It has been more than a month since the clash and that is enough time to understand what happened here. I stress that it was neither a coup d'état, a power usurpation, a conflict between CPP and FUNCINPEC, or Hun Sen and Ranariddh. It was not a revolution either.

I would like to point out some of the reasons that show that the character of the so called "coup d'état" was not a coup d'état at all. In 1970, everything was changed in the form of revolution. But now, we maintain every achievement of the Paris Peace Accord and the result of the 1993 election. What is the point of taking power? Did I need to grasp power? Everybody clearly recognized that Hun Sen was holding power in Cambodia legally. The objective of a coup d'état is to usurp power. So, what is the point of conducting a coup d'état in order to illegally hold power? The power sharing in 1993 gave the position of the First Prime Minister to FUNCINPEC. The FUNCINPEC party has already chosen a new candidate to fill that position. This is an indication that it was not a conflict between CPP and FUNCINPEC. FUNCINPEC members still retain their positions in the National Assembly and the government. Nothing has changed regarding the result of the 1993 election. Ranariddh deserted his post after making great mistakes. He is no different than a soldier who deserts his rank and has to be replaced by a new one.

If the armed clash took place before Ranariddh's departure, I understand that he would be afraid and run away. But the clash occurred 18 hours after the departure of Ranariddh. This armed, clash originated by Prince Ranariddh's associates, was not initially responded to by the government. Hundreds of thousands of people living in Phnom Penh are witnesses to this situation. At 15:15 hours, the explosion of weapons occurred on one side and targeted two points. The government responded by counter attack on 6 July at after 0530 hours and ended at 1800 hours. Some said the armed clash took 20 hours but in reality it took only 11 hours.

Some people joked that Hun Sen's attack was as fast as Mike Tyson's last fight. But I told them not to liken me to Mike Tyson because he bit Gold Field's ear. On the other hand, I would have accepted all Ranariddh's mistakes if I had met with him before his departure from Cambodia whether directly or by phone. It is Prince Ranariddh who organized the plan not only in Phnom Penh but throughout the country in an apparent attempt to change the current situation of the government that originated from the 1993 election. Consider the following he had over 10.000 weapons and had positioned troops to attack on every position including this place [my home]. This alone shows that Ranariddh had masterminded this plan.

I recognize that Ranariddh is able and clever. He claimed there was a coup d'état and ordered troops to attack. If he had won, he would have said he defended himself against Hun Sen's coup. At that time, he would have legally held power with the Khmer Rouge-whether the Khmer Rouge were behind him or in the open, the Khmer Rouge would have gained victory power in Phnom Penh. Everyone knows that Prince Ranariddh left Cambodia when Hun Sen was absent. Ranariddh signed with the Khmer Rouge and brought lots of them into Phnom Penh. If there was no ill-intention planned, why was it necessary to bury weapons in the vicinity of my home and draw a map to attack this place?

On the 18th of July, Ranariddh sought to find a political solution. This was not a goodwill gesture of Ranariddh. Only after he knew that his forces could not take control of Phnom Penh and the western part of Cambodia, he announced his intention to find a political solution. When his forces were defeated, he wanted to avoid prosecution and hold political discussions instead. I have no right to take the place of the Cambodian courts. What was done is done. It is like a house that nearly burnt down but we were on time to put the fire out, and now the house needs to be repaired.

Although the fighting is a concern to the international community, the Cambodian people are even more concerned. My mother has fallen seriously sick since it occurred. The Cambodian people are much more afraid than the international community because they are the ones who really die or suffer.

I would like to thank the international community for its concern. But, some of its concern has turned into interfering into the internal affairs of Cambodia because they consider themselves more Cambodian than Cambodians. Millions of Cambodians were killed by the Pol Pot regime, but the international community only made statements from the cities of various countries, they did not come to save our people from the killing fields.

I think that the international community you refer to is the United States. The American people who pay taxes to the US government are looking at the whole forest, but the US government is looking at only an individual tree. To my understanding, the US is leading a movement to put pressure on the Phnom Penh government. In the political history of the US, one can notice that the US government sees individual tree but not the whole forest. That is why the US has carried out a policy of supporting those along the fence instead of those in the house [of government] Since the 1950's and the 1960's the US has never supported the government in the Phnom Penh city but instead the US has supported the forces at the border area. The US welcomes all those who oppose the government. When General Lon Nol held power here, the US deserted him and let the Khmer Rouge occupy Phnom Penh and the whole country. After that, the US has continued to pursue "its policy to be along the fence". Although the US is in Phnom Penh city now, it does not provide encouragement for the government, instead the it encourages the opposition forces.

