b-3.eps
29


27812b-4.eps
30


27812b-5.eps
31


27812b-6.eps
32

Mr. YOHO. Well, we appreciate it and you coming here testifying. 

That gets that message out to the world, and we will help you with 

that. 

Mr. Wollack, from—the president of the National Democratic Institute. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE 

Mr. WOLLACK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sherman, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on developments in Cambodia. 

I am honored to appear here with Mona Kem. She and her imprisoned father are courageous champions for democracy in Cambodia. 

And let me summarize my written testimony with these comments. 

As has already been said here, the recent action by the Cambodian Government and the ruling CPP to dissolve the opposition 

CNRP, effectively transformed the country into a one-party state. 

The arrest of Kem Sokha, the leader of the CNRP, on spurious 

charges, the banning of over 100 opposition leaders from political 

activities, the arrests of political activists, and the crackdown of 

independent news media and civil society, have isolated the country and put its further development in serious doubt. 

These and previous actions by the Cambodian Government are a 

clear violation of the spirit and letter of the 1991 Paris Peace 

Agreement, which ended the nation’s 12-year civil war. That agreement, which Mona referred to, was signed by 19 governments, including the United States and China, and required Cambodia to respect human rights and called for Cambodia to follow a system of 

liberal democracy on the basis of pluralism. And I would recommend strongly a rereading of the provisions of that important 

document. 

When the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement was signed, Cambodia 

was emerging from decades of war, the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, and the Vietnamese occupation. The country was economically devastated, and the institutions of governance weak or nonexistent. In some areas, much progress has been made, largely due 

to the hard work by thousands of Cambodians and international 

donors. 

The U.S. has played a major role in the country’s development, 

funding projects in the fields of agriculture, education, and public 

health, and strengthening the electoral system, rule of law, political parties, and civil society. 

NDI has focused its efforts in Cambodia on developing governance and building a more democratic political party system. Since 

1992, NDI has sponsored hundreds of community-level multiparty 

dialogs, offering villagers the opportunity to engage in local governance, sponsored election campaign debates, and assisted citizen organizations to monitor the elections. We have also carried out programs, and I emphasize here, with both the ruling and opposition 

parties alike, to participate in elections, monitor polling, develop 

greater opportunities for women and youth, and build more democratic party structures. 

33

Since the transitional period began in 1991, the ruling CPP has 

dominated the political landscape, maintaining control of the police, the military, civil bureaucracy, and virtually all of local government. However, the Peace Accord spawned a large number of 

civil society groups, which were able to operate, at times, with a 

surprising amount of freedom. Political parties too have had some 

space in which to operate. Although the government used civil defamation suits, the party registration law, and the filing of criminal 

charges to keep the opposition off balance. 

At the same time, Cambodia’s political history since the Paris 

Peace Accords can be characterized as a period marked by three 

distinct coups. The first coup occurred when the results of the 1993 

elections, conducted by the United Nations Transitional Authority 

in Cambodia, UNTAC, were in effect overturned by the CPP, as 

Mr. Rohrbacher pointed out. 

The second occurred in 1997 when Hun Sen brutally and violently overthrew his coalition partner, FUNCINPEC, and forced the 

opposition into exile. 

The third coup, of course, occurred this year when the government disbanded the CNRP, the only opposition party that could effectively challenge them. The opposition strength was clearly growing, as has been noted here. In the 2013 national elections, the 

CNRP made a strong showing, increasing their seats in Parliament 

by nearly 50 percent, while the CPP saw their representation decline by 25 percent. 

In the elections’ aftermath, the CPP-led government became increasingly repressive, stepping up actions against civil society and 

the political opposition. Its motivation was obvious. The CPP’s own 

internal polling, leaked to the press, showed the ruling party facing 

stiff opposition in the upcoming local and national election. And I 

would suggest rereading some of the questions in that poll that are 

included in my written statements. They actually foreshadow the 

exact actions taken by the CPP. 

Commune council elections were held last June, resulting in a 

strong showing for the CNRP, which won 44 percent of the total 

votes cast. On August 23, NDI received a notice from the government ordering it to close its office and withdraw its international 

staff from the country within 7 days. The Voice of America, the 

Radio Free Asia, were also shuttered, as were dozens of local 

broadcast stations which carried VOA and RFA programming. The 

Cambodia Daily, the Independent English Language newspaper 

that had been operating since 1963 was forced to close. 

The government’s actions are clearly designed to maintain, at 

any price, the ruling party in power. They also place Cambodia 

more firmly in China’s orbit. While the Cambodian Government 

was widely condemned by the international community for its recent repressive measures, China was quick to offer support, ignoring the provisions of the Paris Peace Agreement to which it is a 

signatory. 

I want to recognize the actions taken by the U.S. Government in 

terminating assistance to Cambodia’s election commission, and imposing visa restrictions on those Cambodian officials responsible for 

undermining democracy. These actions are important because they 

34

demonstrate that concrete measures will be taken unless certain 

conditions are met. 

