Honoring the PPA at 34: A Reflection on Its Ongoing Relevance - From Battle Field to Ballot Box

Pictures of the Commemoration at City Hall

Honoring the PPA at 34: A Reflection on Its Ongoing Relevance

From Battle Field to Ballot Box

 

Remark Delivered at The Anniversary of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements 34 years Commemoration

 

Organized by Councilwoman Suely Saro and the Cambodian Community for Justice (CCJ)

City of Long Beach - City Hall Lobby

441West Ocean Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90802

October 25, 2025

 

Abstract

As a survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime who lived through decades of war and human rights abuses, I reflect on the Paris Peace Agreements (PPA) as a pivotal moment in Cambodia’s path toward reconciliation and peace. Signed in 1991, the PPA laid the groundwork for democratic reform, human rights protections, and international cooperation. Thirty-four years later, its relevance endures—not merely as a historical document, but as a moral compass guiding ethical decisions and peacebuilding in post-conflict societies. This reflection honors the legacy of the PPA and calls upon the Cambodian diaspora to uphold its values and continue the pursuit of democracy, justice, accountability, and lasting peace.

Introduction

It is a true pleasure to stand before you today—not merely as a speaker, but as a survivor of the Killing Fields. I carry with me the memories of suffering, of silence, and of survival. And today, I speak to honor a document that gave many of us hope: the Paris Peace Agreements, signed 34 years ago.

Before I proceed, allow me to briefly introduce myself. My name is Sovachana Pou. As a survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime and a retired academic, I speak today from both lived experience and scholarly reflection. My remarks on the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements are grounded not only in historical evidence, but also in normative concerns—ethical questions surrounding justice, accountability, reconciliation, and the moral responsibilities of both state and international actors in Cambodia’s peace process.

While I recognize the diversity of political perspectives present in this gathering of solidarity, my focus today is not on engaging with partisan rhetoric. Rather, I aim to reflect on the shared values and aspirations that the Paris Peace Agreements represent.

Cambodia’s tragedy is well known, and I need not recount its horrors in detail. Yet it bears emphasizing that this national trauma spanned three harrowing decades—from the late 1960s to the late 1990s. It began with an armed rebellion in the late 1960s, escalated into a full-blown civil war in 1970, and culminated in the Khmer Rouge’s seizure of power in April 1975. What followed were the infamous “killing fields,” a period of unimaginable suffering that lasted until Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in December 1978. But even that intervention did not bring peace. The war dragged on in various forms, and it was not until 1998—when the Khmer Rouge’s armed resistance finally collapsed—that Cambodia began to experience peace, albeit in its most minimal form: the absence of war.

My reflections today are personal and not merely retrospective—they are also critical. Did the Agreements truly meet the needs of victims and the people of Cambodia? Did they uphold the human rights principles they so clearly promised? And did they lay a durable foundation for democratic governance and lasting peace both positive and negative?

To fully and deeply comprehend the significance of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements, we must begin by confronting the undeniable truths that led Cambodia to that pivotal juncture and beyond. Only then can we meaningfully assess the enduring relevance of the Agreements—tracing their journey from battlefield to ballot box. This requires us to ask: How are the Paris Peace Agreements perceived in Cambodia today? What resonance do they hold for the Cambodian diaspora—dispersed across continents, yet united by memory and loss? And how are they interpreted by the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, whose political ascent was deeply intertwined with the very peace process these Agreements inaugurated?

Finally, we must examine The Legacy and Distortion of the Paris Peace Agreements under the stewardship of the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). This is not merely an exercise in historical reflection. These questions are essential to understanding whether the promise of a comprehensive peace settlement has been realized, postponed, or quietly dismantled. (Hul Reaskmey.2017, Accords that Ended Civil War are Dead PM Says, VOA, https://khmer.voanews.com/a/hun-sen-said-paris-agreement-is-dead-but-analysts-said-its-alive/4069379.html)

I will structure my remarks around three key themes:

1.     Undeniable Truths: The Chain of Causality Behind Cambodia’s Tragedy

2.     The Ongoing Relevance of the Paris Peace Agreements: From Battlefield to Ballot Box

3.     The Legacy and Distortion of the Paris Peace Agreements by the ruling CPP 

Undeniable Truths: The Chain of Causality Behind Cambodia’s Tragedy

As a small, weak, and failed state, Cambodia’s tragedy was not born in isolation. It was the outcome of foreign intervention, ideological extremism, and geopolitical manipulation, where global powers used Cambodia as a pawn in their Cold War rivalries. The Khmer Rouge regime was both a product and a consequence of these intertwined forces—each complicit, each indispensable in shaping the path to the Killing Fields and beyond. Here is the chain of casualty behind this senseless tragedy.