The American people who pay taxes to the US government should come to Cambodia to see for themselves the result that the US government has achieved so far. Aside from road No.4 that the US built in the 1960's, there is nothing but the scars of war that the US has left in Cambodia. There are more bomb craters, broken bridges, and destroyed factories left behind by the US than there are roads and projects that the US has built in Cambodia. Therefore, the American people should look into the US policy in the last 3 decades. The cold war and the ideological confrontation have come to an end, but the US still maintains the idea of hating the former so called revolutionaries or socialists. It is up to the US to think of that.

If someone the US favored was selected to hold power other than Ranariddh, the US probably would be quite happy. I take for example, Sam Rainsy, if he came to power, the US may not oppose to that. The US thinks of the human rights of only a limited a group of people; not all the people.

Did the US condemn the killing of Causescu and his wife in Romania? Why didn't the US encourage Sam Rainsy and other political leaders to come to Phnom Penh instead of persuading them to stay at the border? I did not expel Sam Rainsy. He left Cambodia in May because he knew that there would be fighting. We want to be friends of the US and other countries, but friendship must be two ways. The policy of economic sanctions is not an encouragement to walk on a correct road.

The suspension of US aid to Cambodia will lead first to the death of democratic institutions operated by non government organizations because they have received their money from the US. Therefore, those who have worked at the Human Rights Bureaus will lose their jobs. The US wants us to hold elections. It is certain that we will do this. We will hold elections with or without US encouragement or support because it is our obligation in our capacity as a liberal multi party democratic state. Most of the Cambodian people can join in the elections, except the political and military organization of Pol Pot, they have no rights to join the election here.

I think that the US pursues a policy full of conflicts. The US claims to hate Pol Pot but never supports the activities of those who are against Pol Pot. Instead, the US always supports those who collaborate with the Pol Pot group. Between 1979 and 1991 the US claimed to hate Pol Pol but supported the group that coordinated with Pol Pol. It is the same as helping Pol Pot.

The so called international community you refer to is the US. France, Japan, Australia, Germany, China and others take a different position. However, it is only the US which has taken a position to suspend aid and to put pressure on Cambodia. Regarding human rights issues, we pay more attention to the issue than the US. We don't want to turn anybody into widows or orphans because of the death of their husbands or parents. We don't want anybody to receive an image of fear in any form.

Cambodia is our house. We don't think the US loves our house more than those of us who are residing in it. I would like to request the others not to pretend to be more Cambodian than Cambodians and interfere in Cambodian internal affairs. One should estimate the situation by observing the forest as a whole rather than each tree.

I think your comment is correct by saying that this house was burned by Ranariddh and I was frightened so I rushed to extinguish it. If the whole house had been on fire, nobody would have been able to keep it from destruction. I think you have a correct observation.

I wish to inform you that before the 1993 elections there had never been drug issues, or armed robberies, or kidnapping for ransom over here. The counterfeit dollars were not a problem. But after 1993, they all became problems.

In recent time, it has been clearly observed that we have taken tough measures and actions to destroy drug trafficking. It is important to note that Cambodia has not yet become a place to produce drugs, but a place for drug transit. We discovered a group of drug traffickers who had close ties with Taiwanese, overseas Vietnamese, and overseas Lao groups - We helped arrest mafiosos from the US. A Khmer-American citizen, who was being sought in the US for murdering, was arrested in Phnom Penh. My most important order to the police is to keep on fighting against drug trafficking, mafia, kidnapping, and armed robbery. We also arrested a Japanese terrorist while he was passing through Cambodia by using an embassy car. Since 1993, we have arrested, on behalf of the FBI, two American citizens. I believe that after this event we will control this situation better than before, because the drug traffickers will have no more defenders.

Another fearful mistake committed by Ranariddh is artifact smuggling. He had already packed a large number of artifacts for exportation. I joke that Ranariddh defeated himself because he was cursed by the ancient gods of Cambodia. He had packaged the heads of their statues for export. These statues were made from stone during the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries. And everyone knows that the ancient gods always cruse those who defile their memories. I accused an official of smuggling artifacts. Ranariddh, with the pretext that the court is not independent, defended him. In fact, Ranariddh was afraid of allowing that official to stand trial in the court because he might tell the court that he had a lot of artifacts at the Prince's residence for exportation.