Let me just summarize by recommending possible other actions 

that could be taken. Number one, the withdrawal of all but humanitarian aid to the Government of Cambodia. 

Two, continued support of nongovernmental organizations within 

Cambodia. 

Three, altering the terms of trade with Cambodia, the U.S.’s 

largest export market for Cambodian goods, receiving 25 percent of 

Cambodian exports. The EU is the next largest. This provides leverage for inducing positive change. 

Four, increase international pressure and dialog. Following the 

1997 coup, an informal diplomatic network known as the Friends 

of Cambodia Group, helped Hun Sen and the political opposition 

come to an agreement on conditions under which the exiles would 

return to Cambodia to participate in national elections the following year. The U.N. withheld recognition of the government at 

that time, and similar moves might help pave the way for new negotiations. 

And, finally, supporting the return of exiled political leaders. The 

CNRP remains a legitimate political force within Cambodia. However, over 100 opposition leaders and elected officials are in exile. 

As in 1997, continued support should be provided to the exiled opposition to help them convene and to communicate with their supporters and the international community. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:]

35


27812c-1.eps
36


27812c-2.eps
37


27812c-3.eps
38


27812c-4.eps
39


27812c-5.eps
40


27812c-6.eps
41


27812c-7.eps
42


27812c-8.eps
43


27812c-9.eps
44


27812c-10.eps
45

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your testimony, all of you. I appreciate 

it. 

Everybody has brought up the elections of 2013 and the elections 

last summer, this past summer, that resoundingly showed the will 

of the people, you know, is what we saw with the numbers that are 

favored and the growing popularity and the growth of the CNRP. 

I think this speaks loudly. But what we are seeing is, we are seeing 

the world divide diametrically opposed philosophies with Western 

ideologies. 

The universal principles—and, Ms. Kem, you brought up what 

we believe here in America, but I think if we all look at people 

around the world, and I have had the opportunity to speak to people all over, there is innate beliefs that we all have: Liberty, freedom, self-will, self-determination. Those are universal beliefs that, 

I believe—my beliefs are that everybody has those in the world. 

Where we start dividing this or start bringing—preventing this 

is when you have authoritarian governments. And, you know, we 

look at the beliefs that we have here that government is by the 

people, to serve the people, versus the authoritarian type that we 

are seeing, especially with the rise of China after the 19th Congress, where Xi Jinping said the era of China has come and it is 

time to take the center stage of the world. And I just I read an article where they said the purpose of the citizens, their sole purpose 

is to serve the government. 

You know, in our forum, we have the government is there to 

serve the many. Whereas, theirs—their people are to serve the government of a few. And we know those regimes don’t last longterm. 

And, you know, saying that, I look at the amount of aid we have 

given Cambodia. My figures show from 1993 to 2016, aid to Cambodia was $1.7 billion in aggregate aid. One-point-seven billion dollars. A lot of this goes in the name of good governance, building democracies. And it is something that we can’t wish upon another 

country, but we know it works pretty darn well here. It has for the 

last 226 in our constitutional republic. And it is something that we 

know, again, that the innate feeling of people everywhere want 

what we have, and so we have invested in this. 

What I would like to know from you is, what programs have you 

seen work the best? And we will start with you, Ms. Kem. Your 

feelings with the investment that we have made—the American 

people have made. What is your opinion on where we should keep 

going or should we just pull back and pull back everything? 

Ms. KEM. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. I think what 

is most helpful so far in Cambodia is a democracy program that involves direct citizen participation. I can give one example of the 

Cambodian Center for Human Rights, which was funded, and I believe still funded, partly by USAID in some form. So any program 

that works directly and encouraging people, empowering people to 

understand their rights, to stand up for their freedom. 

And, also, I would say, number two, because of the timing of the 

election, any program that works with NGOs, that works on election-related matters, whether it is investigation or monitoring of 

election. 

46

Mr. YOHO. Is that possible now that he has cracked down on everything, you know, and gotten rid of the opposition party? Is that 

possible to do that in that country? 

Ms. KEM. There are still a few effective organizations. For example, COMFREL, they work on elections, and I believe that their job 

is extremely important, as important as the presence of the opposition. They are an election watchdog and their work has been significant. For example, in 2013, without their documentation, we 

would not have known all the——

Mr. YOHO. And their job may be easier in the next election, right, 

because there is no other party other than the one he is going to 

allow run. 

Ms. KEM. In the case that there will be election, we want to be 

prepared that these watchdogs are equipped with the right knowledge and right tools to do their job. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. Given the actions of Hun Sen and the regime has taken against the CNRP, what is the opposition’s current 

plan of action? 

Ms. KEM. We have two things, really. We have the Cambodian 

people inside a country, but as of right now, there is very little they 

can do because of physical threats, really. So another channel for 

us would be through the international community. And I believe in 

the Cambodian context, the donor community has more of an obligation than any other country because of the Paris Peace Accord 

binding. 