No Vietnam War, No Khmer Rouge

No American bombing, No Khmer Rouge

No Chinese involvement, No Khmer Rouge

No Khmer Rouge, No Killing Fields

No PPA, No Comprehensive Political Settlement

No Vietnam War, No Khmer Rouge.

The Vietnam War destabilized Cambodia and drew it into a conflict it did not start. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops used Cambodian territory as sanctuaries, prompting U.S. bombings and undermining Prince Sihanouk’s neutralist policy. The political chaos that followed the 1970 coup and Lon Nol’s pro-American regime opened the door for the Khmer Rouge to rise as a nationalist and anti-imperialist force. Without the spillover of the Vietnam War, the Khmer Rouge would not have found fertile ground to grow.(Kiernan, 2004; Shawcross, 1979)

No American Bombing, No Khmer Rouge.
Between 1969 and 1973, the United States dropped more than half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia. The devastation radicalized rural peasants, who turned to the Khmer Rouge in anger and despair. Pol Pot skillfully exploited the bombings, telling villagers: “Each bomb the Americans drop brings us new supporters.” Without the bombings, the Khmer Rouge would have remained a marginal insurgency. (Chandler, 2008; Kiernan, 1985)

No Chinese Involvement, No Khmer Rouge.
China was the Khmer Rouge’s most crucial patron—providing weapons, training, and over $1 billion in aid from 1975 to 1978. Even after the regime’s fall, Beijing continued to support Pol Pot’s forces diplomatically and militarily to counter Vietnam and the Soviet Union.
Without China’s financial and political backing, the Khmer Rouge could not have maintained its power or international legitimacy. (Short, 2004; Becker, 1998)

No Khmer Rouge, No Killing Fields.
The Killing Fields were not an accident of war but the direct result of Khmer Rouge ideology—rooted in agrarian utopianism, paranoia, and absolute obedience. Nearly two million Cambodians perished from execution, forced labor, starvation, and disease. Without the Khmer Rouge, there would have been no systematic mass murder on such a scale.
(Etcheson, 2005; Hinton, 2008)

No Paris Peace Agreements (PPA), No Comprehensive Political Settlement.
Signed in 1991, the Paris Peace Agreements marked the end of decades of armed conflict, bringing together warring communist and non-communist factions under one framework for peace, democracy, and national reconciliation. Although the PPA did not deliver national reconciliation and full justice, it prevented the continuation of war and laid the groundwork of peacekeeping and peacebuilding in Cambodia. Without the PPA, there would have been no unified path toward peace—even if imperfect.
(Findlay, 1996; Doyle, 1995)

The Ongoing Relevance of the PPA: From Battlefield to Ballot Box

While idealists believed that the 1991 PPA was to bring peace to Cambodia—a land that had suffered so much from two decades of war and conflicts—realists argued that the PPA’s purpose was to solve three complex and intractable Cambodian problems (Hon. Gareth Evans, 2012, Cambodia: The Peace Process - and After, https://gevans.org/speeches/speech498.html)

1.     The warring internal factions: Hun Sen’s government against the fragile Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK), which included the non-communist Sihanoukists (FUNCINPEC) and the Khmer People's National Liberation Front (KPNLP) of Son San, and the communist Khmer Rouge.