To make this case clear to the Cambodian people and the world as well, I have instructed the Ministry of Culture that any artifact brought from Ranariddh's residence be inscribed on it "is brought from Ranariddh's residence". And do the same for the artifacts that were brought to the National Museum through my good offices by the people after discovering and handing them over to me.

I would like to inform you that we have requested a resolution from the United Nations or the UN Security Council that will require the destruction of the drug market, along with production and trafficking. The biggest drug markets are in the US and Europe. If you didn't use ties, none would be produced and there would be no industry to sell them. The same is true with the illicit drug industry. The governments of the US and the countries that use drugs should make stronger efforts to halt drug use in their countries. When we eliminate drug markets, we obtain success because when there is no market to buy them there is no producer to make them, no seller to sell them. The Cambodian people are not drug users; we are only the victims. Drug traffickers use Cambodia as a transit way. I think probably some leaders of the US and the European Community might be involved in drug issues. We can ask why the US, which is a strong and rich country, lets her people use drug so much? Why does it happen? Does it relate to the leaders? Do the leaders close their eyes on the drug issues? Leaders of the European countries and US have never blamed themselves, but they blame our poor country, which is merely used as a transit way to move drugs from producer nations to markets in America and Europe.

We wish to have a general resolution by the UN Security Council, or the UN General Assembly, to focus attention on drug market issues. I suspect that some political parties or heads of state of certain countries might use money received from drugs in their electoral campaigns because they spend so much money on them. I say it in my capacity as a man among hundreds of millions of people in the world who have the common responsibility on this issue.

Question:

You have a son attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. What do you hope he will gain from a military education in the U.S.?

Answer:

I feel very proud of this son who was delivered during a period of great difficulties. He has overcome many difficulties during his life and he can now be very proud for attending this famous academy. What I would like for him to bring back is not only the fact that he has gotten the military knowledge but also would like him to have the knowledge on other expertise. At the time the incident took place, my son was also here. Even though he was a cadet of the U.S. Military Academy, I did not give him time to see the map of the fighting in the city of Phnom Penh. He carries a lower rank in the Cambodian army. Because he had joined the Cambodian military in 1994, it was a condition, which would allow him to attend West Point. If one counts on the fact that within three months or six months he would be promoted, he would by this time have been a more senior rank (in the Cambodian army). When I went to the headquarters beside my house, my son went there too with the military uniform. When I felt him standing behind me, I had to return so that he would follow me.

Why did I behave like this with him? I do not want my son to know how to engage in the battle. Even more than this, I do not want him to have any knowledge of the fighting within the city and even more the fighting between Cambodian and Cambodian. In the U.S. military Academy, they teach the cadets not only military tactics but also other subjects which, I had emphasized to my son, he should concentrate on economics. I would like for him to have the military discipline but also have an expertise in economics too. I also knew that he could not use American military tactics to fights in Cambodia. I also learned that when the American soldiers came to Cambodian in the 1970s, they needed to change their uniform at least once a day. They needed also for the helicopters to bring water for the soldiers to take baths and change clothes, put on a clean uniform and then go on the operation. Cambodia would not have money to afford this way. This wastes a lot of money. Clothes can be washed and then used again. The American soldiers' day's ration is equivalent to the Cambodian soldiers' month's ration. If he wanted to stay in the military, I would not allow him to stay in the headquarters but require him to live with the battalion or the company so he can know the real Cambodian soldier's life.

I would like him to know the democratic society of America -- as well as that of France. So I have two children in America and two other in France. They requested my permission to live there so that they can do work, normally to get money, but also to get to know the society where they are living. I would like my children to know as much as possible about the American society. This experience has changed them a lot from what they used to be like here. They now have a better knowledge of democracy as well as the state of law. That is what I would like to have them gain.