So for us, we will continue to advocate for the reinstatement of 

our party. And, again, timing is of essence. If there is no solution 

soon—soon, we are talking about the end of this year, or the latest 

I would say at the end of next month—then any possibility of free 

and fair election is impossible. Then we would have to rethink, so 

what is next. And I think the international community and the 

Cambodian people together will pave a way for us to go back and 

restore democracy. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Thank you. 

I am going to turn to the ranking member and let him ask his 

questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ms. Kem, how would you describe the current status of your father, Kem Sokha, the head of the CNRP? We know 

he was arrested on this ridiculous charge of treason. And how can 

the United States and the international community work to ensure 

that he is treated justly and released? 

Ms. KEM. So far, I believe that they deny any visit access from 

outside. The only people that can visit him is my mother and his 

lawyers. He is kept in solitary confinement, and he has no access 

to the outside world, except through my mother. And I believe 

what the U.S. can do is continue—the U.S. and its allies, meaning 

the EU, Japan, and the other countries, is continue to press for at 

least a visit to see how he is doing. And also to communicate already to the Cambodian Government about any repercussions 

should they mistreat him. I think that is very important to preempt. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Has he been denied medical attention or pharmaceuticals? 

Ms. KEM. So far, I believe a group of doctors has seen him once. 

47

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Wollack outlined a number of steps that we 

would consider. I think it is now time for us to step up to the business community in the United States and hopefully get European 

governments to do the same, and Japan’s governments to do the 

same, to put in American law that says, if we decide to forego this 

special access to U.S. markets, that any company buying garments 

from Cambodia can immediately void its contract. So we can put 

that in as a matter of law, that is deemed by law to apply to any 

contract, and we can demand that no U.S. company can sign a contract in the future that doesn’t specify that, so that there is no 

doubt that it applies. That would have the effect of putting every 

garment manufacturer in Cambodia on notice that their contracts 

are hanging by a thread. 

Ms. Enos, how dependent is Cambodia upon its ability to export 

garments to Europe, Japan, and the United States? 

Ms. ENOS. Well, I would say that one of my concerns with pursuing this type of strategy would be that it has the potential to 

harm the Cambodian people more than to——

Mr. SHERMAN. Keep in mind, it dramatically helps the people of 

Africa, dramatically helps the people of South Asia. We are only 

going to buy a certain number of shirts. I know your focus is on 

helping the people of Cambodia, but what we give to Cambodian 

manufacturers undermines democracy in Cambodia and takes jobs 

away from sub-Saharan Africa. 

Again, Mr. Wollack, do you have an answer on just how dependent the Cambodian Government is? 

Mr. WOLLACK. They are very, very dependent. My only recommendation would be on these issues of sanctions. As we——

Mr. SHERMAN. And notice, I wasn’t saying sanctions. I was saying let us have contractual provisions so that if in the future we 

have sanctions, we don’t have American companies in violation of 

contracts. Go ahead. 

Mr. WOLLACK. My only recommendation would be, as we did in 

South Africa, as we do in Venezuela, in Cuba and other places, is 

to consult with local democrats, those in Phnom Penh and those 

outside the country. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Including one sitting next to you, yes. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Exactly. To hear their views and——

Mr. SHERMAN. I mean, the next step is to be legally prepared to 

move forward. That sends a message and hopefully will result in 

the changes, because we propose steps we can take against individuals. Well, I am not sure they want to go to Disneyland, and even 

if they do they can go to Shanghai. 

We talked about cutting off foreign aid. I am not sure that that 

will get the attention. Their focus is on maintaining power. So we 

have to at least prepare the ground for something that goes beyond 

that. Now, NDI has been kicked out. Is RII still operating in Cambodia? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, RII did not have international staff in Cambodia to——

Mr. SHERMAN. Are they moving in to fill in for you? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, I doubt whether that will be the case because they have been under—they are under attack. 

48

Mr. SHERMAN. So it is not like they are just going to go after the 

D. They are willing to go after the organization affiliated with the 

President’s party as well. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Yes. They have been attacked rather vociferously 

over the last few months as well. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. We will next go to Mr. Rohrabacher from 

California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that, well, number one, we are sending a message by this, as I mentioned in my first 5 minutes, and 

it is important that that message is very clear. Hun Sen has got 

to go. The United States is on the side of the Cambodian people 

who want a more democratic and honest government, and that is 

that. That is the number one message. 

So, number two, about this hearing, maybe we can get down to 

some brass tacks on something that we can do. And let me just say, 

after my long period of time that I have been friends of the Cambodian community here and the Cambodian people, one message I 

would like to send to them is America just can’t do it for you. This 

is not going to be a gift. 

Every time I talk to my Cambodian friends, they are saying, 

well, when are the Marines going to come and get rid of Hun Sen 

so we can then take over the government and have free elections? 

It ain’t going to happen. So we have got to find—that is number 

two message: Don’t wait for the American military might to displace Hun Sen. 