2.     The regional problem: Vietnam supporting Hun Sen and ASEAN supporting the CGDK.

3.     The great power problem: The big and great powers supporting the warring factions—with China supporting the Khmer Rouge and King Sihanouk; the Soviet Union supporting Hun Sen; and the U.S. supporting the non-communist resistance groups \

1.     How the PPA is Seen in Cambodia Nowadays

 

Positive framings:

The PPA are officially recognised as a key moment of transition: they ended decades of protracted conflict, united warring Cambodian factions under an international framework, and led to the creation of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), the 1993 elections and a new Constitution. peaceagreements.org+3Wikipedia+3rajraf.org+3

·      “The UN peace plan did achieve its principal peacemaking aims. External patrons, above all China with the Khmer Rouge, did withdraw material support for the various political groupings, sucking away the oxygen that had sustained civil war for so long. The more than 365, 000 displaced Cambodians were successfully repatriated from the Thai border. The Cambodian conflict was removed as a source of regional tension. It became possible for Vietnam to enter into much more productive relations regionally and internationally. Cambodia’s reconstruction could at last begin, and the path was cleared for it to assume its own rightful place in the community of nations.” -- Hon. Gareth Evans, one of the PPA architects (Peace, Democracy and Human Rights in Cambodia: Keeping the flame alive, https://www.gevans.org/speeches/Speech759.html)

·       In official statements, the government emphasises that the “spirit” of the PPA has been incorporated into Cambodia’s institutions; for example, the Ministry of Information stated in 2021 that the government “deeply cherishes the agreements” and considered that they had been integrated into the Constitution. Cambodgemag+1

·       Among civil society and media, the PPA remain a reference point for national reconciliation, human rights, and multi-party pluralism. For example, on the 32nd anniversary in 2023, a coalition of civil groups reminded the government and international community of the commitments in the PPA. Cambodianess

Critical / contested framings:

·       Many observers argue that Cambodia has fallen short of key PPA commitments — in particular those related to multi-party democracy, human rights, independent judiciary, and political pluralism. Moreover, peace, stability, and national reconciliation were not among the accomplishments of the UN peacekeeping operation in Cambodia. វីអូអេ+2វីអូអេ+2

·       The anniversary of the PPA is increasingly “muted” or politicised: for instance, in 2018 the government discouraged public commemorations amid a crackdown on opposition forces. Radio Free Asia

·       Some government officials now question how binding or relevant the PPA remains. For example, the Foreign Minister in 2021 said that the “Western-style democracy” envisioned under the PPA “did not fit Cambodia’s context.” Cambodianess

Key implications:

·       The PPA is symbolically important: it represents the end of large-scale civil war, external military occupation, and the beginning of a peace-oriented order.

·       They are politically contested: whether the PPA’s ideals have been fulfilled (or are still meaningful) is a matter of debate. Some see them as unfinished business; others as superseded by new realities or diluted by authoritarian drift.

·       They are institutionally leveraged: while the CPP discourse tends to talk about the PPA as the foundation of Cambodia’s current system, there is less emphasis on implementing them as a set of normative obligations today.

2. Additional or Different Meanings for the Cambodian Diaspora

For Cambodians living abroad (e.g., in the U.S., Australia, France, and elsewhere), the PPA carries some distinct additional dimensions:

·       Hope for home and return: Many diaspora members left Cambodia during war, genocide, and post-conflict turmoil. The PPA’s promise of peace, reconciliation and institutional reform carries a hopeful resonance: the possibility of a safer, more open Cambodia to which they might connect or return.

·       Memory and accountability: For refugees and survivors, the PPA may be seen as a formal international commitment to uphold rights, disarm factions, repatriate refugees and allow political participation. When those commitments appear weakened, diaspora voices often highlight the gap between promise and practice. For example, diaspora communities often commemorate the PPA anniversaries and urge full implementation. Cambodianess+1

·       Identity and connectivity: Living away from Cambodia, diaspora communities may treat 23 October (the date of PPA) as a symbolic marker of modern Cambodian history and diaspora identity. It marks a break from war and a link to more globalised, peace-oriented Cambodia.

·       Political lever: Some in the diaspora use the PPA as a normative tool to advocate for democracy, human rights, and political reform in Cambodia. The PPA gives them a set of internationally-endorsed commitments they can point to when critiquing government actions.

In short, while the PPAs in Cambodia are part of the domestic political narrative, for the diaspora, they often function as a stalwart of hope, memory, and accountability.