I have already made known my opinion concerning Pol Pot. I wish to see him stand trial by international court like the ones held in Bosnia and Rwanda. I think the same type of court should be created for Pol Pot because genocide is an international issue as mentioned in the convention on prevention and condemnation of genocidal acts. May I comment that I don't understand why they sentenced Pol Pot at Anlong Veng? Since 1975, Pol Pot has never had any court. Although Pol Pot stated in 1976 that he had a Supreme Court, the President of that court was also killed by him. There has never been any law or court. So I ask on what law did they base the trial and sentencing of Pol Pot at Anlong Veng. I reviewed the video tape copied from the broadcast by French television. I heard a person who said that the trial covered crimes committed during the rule of Pol Pot for over 27 years this means that they have acknowledged the crimes committed by Pol Pot since 1970. This point consolidates the justice that we had made by overthrowing the Pol Pot regime.

The fact that one person points at the others for genocide proves that it has really existed. Now Ieng Sary points at Pol Pot, Ta Mok, Khieu Samphan, and Noun Chea as responsible for the genocide and vice versa. That proves genocide is a real story and therefore the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime is a justice that saved lives of millions Cambodians. The July 5-6 event is also a success in preventing the return of the Pol Pot regime under the cover of a new image. I recently received a letter from a 20-year old Cambodian in which he considered the July 6 event the child of the January 7 event. I feel doubtful about the recent event at Anlong Veng. I think it is merely a political farce to cover Pol Pot. It is further evidence that proves that Ranariddh and his associates are seeking to wash Pol Pot so that they can justify the signature on July 3 of a joint communiqué between them and the Khmer Rouge as well as their continued cooperation. In his statement after my interviews with Mr. Ted Koppel from US Television ABC News, Ranariddh said that the Khmer Rouge issue should have a political settlement. Therefore, Ranariddh has to apologize to Pol Pot for having cooperated with me to fight against Pol Pot in 1993, 1994, 1995 and early 1996 and to outlaw the Khmer Rouge forces. I strongly believe the trial of Pol Pot by an international court is the best formula.

According to my observation, investment has not decreased though some projects have been delayed due to the slowness in materials importation, which resulted from the event. I have signed over 70 projects less than a month after the event. So the flow of investment is faster than before. Investors said that the situation is now more secure than before the event. They said they observed so many guns before the event, even in the restaurants. And therefore they thought the arms clash was inevitable but they didn't know when. They had lived in fear. Rich people had money extorted from them. But now, according to the information that I received, the middle class can also have breakfast in restaurants to discuss about business or other things. I think the investment does not fall off.

I think that investment did not decrease, maybe it (investment) increased more than before. Regarding the airline companies, it seems to me that we signed with them too many as we move from monopoly to an open sky policy in which many airline companies compete with each other, so this is the beginning for investment in the airline sector.

There are two investment companies, which request to proceed the privatization on electricity and water supply. These two sectors are half state-owned, half private-owned so we have difficulties in pushing quickly the investment on electricity and water supply in the capital. It was unexpected to have two different applications from two big companies (China and Hong Kong) and two others (South Korea and England), both requests were registered on the same day. I signed, in principle, one of the applications on electricity investment and electricity privatization while I was at the Calmette hospital. These are related to the confidence investors have in the government and their belief that there will not be any sign of new warfare. I think that war is over in Cambodia. Our situation is better than that in the Philippines where there are guerilla remnants of Morom front force, and far better than that in Sri Lanka from now on. Of course, there will be a threat that there will be a war by Ranariddh, however, I would like to ascertain that since Ranariddh set foot in Phnom Penh and fled Phnom Penh, fled his group, what are the possibilities for him to make war. A few days ago it was said: Ranariddh has 40,000 soldiers, if so he might have taken over Phnom Penh on July 5-6. Today we deal with O'smach. We are informed that Ranariddh will go to Bangkok, maybe he will be welcomed by the loss of O'smach.

The need of investors is political stability, not nationalization. The compensation for the damages caused by the recent fighting are a measure, which will strengthen the confidence of investors, and it is our accountability.

Besides that we facilitate services, propose some amendments on investment law by lengthening the land use with concessions from 70 to 90 or 99 years. We find out one system, which is called "transparency" by which the investors have the right to transfer the ownership in case they invest on the land. I think that a lawyer from the White House will look over in helping us.

First of all, I note that the First Prime Minister, is a man who has no enemies, a man who makes friends, a man who doesn't create enemies, a man who is transparent and a man who dares to struggle in opinion, so what he says today won't change tomorrow. I know because I have worked with him since 1993.