So what is the third step? So what do we do with Hun Sen? 

What do we do? What is the exact pattern? Ms. Kem, you gave 

some very good suggestions there. I am going to get into a little detail on it now. Maybe we should have, Mr. Chairman, a list of individuals in the Cambodian Government and corporations, both individuals and corporations that are from other countries, who are 

there profiting from the corruption of the Hun Sen regime. And 

there should be some kind of economic sanctions on them. It is like 

the Magnitsky Act, so to speak. 

Now, right now there is a lot of—for example, there are big problems I know of in Cambodia where people’s property is being stolen, and it is being handed over to cronies of Mr. Hun Sen, both 

national and international cronies, I might add. 

So, thus, we need a list from you. We need the Cambodian community to provide us a list of specific corporations and individuals, 

and then we can work on legislation that will require our State Department to investigate these particular individuals, and basically 

will be able to tell us, does this person deserve specific sanctions? 

Like when I say this is sort of the Magnitsky Act, but I think it 

goes beyond that, because this is just simply a situation where we 

also are talking about economic crimes as well as political crimes 

and as well as just regular criminal activity by people murdering 

their opposition. 

So if you can give us, let’s say out of this hearing that we get 

a commitment to get some names of people that we then can ask 

for and legally require our State Department to do an analysis of 

what the particular person has done and to verify that it will be 

49

justified for sanctions against the individual. So that is one thing 

I would hope would come out of this today. 

And, again, let me just say that it is not just the United States 

that isn’t going to do it for you. It is not Japan that is going to do 

it for you. We also need to see some signs of some resistance among 

the Cambodian people to their government. It is not their government. If it was their government, we wouldn’t want resistance to 

it. It is a clique that is holding power by force and corruption, and 

they are not your government. They are gangsters, and we need to 

recognize that. And gangsters understand two things: Brute force 

and a deal. 

Now I am going to ask you one last thing about the deal. I want 

your opinion on this. Maybe the only way—I remember about 20 

years ago, I sat across from Hun Sen at a table. And I told him, 

I said, you know, we are all getting a little older here and we want 

to have time to enjoy our lives. I will make you a deal. I will retire 

from Congress if you will retire from being the President of Cambodia. He didn’t take——

Mr. YOHO. You are still here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. He didn’t take me up and I am here too, so 

there we go. But maybe we could, again, maybe some people should 

approach Hun Sen and just give him the deal. And I would like 

your opinion on this. 

Should we offer Hun Sen a deal, this happens with all tyrants, 

by the way, that says, get out of town and you can keep your illgotten gains. We are not going to bother you, but get out of there, 

and as compared to if we don’t, we say, no, the only way you are 

going to get out of there is if we kill you or if we capture you and 

put you in a cage. That guy is never going to go voluntarily. 

So what do you think about offering Hun Sen a deal, get out of 

there, let the people have democracy, and you will be free from 

being prosecuted? 

I would just like a short answer from each of you, please. 

Ms. ENOS. Sure. I think the critical role of the U.S. Government 

is to restore freedom to the Cambodian people. And so I think 

strengthening democratic institutions is probably the best way to 

do that. And I think that holding accountable individuals, including 

Hun Sen and other individuals within the Cambodian Government, 

is the best way to do that. 

I don’t know that we need to offer him a specific deal. I think 

we just need to put pressure on key nodes and facets of democracy 

in Cambodia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you would oppose the idea of just 

offering him a deal? 

Ms. ENOS. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Get out of town—get out of town and let us 

get on with our freedom. 

What about you, Ms. Kem? 

Ms. KEM. First of all, I agree with the list of individuals and corporations that are undermining democracy in Cambodia, and we 

will happily provide you with that list. 

In terms of a deal, I think right now he is not ready for a deal. 

You need to corner him first, and then he will propose a deal himself. 

50

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, what if he proposes the deal? Let 

me get out of town with my money. 

Ms. KEM. His current state of mind is not about receiving a deal 

yet. It is about crushing the rest of the opposition that is left. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure. The secret is is we want to get him to 

the point where he is either going to ask for a deal or we can get 

rid of him ourselves. But—so you are sort of hedging a little bit 

here. 

Ms. KEM. No, I don’t think I am hedging. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You said yet, we don’t want to offer him a 

deal yet. 

Ms. KEM. When he is ready to make a deal, he will offer the deal. 

Right now I think what it is important, to put pressure on him. I 

agree with Olivia. And I think maybe I am more optimistic than 

some of you. I believe that individual targeted sanctions alone will 

likely be enough. You may not have to pull the nuclear option of 

removing Cambodia’s trade privileges. I really strongly believe 

that. 

So let’s just start with the individual financial sanctions. That 

will put tremendous pressure. And I must say even the visa ban 

alone, it impacts him a lot. It is not just about Disneyland. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. All right. 

Ms. KEM. It is much more than that. It makes their life difficult. 