3. How the CPP (Ruling Party) Views / Uses the PPA

The CPP’s stance is pragmatic and strategic. Some observations:

·       Foundation narrative: The CPP uses the PPA to validate its rule—portraying the party as a central actor in the peace process, the elections, and national reconstruction. The agreement is cited as the basis for the current constitutional order and as part of the legitimacy of the modern Cambodian state. Cambodgemag+1

·       Selective emphasis: The CPP emphasises stability, national reconciliation, and development. The aspects of the PPA about pluralism or independent oversight receive less emphasis in official discourse. For example, the PPA’s provisions on free and fair elections and human rights are rarely foregrounded by the ruling-party media. Observers note this gap. Human Rights Watch+1

·       Contestation of bindingness: The CPP (and allied state institutions) sometimes argue that the PPA’s normative commitments were superseded by the Cambodian Constitution adopted in 1993 — thus reducing the PPA from “living obligations” to historical reference. For example, some officials state that the PPA “did not outline a democracy that suits Cambodia” in today's context. Cambodianess+1

·       Political expediency: The CPP appears to leverage the PPA to reinforce its narrative of “we ended the war, we brought stability” while downplaying or resisting calls to fully implement PPA-linked human rights reforms. Civil society critiques emphasise that the promises of the PPA remain unmet. cambojanews.com+1

4.     Summary Table

 

Stakeholder	How they tend to view the PPA
Cambodian general public	Mixed: recognition of historic importance + frustration at unmet ideals
Civil society / reformers	Unfulfilled promise; calls for full implementation
Diaspora	Symbol of peace, return, memory, normative leverage
CPP / ruling elite	Legitimising milestone; emphasises stability and unity, less on pluralism

 

In Summary: The 1991 PPAs remain a landmark event in Cambodian history — marking the formal end of major conflict and the beginning of a peace-oriented constitutional order. But the meaning of the PPA today is layered and contested:

·       They are a foundation document: for the state, for national identity, for the narrative of peace, reconstruction, and peacebuilding

·       They are a normative benchmark: for those who want Cambodia to fulfil the commitments on democracy, human rights, pluralism and independence.

·       They are a political tool: for the CPP to legitimise its rule, and for the diaspora and civil society to critique or hold the government to account.

In contemporary Cambodia, the PPA are no longer simply “the peace treaty that ended the war” — they have become a site of struggle over how Cambodia defines its politics, its developmental path, and its place in the world.

The Legacy and Distortion of the Paris Peace Agreements by the Ruling CPP

 

No PPA, No “Win-Win” Policy

No PPA, No “Thank You Peace”

The Foundational Truth Behind Cambodia’s Modern Peace Narrative

The 1991 PPA marked a turning point not only in ending Cambodia’s decades-long civil war but also in shaping the political framework that later allowed Former Prime Minister Hun Sen and the CPP to consolidate power under what they now call the “Win-Win Policy” by incorporating the Khmer Rouge into the armed forces (1998), dissolving the opposition Cambodian National Rescue Party in 2017. To Hun Sen, handing out the CNRP’s seats to other small parties was in line with the PPA, which specified that Cambodian democracy endorse pluralism.

It is historically accurate—and morally important—to acknowledge that without the PPA, there would have been no “Win-Win Policy,” and without the PPA’s foundational peace, there would have been no “Thank You Peace” narrative that dominates Cambodia’s political discourse today.

1. No PPA, No “Win-Win” Policy

The “Win-Win Policy” often credited by the CPP as a uniquely Cambodian solution to national reconciliation, emerged directly from the conditions created by the PPA and the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)process (1991–1993).

• The PPA ended international isolation, established the principle of multi-party participation, and created space for former enemies to reintegrate politically and militarily.
• It was under the framework of the PPA that disarmament, refugee repatriation, and a new constitutional order became possible.
• The UNTAC-supervised 1993 election—though imperfect—legitimized the transition to peace and the eventual reintegration of the Khmer Rouge defectors under the CPP’s rule.