It is immensely confusing when it is said that "Ung Huot is Hun Sen's puppet" and he was appointed by Hun Sen. I would like to emphasize that H.E. Ung Huot was selected by Funcinpec not by me or by CPP. I have no right to choose a Prime Minister because in the National Assembly, no party has the 2/3 majority vote needed to select a Prime Minister or to set up a government. The selection of H.E. Ung Huot conformed to all legal procedures. The Funcinpec party won the right to have the First Prime Minister in the 1993 election. Regarding the Ung Huot's election in the National Assembly, it was performed very democratically, we had ballots in favor, ballots opposed, ballots to abstain, and void ballots.

Now there is a doubt that Ranariddh was not voted out of office by Ung Huot's election. As custom in Cambodia, we never vote someone out, we only vote someone else in his place. This was the case with Sam Rainsy and Norodom Sirivuth as Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. I want to emphasize that for the Ung Huot case, our election produced two results which mean that the National Assembly reflected clearly that H.E. Ung Huot was elected as First Prime Minister in the place of Norodom Ranariddh. The ballot for H.E. Ung Huot means to drop Ranariddh. We elect the new one and drop the former one. Don't get confused, the MP's vote for Ung Huot means that they dropped Ranariddh. The case of Sam Rainsy and Sirivuth was the same as that of Ung Huot now. So there are not 3 Prime Ministers, Prime Minister Hun Sen, Prime Minister Ung Huot and Prime Minister Ranariddh. There is only one First Prime Minister, Ung Huot who is legal here because the royal decree from His Majesty the King certified clearly that H.E. Ung Huot is the First Prime Minister as a replacement for Norodom Ranariddh. Before the clash nobody dismissed Ranariddh, he himself fled the country and declared war and now he dare not come back to the country.

Becoming Prime Minister of Cambodia is more difficult than becoming the president of the United States of America. The President in America is different from that in France. In France, the election takes place in two rounds, in the first round they need less than 40%, in the last round, they choose two candidates only, the winner is the one who gets more than 50% of ballots. This is French democracy. As for America, to win the elections, one only needs more ballots than the other even if it is candidates only 20% of ballots. In Cambodia, it is more difficult because to become Prime Minister, one needs 2/3 or 70% of the ballots. From this result, we can conclude how much people liked Ranariddh and Ung Huot. These ballots represented the voice of the Cambodian people who participated in the 1993 election.

Please don't forget this: the election was the proportional election. The people did not vote for any individual. At any time, the National Assembly could give Hun Sen a vote of no confidence. So it is not necessary to wait until 1998. H.E. Ung Huot will leave before the elections and so will I if the National Assembly vote me out tomorrow or after tomorrow. So it is not necessary to wait until 1998 to win or lose the elections? My job is over if the National Assembly does not trust me. Then I become a deputy if I am not guilty or I will be brought to court if I am guilty of a crime. People did not vote for Hun Sen or Ranariddh to be premiers.

It is different from the elections for President where an individual is elected instead of a party. If the 1998 elections do not reflect the success of the CPP, then I will leave office quickly and transfer power peacefully. Then I will leave my office and the new Prime Minister will take the position. The bodyguards who used to protect me will then protect the new Prime Minister. After that, I will become a farmer. I will also plant coconut trees and earn a living from them. From time to time, I will write books and I think the next book that I write will be valued. A lot of under-the-table secrets are in my hands. I will write about peace negotiations for Cambodia because I had so many negotiating partners. The on-the-table negotiations are one story that was recorded by tape, but a lot of secret stories remain.

Now let me say about the words "Ung Huot is Hun Sen's puppet" I told the good will ASEAN delegation that whoever works with Hun Sen is called the puppet of Hun Sen by my detractors. Even Ranariddh was called Hun Sen's puppet by the Khmer Rouge for more than 3 years. But please ask Ranariddh if he was Hun Sen's puppet or not. The people who called H.E. Ung Huot a Hun Sen puppet are undoubtedly Ranariddh and Khmer Rouge supporters. If Ranariddh replies that he was not Hun Sen's puppet, Ung Huot is not either. I don't believe that Ranariddh will, say of course, I was Hun Sen's puppet for 3 years. The truth is that we worked in cooperation.

