法国在柬埔寨的殖民统治及其崩溃 French Colonial Rule in Cambodia and Its Collapse

Written around the time Vietnamese forces had invaded Cambodia in order to have the Khmer Rouge collapse, this essay by a Cambodia-born Chinese historian and professor ended on an acerbic charge against the ​“Vietnamese hegemonists,” promised to the same fate than French colonialists: ​“military losses, economic exhaustion, and ultimate defeat ”

That political overstatement set apart, and taking the Leninist rhetorics with more than a grain of salt, the study is a rare attempt to trace the ultimate collapse of French colonial ambitions in Indochina, and especially in Cambodia, to the predatory nature of colonial economics and to the absence of a societal project for Cambodia. France’s achievment in the preservation of ancient Khmer sites, in particular, has often been used to mask the quite brutal reality depicted here. Most of the figures given here are verified. [follows the translation of the entire original article, notes not included. Highlights in bold are from ADB]. 

All aggressors, when they invade a country, portray themselves as ​“saviors” of humanity or ​“angels” carrying out divine will, mouthing words like ​“sympathy,” ​“protection,” and ​“rescue,” while in reality, their true intentions are invasion, control, and plunder. Colonialists and imperialists are no different from today’s hegemonic powers. Therefore, reviewing the history of French colonialists’ invasion of Cambodia and their colonial rule provides a mirror to understand the essence of Vietnam’s regional hegemony in occupying Cambodia today.

Lenin pointed out: ​“The more developed capitalism becomes, the more acute the competition and struggle for global sources of raw materials, and the more intense the struggle to seize colonies.” After the 1789 bourgeois revolution, France’s capitalism developed rapidly. To meet the demands of a small group of French bourgeoisie for expanding commodity markets and seizing sources of raw materials, Napoleon III adopted an aggressive expansionist policy after coming to power. The vast and fertile Indochina Peninsula became a target for French colonial plunder.

In 1856, the French government sent its consul in Shanghai, Montigny, to Siam, Cambodia, and Vietnam to engage in covert activities, attempting to secure a sphere of influence in the Indochina Peninsula through diplomatic means. The French government instructed Montigny to investigate the local products of the Indochina Peninsula and the goods needed by the local population, aiming to find sources of industrial raw materials and markets for French goods.

Montigny tried to coerce Cambodia into signing a treaty, but King Ang Duong of Cambodia refused. Montigny’s scheme failed, but France did not give up. From Montigny’s reports, France learned that the Indochina Peninsula was rich in rice, cotton, tobacco, dyes, and lacquer. Thus, France decided to use force to occupy it.

In the process of invading Cambodia, France employed a two-faced strategy. On one hand, it hypocritically expressed ​“friendship” towards Cambodia, promising ​“not to infringe on Cambodia’s sovereignty.” On the other hand, it prepared to send ​“officials” to the Cambodian royal palace to ​“spy” and ​“raise the French flag.” While invading southern Vietnam, France sought to prevent a united resistance from Vietnam and Cambodia. On March 24, 1861, the French government sent a letter to the new Cambodian King Norodom, falsely expressing goodwill and peaceful intentions. The French commander in Vietnam, Admiral Charner, also instructed French troops stationed near the Cambodian border to establish ​“friendly” relations with Cambodia, assuring them that France wished to maintain peace. However, this was merely a temporary tactic to stabilize Cambodia while France secured southern Vietnam. In June 1862, France forced Vietnam to sign the Treaty of Saigon, seizing three southern provinces, and then turned its attention to Cambodia.

In April 1863, the newly appointed French commander, Admiral de la Grandière, continued France’s aggressive plans by sending Lieutenant Doudart de Lagrée to Cambodia. Under the guise of studying Cambodian ancient history, Lagrée traveled throughout Cambodia, gathering intelligence. Through missionaries already present, he convinced Norodom that France was his ​“loyal friend” and could help him maintain his throne and resist foreign threats. The young King Norodom, who had inherited the throne but had not yet been crowned, was facing challenges from his brothers and naturally sought strong support. In August 1863, Grandière personally met with Norodom, proposing that France ​“protect” Cambodia and presenting a draft treaty with over a dozen clauses for Norodom to sign. Under French coercion and inducement, Norodom signed the Treaty of Protection with Grandière on August 11, 1863.