Hun Sen’s “Win-Win Policy,” introduced later in the 1990s, was not born in a vacuum; it was the continuation and internal adaptation of the Paris framework, translated into domestic political strategy. It offered the last remaining Khmer Rouge factions safety, amnesty, and integration into the state security apparatus in exchange for loyalty to the government.

Thus, the so-called “Win-Win” approach was the final act of the peace process initiated in Paris. It completed, on national terms, what the PPA began internationally. Without the legitimacy, ceasefire structure, and international recognition the PPA provided, Hun Sen’s later policy could not have succeeded. The “Win-Win Policy” was not the origin of Cambodia’s peace; it was its consequence.

2. No PPA, No “Thank You Peace”

The “Thank You Peace” slogans andcampaign—widely promoted in Cambodia today through monuments, pagodas, schools, government institutions, and political speeches—presents peace as a gift from the CPP and its leader as a savior and preserver.  It is used to reinforce the message that stability and prosperity exist because of the ruling party’s wisdom and leadership.

However, the roots of peace lie in the collective and international efforts and four warring Cambodian political parties that produced the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements.

• It was through the PPA that Cambodia regained sovereignty, ended foreign occupation, and established a ceasefire among warring factions.
• It was through UNTAC’s involvement that millions of refugees were safely repatriated, and Cambodia reconnected to the global community.
• It was through UNTAC that elections have been held continuously
• It was through international consensus, not unilateral domestic authority, that peace became viable.

Therefore, the “Thank You Peace” narrative must be contextualized: it is built upon the peace that Paris made possible, the compromise that UNTAC brokered, and the sacrifices of millions of Cambodians who suffered and endured through decades of conflict.

To ‘Thank Peace’ honestly is to thank the people, the PPA, and the spirit of compromise—not merely the political party in power.

3. The Political Appropriation of Peace

Over time, the CPP’s political narrative has sought to de-link the “Win-Win Policy” from the PPAs, presenting it as a purely Cambodian achievement independent of foreign influence or international frameworks. This selective memory serves political ends: it elevates the CPP’s role as the guarantor of peace while downplaying the collective, international, and negotiated origins of that peace.

Yet the historical record is clear:

• The Paris Peace Agreements laid the foundation;
• The Win-Win Policy built upon it; and
• The “Thank You Peace” narrative capitalized on it.

To omit the PPA from this chain is to erase the international solidarity and Cambodian pluralism that made peace possible in the first place.

Conclusion

For many Cambodians—both at home and across the diaspora—the Paris Peace Agreements remain the lifeblood of our nation and our people. Honoring the PPA at 34 years means reclaiming the true essence of peace—both negative and positive—rather than its mere political branding. The PPA signified the international community’s recognition of Cambodia’s right to peace, justice, democracy, reconciliation, and self-determination. It was not only a diplomatic milestone but also a moral commitment to prevent the recurrence of dictatorship, oppression, and mass violence. Negative peace refers to the absence of direct violence and armed conflict, while positive peace encompasses the presence of justice, equality, human rights and institutions that uphold human dignity and freedom. Together, these dimensions capture the PPA’s enduring relevance to Cambodia’s quest for sustainable peace and genuine democracy.

Today, as the government celebrates "peace" while actively suppressing dissent, it's crucial to remember the true spirit of the PPA. That spirit wasn't submission to authority, but the achievement of a balance of power through dialogue, pluralism, and law. The country has not yet found peace with justice. Currently, freedom of expression is reserved for the state, while peaceful criticism from citizens is readily portrayed as a threat to public order.

The peace Cambodia enjoys today—imperfect and incomplete as it may be—is the product of international cooperation, national compromise, and the Cambodian people’s longing for reconciliation and above all the restoration of decent governance. To honor peace truthfully is to honor its origin: the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements, where Cambodia’s path toward sovereignty, unity, and reconstruction truly began.

Finally, I wish to conclude my remarks by sharing the words of a respected Cambodian elder, who captured the true meaning of our gathering today: “កិច្ចព្រមព្រៀងទីក្រុងប៉ារីស២៣តុលា១៩៩១ គឺជាអាយុជីវិតប្រទេសនិងប្រជាជាតិខ្មែរយើង! ហ.ស. ហែកចោលកុរដាសស្នាមដែលជាឯកសារចោលបាត់ហើយ។ ខ្មែរអស់សង្ឃឹម។ “(The Paris Peace Agreements of 23 October 1991 are the lifeblood of our nation and our people. Yet Hun Sen has torn up and cast aside this historic accord. In doing so, he has extinguished the hopes of the Khmer people.)