Let me talk about Ranariddh. Regarding the military, Ranariddh was promoted from private soldier directly to a 5-star general. That is why he trusted his few high-ranking generals and dared to declare war against the whole country. His war failed immediately with little counter force. So I want him to be trained in Saint Cyr, in France, or West Point, in USA. A military leader must know what the soldiers eat, how they sleep. How much they pay for a haircut, how much medicine they need. That's it. If he doesn't know that, he loses.

You know in Nhek Bun Chhay's memo, he claimed to have 80,800 soldiers, while CPP had 80,000 soldiers. With the Khmer Rouge forces, Bun Chhay predicted that his side would have more soldiers than CPP. Prince Ranariddh believed that. But what was the real number of soldiers who fought? Out of 100 soldiers, you must count only 70 who can fight because some have permission, absence, sickness…

In terms of administration, Ranariddh passed abruptly to Prime Minister. I had to prepare documents for Ranariddh who had no time. Whenever I needed to talk with him by phone, he was at the restaurant until late at night. 19 years passed, I didn't know there were that many restaurants.

The Prime Minister's job is the busiest one; always on duty even on Sunday. Only this week, I had to be off my job for 4 nights to see my mother who is seriously ill at the hospital. A lot of work was brought to me there.

During the past years, I had to work with my task force to consider and prepare whole documents and then submit to him (Ranariddh) to sign. So I was his secretary, I was not a boss. It was like working for Samdech Heng Samrin, Samdech Chea Sim in the old days because I like to write, to set up the scenario for submission. When the documents are submitted, do they agree or not? Did I ever point a gun at him for his signature? So it is not proper to consider those works as those of a puppet. Really, my group has experience, we work hand in hand. Sometimes, I examine documents on the plane, while my counterpart takes a rest. With Ung Huot it is different. We work hand in hand, what H.E. Ung Huot sends to me, I think over; what I send to him, he does likewise. If everybody agrees, the documents are signed. With Ranariddh, he was absent from the country to teach in France 2 or 3 times a year, should I sleep? I should work.

I don't understand some people say that H.E. Ung Huot was appointed by me. H.E. Ung Huot is the First Prime Minister, he is at a higher rank than I am, our decision power is equal. The election of H.E. was more difficult than that of the American President. He had to be selected by the Funcinpec party first and after then he needed the support of 2/3 of the National Assembly members through a secret ballot.

The last question:

For decades, the Cambodian people have gone through bitter experiences: war, foreign aggression, economic recession. Cambodia could not develop. Before moving into the 21st century, please tell your people what they expect in the next century.

Answer:

In the past, we have suffered so much here. We were the hostages of war. We were the victims of Cold War and ideologies. I used to tell my negotiating partners or others that the war, which occurred, is not my responsibility. When war started breaking out, I was just 18 years old. When I was born at the tail of the war for independence, the French colony had not yet ended. My mother told me that she used to bring me into a trench. In 1970 war broke out again in Cambodia. So it is not my responsibility and it is not the responsibility of the ordinary person, whatever their age.

At this point, the US should examine its stand to save the Cambodian people. The U.S. started the war in Cambodia. It dropped millions of tons of bombs on our country, and the U.S. leaders did not think about deaths and injuries to our people. For us, Washington's words on human rights and democracy in Cambodia do not make sense because they created and ignited the war here and killed hundreds of thousands of our people. You tell US citizens who pay tax to the US government to look at our country, come to see the scars of the US war in Cambodia. To win a victory, the US did not hesitate to resort to the use of all possible means, including killing. Now the US talks about the human rights issue in Cambodia after having killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. But the Cambodian people do not want to recall the past. Don't be confused. My 5 wounds and my one blind eye, which were caused by the US bombings, can not be forgotten.

However, we still deal with the humanitarian issue. We have made every effort to search for US servicemen missing in Cambodia because it was not the mistakes of the dead or the wounded, it was the mistakes of the US government.

We then went through a very sad tragedy. That was the "Killing Fields." We overthrew the killing fields but we did not acquire justice, instead we got 11 more years of civil war from the US and its coalition partners. Now on July 5th and 6th, we prevent a 2nd killing fields, and we still do not receive justice from the US. I understand that most US citizens do not understand what happened here recently. What we want is not the power for any political party or individual but what we want is to reduce the poverty. We will not make a war against each other, we will make war against poverty. So I do not understand the US campaign to put an embargo on Cambodia's poor. Suppose that the embargo cuts off aid, who will die? Hun Sen does not die, but it causes difficulties to the Khmer people.