And if you move on to financial sanctions, I think that alone will 

have enough impact for them to reconsider. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Usually people like Hun—well, gangsters, I 

will just say usually gangster regimes understand a deal when 

there is a gun at their head, but that is another issue. 

What about it? Should we offer him a deal or not? 

Mr. WOLLACK. I would say, it may not only be the Prime Minister. There is more than just an individual. And I am a big believer in institutions and processes, and I like to believe that these 

types of deals would be entered into by democratically elected governments, that they have the right and the authority and the legitimacy——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, sure. 

Mr. WOLLACK [continuing]. To deal with those that their nondemocratic predecessors. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, whatever deal would have to—whatever deal would be offered, if there is a deal—I am not, by the way, 

advocating that necessarily. I just was interested in your opinion. 

But it has to be something that could be then accepted by the 

democratically elected government. 

Mr. WOLLACK. And I think broader negotiations are necessary, 

because I think it is beyond just one individual. I think you have 

the military. You have the deep state. You have other aspects of 

the political system that would have to be part of a negotiated settlement. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. Maybe we can get him a signed copy of the art of the 

deal. 

Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just like to 

say I have a deal for you too. 

51

I think I really like the direction that we are going in. We are 

trying to figure out what can we do now, and I think that is critically important. And we are seeing that there is no easy silver bullet to do it. 

We have talked about increasing what the State Department 

sanctions are by looking at increasing sanctions on individuals, on 

businesses that engage in these behaviors. I think that is very appropriate to look at. 

I would like to raise some other things that I have heard so far 

this morning to really talk about where we can go. One is, how do 

we do it to reconstitute the Paris Agreement? There were all the 

signatures. There were 15. We were one of the signatures. All of 

the people that we are talking about also signed the Paris Agreement that they would ensure free and fair elections. 

What do we do now—what do we do now to make sure—and is 

there a path to do it? I would like to hear from you. 

That is my first question. Is that an option, and how do we do 

that? Anybody want to choose to answer it? Ms. Enos. 

Ms. ENOS. I think that already there are Ambassadors from several of the signatories of the Paris Peace Agreement that do meet 

together to sort of convene. I think we should sort of raise the profile of this and perhaps have foreign ministry-level officials come 

together and talk about what are the long-term as well as the 

short-term steps to ensuring that Cambodia gets back on track. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Do you see us as a Congress writing to our 

State Department and asking them to reconvene or to raise this 

issue with the foreign ministers possibly, our U.N. Ambassador 

also raising? Because I am trying to figure out how do we get 

there? And so that is very good. 

So we need some mechanism to reach these foreign ministers of 

the countries that have already signed their signatures to see what 

they think how we can work together and to entreat. So that is 

one. 

Mr. WOLLACK. An alternative too is the Friends of Cambodia 

group that was brought together following the 1997 coup. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Okay. 

Mr. WOLLACK. That group supported the negotiations that ultimately led for the then-UCD opposition to return to Cambodia. And 

I think even before that, however, what is necessary, the opposition 

right now, the leadership of the opposition, aside from being in jail, 

are scattered in Australia, Thailand, the United States. International support has to be extended to them so they can communicate to the international community. This is a coalition. This is 

not a single party. And they have to communicate with their supporters in the country. They have to communicate with the international community. 

Right now, the government is the only body that is communicating in multilateral settings. And they have to begin discussing 

and convening to discuss how they would return to Cambodia, 

under what conditions. And the international community, Friends 

of Cambodia, can help that happen as well. 

Ms. KEM. I am largely exploring myself the path to revive the 

spirit of the Paris Peace Accord, and I believe it may fall under the 

jurisdiction of the U.N. Security Council. So I am trying to meet 

52

with the missions at the U.N. who have membership, permanent 

membership in the National Security Council. And I think they 

have the authority or more, I would say more obligation about reviving the Paris Peace Accords. So I think that is one way to look 

at it. 

And I agree with Olivia about at least you can convene minister, 

foreign minister-level of the key signatories. It doesn’t have to be 

all the countries. And right now, even on ambassadorial level, it is 

not that coordinated yet. So I think that is the message that each 

government or the U.S. Government, I believe maybe the French 

Government as well can begin, can start to look into. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Following that, talking about this international 

consortium, whether it was through the Paris—and I think it was 

you, Mr. Wollack, talked about trade. Now, we are talking about 

individual sanctions from the United States, but I think also you 

mentioned that the vast majority of Cambodians’ exports go to either the United States, the EU, or to Japan. How can we use that 

as leverage, that kind of trade that goes, in terms of trade agreements or other things? Maybe you can explain or anyone else. The 

leverage that we have is that we are buying all their goods. It is 

not just from the bad folks. We are buying all the Cambodian 

goods, EU, United States and Japan. How do we use that? Do you 

have some ideas? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, I am not a trade expert, but what I would 

recommend, there are a lot of options of how to tie trade in. The 

international financial institutions, by the way, put a number of 

loans on hold to Cambodia because of land expulsions. They then 

extended it a little later and they came under criticism. 