 

Thank you for being the change you wish to see in our homeland!

Acknowledgement: This reflection has been refined with the help of AI to enhance content flow and readability. The insights and perspectives expressed, however, are entirely my own.

 

Sources 

The Paris Peace Agreements (PPA) 

Gareth Evans (2012). Cambodia: The Peace Process - and After, https://gevans.org/speeches/speech498.html

Gareth Evans (2012). Peace, Democracy and Human Rights in Cambodia: Keeping the flame alive,https://www.gevans.org/speeches/Speech759.html

 

Hul Reaskmey.2017, Accords that Ended Civil War are Dead PM Says, VOA, https://khmer.voanews.com/a/hun-sen-said-paris-agreement-is-dead-but-analysts-said-its-alive/4069379.html)

Stimson Center. (2021). Cambodia’s 1991 Paris Peace Agreements: A retrospective on the promise and reality of peacebuilding. Stimson Center & Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace (CICP). Retrieved from https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cambodia-Report-Web.pdf

Stimson Center. (2022, October 21). Looking back: How the Paris Peace Agreements are remembered. Retrieved from https://www.stimson.org/2022/looking-back-how-the-paris-peace-agreements-are-remembered

United States Institute of Peace (USIP). (2017, May 15). Lessons from Cambodia’s Paris Peace Accords for political unrest today. Retrieved from https://www.usip.org/publications/2017/05/lessons-cambodias-paris-peace-accords-political-unrest-today

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (1997). Cambodia: The legacy and lessons of UNTAC. SIPRI Research Report No. 9. Retrieved from https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/RR/SIPRIRR09.pdf

PeaceAgreements.org. (1991). Agreement on a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian conflict (Paris Peace Agreements). Retrieved from https://www.peaceagreements.org/agreements/wgg/252

United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC): Background. UN Peacekeeping. Retrieved from https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/untacbackgr2.html

New York University School of Law. (n.d.). Overview of Cambodian history, governance, and legal system. NYU Globalex. Retrieved from https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/cambodia1.html

The “Win-Win Policy” and “Thank You Peace” Narrative

Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). (2023, October 23). Cambodia commemorates 32nd anniversary of Paris Peace Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.org.kh/en/details/360914

Moung, S. (2023). The success of Win-Win Policy and peace building process in Cambodia. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376509308_The_Success_of_Win-Win_Policy_and_Peace_Building_Process_in_Cambodia

Camboja News. (2024, January 3). Win-Win Policy Day re-named “Peace Day in Cambodia.” Retrieved from https://cambojanews.com/win-win-policy-day-re-named-peace-day-in-cambodia-now-a-national-holiday

KhmerOversea. (2025). Performing peace through conflict: Cambodia’s “Thank You Peace” rhetoric and the 2025 border clashes with Thailand. Retrieved from https://khmeroversea.info/performing-peace-through-conflict-cambodias-thank-you-peace-rhetoric-and-the-2025-border-clashes-with-thailand

Memory, Political Contestation, and Shifting Narratives

The Diplomat. (2020, October 23). 29 years on, landmark peace accord charts deep divides in Cambodia. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/29-years-on-landmark-peace-accord-charts-deep-divides-in-cambodia

Central Cambodia. (2023, October 23). Hundreds mark anniversary of Paris Peace Agreements. Retrieved from https://central-cambodia.org/archives/3205

Khmer Times. (2023, October 23). Path of peace: Govt commemorates 32nd anniversary of Paris Agreements. Retrieved from https://www.khmertimeskh.com/501380326/path-of-peace-govt-commemorates-32nd-anniversary-of-paris-agreements

Heinrich Böll Foundation. (2023, August 24). Cambodia’s national election 2023: Pressure, control and legacy. Retrieved from https://www.boell.de/en/2023/08/24/cambodias-national-election-2023-pressure-control-and-legacy