I predict that our Cambodian people will enter the 21st century with happiness because I anticipate that there will be no major war in Cambodia, unless there are aggressions from foreign countries and foreign assistance for the fighting here. There is no power usurpation in Phnom Penh as the Khmer Rouge did in 1975. What I am keeping with here is the respect of the achievements of the Paris Peace Agreement, and the outcomes of the 1993 elections. I intend to stabilize the situation in order to move towards free, fair, and democratic elections. Between now and election day, I must continue to try to make the election mechanism neutral and remove weapons from people who do not have the appropriate authority to possess them in order to ensure free elections. I don't want the participants in the campaign to have weapons. It is not good that the armed forces of a party launch the elections VS another party which has no weapons. So there must be a political neutralization of the armed forces and the civil administration like the one we had in 1993-94-95. It collapsed because Ranariddh attempted to gain military superiority, prior to the 1998 elections, as he had announced to the public on 20th January, 1996 in Sihanoukville. What is important is that we trust each other enough to continue working together after the election, regardless of who wins or loses. We still collaborate with each other. No one loses interest because another person comes to power. All parties have to be in social legality. Everyone must respect the law.

I think that I may not campaign in the 1998 elections. Why do I think this? The issue for the 1998 elections relates to war and peace and the Khmer Rouge. The 1993 election was also focused on the Khmer Rouge issue. The negotiation between Ranariddh and the outlawed Khmer Rouge provoked a new conflict. Now Khmer Rouge and conspirators have to be interrupted. All collaborators with the Khmer Rouge must end such relationships. Once this is done, if I am on TV, I can tell people say that to cast their vote for whom you like because the armed forces will serve the government, regardless of what party is in power. I do not want a fight between an 80 kg with candidate 50kg, because the 50 kg person does not include the Khmer Rouge weight, it remained 50 kg as normal. So I do not want to launch a campaign as in the 1993. So all candidates have to reach their localities and make a campaign by themselves. Don't rely on Hun Sen in the coming elections, because I have to compete with someone else. My big problem is the Khmer Rouge. I set up a coalition government with Ranariddh because Ranariddh agreed to oppose against the Khmer Rouge. We were in a conflict because Ranariddh colluded with the Khmer Rouge by signing with the Khmer Rouge, bringing them into Phnom Penh. As for the social economy, we are not different. Now the rehabilitation of social infrastructure is our priority. We must promote investment, must build canals, and must build roads, bridges and schools in the rural areas.

I would like to inform you that the statement of the new First Prime Minister Ung Huot reflects his views and was written by himself, not by Hun Sen. I just said that if he won the majority vote as the First Prime Minister, he had to issue a statement. So I received the statement only a couple of hours before he made his speech. I supported him because he represents a continuity of the government's policy and reflects what needs to be done in the future. If we keep pace together like this, I think that we will enter into the 21st century with real optimism. I want to ask what does Hun Sen want? At the age of 27, I was Minister of Foreign Affairs, at 29 I was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and at 32 I was Prime Minister and held this position from 1985-1997. What I want now is peace and quiet. When I resign from politics, I don't want anyone to bother me or attempt to kill me. I want to live as the other people do. I also respect the others' life. What I want now is of my mother's recovery from her illness. I don't want her to pass away shortly. I apologize to the US envoy who was on mission here, because I could not meet him in such a situation. I did not feel good enough to have such an important meeting. My friends saw me at the hospital. It would not have been proper and useful to meet him there. Today I have better luck because my mother feels better. I am prepared to leave for Beijing. If my mother remains seriously ill, I will have to leave my wife here, and go to Beijing alone. In our lives, we have only one mother, but our task is compulsory in regard to the nation.

I would like to emphasize that we will enter the 21st century with optimism, and without fear of the warriors gathered in Anlong Veng. Please send this message to Washington, if it wants to see Mr. Sam Rainsy, please go to Anlong Veng, you will see him there. Washington hates Anlong Veng, but also supports Mr. Sam Rainsy in Anlong Veng.

In conclusion, the Washington Post and the Washington Times wished Samdech Hun Sen and mother of Samdech recover soon and they promised that in next week they would publish this interview to the US citizens.

This interview was excerpted and published by the Washington Times on Friday, August 29, 1997.