So the international financial institutions have a role to play 

here too when it comes to investment opportunities in the country. 

But I think on the trade issues, there are a variety of options, but 

I think this is an issue that requires consultation with the Cambodians first before we get into how to do it, to determine what 

they feel comfortable with so it doesn’t harm the Cambodian people. 

And different democratic forces in different countries take different positions on this issue, but I think they should be sort of the 

driving force in the types of recommendations that they would 

make to the international community on the issues of trade. 

Ms. KEM. I think you can first start by the reviewing process. Reviewing, identifying the violation, and then do a recommendation 

and communicate that very clearly and strongly to the Cambodian 

Government. And, again, I am optimistic and I think that alone 

will be enough. 

And I wouldn’t call that a bluff or a threat either. It is just preparing ground. If you really need to pull it, if the actions by the 

Cambodian Government really violate those terms and conditions 

of the trade, then you may have to pull—to cancel the trade. 

But I think reviewing, it is very important to start the reviewing 

process. And I urge the same thing with the EU as well. Both the 

EU and the U.S. can start reviewing the trade privileges and the 

violation that the Cambodian Government is conducting. 

Ms. ENOS. I think it is critical that we be as targeted as possible 

in what we are reviewing and what we are thinking of doing, in 

53

terms of action toward Cambodia. One of the concerns that I have 

with doing a broader trade review, which I agree with Mona would 

be good to review it. 

But to actually revoke all those trade preferences is that it is not 

clear that it is a direct response to threats to democracy and 

human rights. When you target specific individuals, when you review democracy assistance, you are considering things that are directly relevant to the challenges at hand. And I think that sends 

a much clearer message that U.S. policy will respond in kind to the 

ways that there are violations that are occurring. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do I have any time left 

or——

Mr. YOHO. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

The one other question is, you know, I have also talked about, 

you know, we do provide a significant—I think the chairman mentioned the amount of aid that we have given in terms of foreign aid 

over. 

But it seems to me, in my understanding—I would like to hear 

from the panel—that U.S. foreign aid primarily has gone to NGOs 

and to organizations trying to bring about change in Cambodia 

rather than directly to the government. And that if we look at restricting foreign aid, it may not impact the government as much as 

those people that are already seeking democracy. 

So I would like to know do you see that as, you know, something 

that we should be very much aware of if we move in that direction 

also? And I would like to hear your comments on that. 

Ms. ENOS. I think it is critical that if we are going to do a review 

of our democracy programming that we make sure that we keep in 

place programs that encourage development of civil society and encourage the development of democratic institutions. 

I think it is true that a lot of the aid does go toward NGOs. And 

this brings me to one point that I think is critical. Even though the 

U.S. has withdrawn support for the 2018 elections, I think it is still 

critical that some of these election-monitoring NGOs be allowed, 

possibly even encouraged, to operate, just without U.S. assistance, 

because I think we need to be able to get a pulse on to what extent 

democratic institutions in Cambodia have regressed, and also to 

sort of get a pulse on what is the public opinion in Cambodia toward Hun Sen, toward the CPP. And I think if you don’t have election-monitoring organizations from the U.S. or from other Western 

governments there, you will lose that critical insight. 

But even still, I think that is still reason to review our democracy programming in Cambodia and make sure that it is achieving 

the outcomes that we want and that it is bolstering the right institutions, not being diverted, because aid is always fungible. So 

watch that. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. KEM. I would say that do not underestimate your leverages. 

If you look at, was it last month when the U.S. announced it was 

pulling support for demining for the National Commission, 

CMAC—I can’t think of the full name now—and giving that money 

instead to NGO who also work on demining, that alone got the 

Cambodian Government panicking. And that is only I believe $2 

54

million a year. You would think that is a very small number of 

money in the U.S. context. But I believe that the aid that goes directly—I am talking about the one that goes directly to Central 

Cambodian Government, if you cut that, it will have an impact. 

Sure, they will supplement that either from China or from other 

sources, but that would still hurt them and hurt the Cambodian 

Government itself, and would have to reconsider—I think they will 

have to reconsider their action. 

And I agree with Olivia also that the U.S. should still continue 

to monitor the electoral environment in the case that the election 

go forward and regardless what kind of election we would have in 

2018. So I think an election monitoring program is still very important, because you want to document what is going on, to have an 

opinion on it, regardless of the circumstances. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I would just add that monitoring the election process by citizen monitoring groups does not necessarily legitimize the 

process; rather, it legitimizes themselves. And so the worst thing 

is to withdraw assistance so they are under extraordinary pressure 

by the government. It would be even worse if the international 

community suddenly withdrew support for these groups. 

There are many other areas in assistance that we have provided 

Cambodia over the years. We funded projects in the field, as Mona 

said, in demining, but also agriculture, education, and public 

health. We have helped develop a labor framework and a $100 million travel industry. We supported Cambodia’s cultural heritage. So 

there is a myriad of programs, I think important programs over the 

years that have had some important impact, and those I think can 

certainly be reviewed. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And just as I yield back, I would 

just like to say, in addition to the statements that you have done 

at the beginning, you have provided us with a number of specific 

recommendations. It would be very helpful if you could provide 

those to the committee or to members of the committee, because 

really, that is where the next step is. 

And we are trying to figure out what is the next step, and you 

have a wealth of information that you have provided us. And I 

would like it as concretely as possible to provide to the committee. 

Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. I appreciate your extra input. We allowed 

people to go over extra because we are down to a few people, but 

it is more engaging this way and we are getting more information 

out. 

We are going to go back to Mr. Rohrabacher. He has some comments. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just a couple thoughts. And if we have a list 

of names of people that should be investigated and to see if they 

are engaged in human rights abuses, but also in total corruption 

and harmful corruption to their society, those names should be provided to the chairman of this subcommittee. He has a staff, and we 

have just talked about it and the staff will look at that and make 

sure that we follow through with legislation, talking to the State 

Department. Then you have the staff here would be able to follow 

through and make sure we get something done there. 

55

Second of all, about general sanctions versus specific sanctions. 

I am sorry that when you have a dictatorship, do you think that 

Hun Sen would give a damn about whether or not some people 

were being hurt down in his country by a sanction? Do you think 

he does? No. Why should he? In fact, his gang is buffeted. They are 

not going to get—they are not going to not have an extra bowl of 

rice because of sanctions. They have already got their money and 

they have got—and whatever income is going on. They are the ones 

who are ripping off the profit of the whole country rather than having it become part of the ownership of the people. 

And number two, of course, if there were any sanctions that 

did—general sanctions, another monstrous gangster regime called 

Beijing will step in and take care of, oh, well, we will come in and 

do this. And I am sorry, all the really good industries that you 

were talking about that were—you know, I am sure that it is Hun 

Sen’s buddies that have got the permits to operate those particular 

businesses. That is the way it works. 

And, again, you have got to hold people accountable. I do think 

the people of Cambodia will reach a breaking point where they will 

have to at some point say, we are going to be engaged in something 

that will force Hun Sen out and we can’t just rely on other people, 

whether they are Japanese-Americans or ASEAN friends or whatever. 

The people of Cambodia either are going to stand up to Hun Sen 

and kick his butt out of there or he is going to continue in power. 

We can, put even, what I am suggesting by holding specific people 

accountable for their crimes, I don’t think that will result in Hun 

Sen running off unless, of course, a deal is made, which, of course, 

we thought about that too. 

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses as well. 

Mr. YOHO. Well thank you for both of your input. Thank you. Let 

me ask real briefly, how effective is Radio Free Asia, Voice of 

America, or other transmissions into Cambodia, in your opinion, 

Ms. Enos? 

Ms. ENOS. Radio Free Asia and Voice of America are critical to 

ensuring that democracy continues to flourish in Cambodia. They 

provide an alternative news source, and they help to encourage the 

sort of domestic news sources that are already there. 

So I think it is really a shame that Radio Free Asia has had to 

withdraw its service, and my understanding is that VOA has also 

had to reduce what it can provide as well. 

Mr. YOHO. I would assume that most people in Cambodia know 

that CNRP has been kicked out, right? In all of the regions, everybody is aware of that? 

I would think they would be highly inflamed about that and irritated. That is a program that we think is very effective. Anybody 

have a differing opinion? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Particularly in the heartland of the country too, 

these outlets are extremely important. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And like I said in the beginning, what we see 

over and over again is the same thing playing, you know, the good 

versus evil. And I think it was 21⁄2 years ago I was at—I think you 

were there. It was a meeting with a lot of our active and retired 

56

generals. And they said that the world was going through a 

tectonic shift in superpowers or world powers that we haven’t seen 

prior to World War II. 

And I think we are seeing this played out. I think China is in 

another phase. I don’t want to say it is phase two or phase three 

of their grand scheme. And I see them putting pressure on countries around the world, in this instance in Cambodia. Wherever 

there is a democracy, they see that as a threat and they have a 

hand in that. And if you see a democracy stumbling, falling, you 

can look at—China is in the background. 

How much influence, in your opinion, has China invoked on the 

current breakdown of the free elections of democracy and the disbanding of the CNRP? If you guys don’t mind, we will just go 

through. 

Mr. Wollack, you can start. You look like you are ready. 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, no. I just say that China has given a good 

deal of support. It has also—the Cambodian Government has reciprocated, particularly in ASEAN forums, where they blocked any effort to reach consensus on the South China Sea. 

It was interesting that China and Cambodia announced that they 

were going to set up a joint think tank to study color revolutions, 

because this is the narrative that somehow the West was trying to 

instigate a color revolution and domestic groups were as well. 

And I think if this think tank did accurate research, they would 

find out one very fundamental point, that the movements that rose 

up in places like the Philippines in 1986, in Kyrgyzstan, and Serbia, and Ukraine, and Georgia were the result of one thing, and 

that was a stolen election. Movements rose up, starting with the 

People Power Revolution in the Philippines, because authoritarian 

regimes stole an election. It had nothing to do with outside intervention. 

And so I think it serves Cambodian interests and stability in the 

country, and in terms of China its view of stability in the region, 

to have an election that is seen by the people of Cambodia to reflect 

their will. 

Mr. YOHO. Ms. Kem. 

Ms. KEM. I don’t think that China can replace the role of, for example, the EU or the U.S. has on Cambodia’s economy. China is 

not the one that is buying our products. And over 70 percent of 

Cambodian exports depend on U.S. and EU market. And I am sure 

you have seen in other closed society around the world in the region, they can’t survive on China’s support alone. 

And then number two, do you, meaning the free world, the U.S. 

or the EU, do you sit back and allow China to go forward with the 

aggression or you fight for your space, because it is in your interest 

as well, as I made my remark earlier, to stay connected in the region. 

I think Cambodia could be an easy case and a good opportunity 

for the U.S. to take leadership in the region and to show that democracy can win. And it is very, very possible. I believe elsewhere 

in the region, it may be more difficult. In Cambodia, you just have 

to lift your finger. And, again, I am more optimistic than some of 

you. I believe that there is a lot of hope, and I think that it can 

be done very soon as well. 

57

Mr. YOHO. Ms. Enos. 

Ms. ENOS. I think China has consistently proven a bad actor in 

Cambodia, and that is evidenced by the latest statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, which affirmed Cambodia’s decision to dissolve the opposition party. 

Not only that, but, as Mr. Wollack referenced, in ASEAN, they 

had sort of a tit-for-tat agreement where Cambodia was, I mean it 

looks like basically paid off in order to disavow the South China 

Sea resolution that ASEAN had made. And I think it is to the tune 

of $237 million in direct aid, $90 million in forgiven debt, and $15 

million in other forms of assistance that they decided to give to 

Cambodia. 

So I think China has proven to be a consistently bad actor and 

sort of acts with sort of impunity and with total disregard to what 

is going on in Cambodia. But I would echo Mona’s sentiments that 

I think, apart from U.S. leadership—and this includes with forming 

the Paris Peace Agreement—you are not going to see substantive 

action being taken, because I think the U.S. needs to call upon EU 

partners, needs to call upon Japan and other signatories that have 

demonstrated an interest in seeing Cambodia get back on the track 

toward reform. 

Mr. YOHO. No, I think you are absolutely right. And, you know, 

China is pushing that, because they want control of that region. 

And we see them with the power of, you know, of the ASEAN nations. Just one nation can shut down the rest of them. And this is 

something we are looking at, you know, talking to the ASEAN nations and seeing if we need to kind of see what we can do to put 

pressure on an individual nation that is doing this, because that 

was about $368 million that you said that gave them. 

Again, this comes down to—and I wanted to talk to you about—

you were talking about the United States has to keep pushing and 

giving them and helping with democracies and that. I kind of take 

a different angle on that. I can’t give you democracy. I can help you 

get it, but you have to have the want and the desire. 

It is like my mom wanted me to play the piano. For 7 years, my 

mom sewed and did all this extra stuff so I could learn to play the 

piano. There was a missing factor: I didn’t have the want at that 

time. 

And so I know with the Cambodian people voting where they 

were winning these elections and the momentum was with them, 

to be robbed from that, you know, we have the Cambodian people 

that are pushing for this. Then you have the Cambodian Government that doesn’t want it. 

Because what I have seen, you know, countries that are authoritarian, they are afraid of empowering their people. The most valuable resource any country has is their people. It is not their gold, 

their jade, or any of that other stuff, it is their people. And when 

you empower their people, they will do well. 

Ms. Kem, you brought up that the EU, the United States, Canada, Japan, account for roughly 70—I have got 78 percent of Cambodia’s exports. That is a big hand that we can influence better decisions, and that is what our goal is. 

And I wish you the best of luck with your father, with the work 

you guys are doing. I can’t tell you how much we appreciate your 

58

testimonies. This meeting has gone a little bit long. But everybody 

has stayed here and this shows you the importance. 

Allen, do you have a followup? Any more comments? Dana? 

But, again, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it. And it is 

like I said when I came up to the table. We take the information 

you give us, we look at different areas where we can give recommendations to the administration, the State Department, or a 

resolution coming out from the House saying, we stand with these 

ideals and that we will stand with the support of the Cambodian 

people. 

And then we will also send the information to the Cambodian 

Government that you either choose to do business with the United 

States of America following these principles that we have all signed 

onto, or you do business with somebody else. And I think it is time 

we start playing that hand, because we see the hand that China 

is forcing, and it is not in the favor of democracies. 

All right. So, with that, this meeting is concluded. I appreciate 

everybody’s participation and have a great day. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


27812n.eps
61

Æ


27812m.eps