According to this treaty, Cambodia became a French ​“protectorate” (Article 1). France would station a Resident-General in Cambodia, who would act under the orders of the French commander in Saigon (Article 2). No other country could send representatives to Cambodia without the consent of the French commander in Saigon (Article 4). France gained consular jurisdiction (Article 7). The Cambodian government lost the right to independently formulate foreign trade policies (Article 10). French citizens could freely migrate and conduct business throughout Cambodia, and Catholic missionaries were guaranteed freedom of activity (Article 13). France also gained rights to exploit forests and lease land in Cambodia (Articles 17 and 18). France claimed it had a duty to ​“maintain peace and friendship, and protect Cambodia from enemy invasion or oppression by other countries.”

This so-called ​“protective” treaty was, in fact, a complete enslavement of Cambodia. Siam, which viewed Cambodia as its vassal, was unwilling to see Cambodia fall into French hands. Taking advantage of the fact that the Treaty of Protection had not yet been formally ratified, Siam pressured Norodom to sign a secret treaty in December 1863. This treaty declared that ​“Cambodia is a vassal state of Siam” (Article 1), denying the validity of the French treaty. It also stipulated that the Cambodian king would hold the status of a viceroy, requiring ​“royal seals” and that ​“Cambodians could not independently appoint a new king without first reporting to the Siamese emperor.”

In March 1864, when King Norodom went to Bangkok for his coronation as required by Siam, Lagrée preemptively led armed sailors to occupy the royal palace in Udong and raised the French flag. He also deployed troops to occupy Udong and Phnom Penh, revealing the true aggressive nature of the French and exposing their claims of being ​“loyal friends.” King Norodom was forced to return midway. On April 12, 1864, under pressure from the French colonizers, he formally signed the Treaty of Protection. Siam, intimidated by French military power, agreed to allow Norodom’s coronation to take place in Cambodia (rather than in Siam) with both French and Siamese representatives present. From then on, Cambodia became a French protectorate. The news sparked nationwide outrage, and resistance against French occupation erupted. The first uprising was led by Achar Sua in the southwest. From 1866 to 1867, a larger-scale anti-French movement, led by Po Kambo, spread from the Cambodian border to the capital, Udong, and Phnom Penh, shaking the entire country. However, these uprisings were eventually suppressed by the combined forces of French colonizers and the Cambodian feudal ruling class.

After securing Cambodia as a protectorate, France pushed further. On June 24, 1884, French troops stormed the royal palace, held a knife to the king’s neck, and forced Norodom to sign a new treaty. This treaty required the Cambodian king to accept all French-proposed ​“reforms” in administration, judiciary, finance, and commerce. As a result, Cambodia’s customs, taxation, postal services, agriculture, forestry, health, and public works departments were placed under the control of the French Resident-General. France stationed officials in provincial capitals and densely populated towns. The king, apart from receiving an annual stipend from the French authorities, could not borrow from other countries without French consent. Thus, the limited administrative powers left to the king by the 1863 treaty were completely stripped away, further deepening the Cambodian people’s subjugation. This sparked a broader and more intense anti-French movement. In addition to peasant uprisings, patriotic Cambodian officials and even Chinese immigrants organized resistance forces. The movement lasted for a decade. In 1886, France made some concessions to the king, signing an agreement with Norodom to return some administrative powers. The king ordered the resistance to cease, and some armed forces led by local officials laid down their weapons, weakening the uprising. With the cooperation of the Cambodian feudal ruling class, France finally suppressed the movement by 1893. The French colonizers admitted that suppressing this uprising was a heavy blow. According to estimates, between 1860 and 1895, France spent over 30 million gold pounds in Indochina, most of which was spent on military operations.

In October 1887, the French government established the ​“French Indochina Federation.” Cambodia became a part of this federation, completely under the jurisdiction of the French Governor-General in Saigon. In reality, Cambodia had become a French colony.

It took France about thirty years to truly establish colonial rule in Cambodia. Given the significant resistance encountered during the invasion, France adopted a clever ​“indirect rule” model, preserving Cambodia’s existing monarchy. The king continued to reside in a splendid palace, with court rituals remaining unchanged. On the surface, the king still held the highest authority, but in reality, he was a mere figurehead. The true ruler of Cambodia was the French Resident-General. No royal decree could take effect without the Resident-General’s approval. The Privy Council’s resolutions required the Resident-General’s consent before the king could approve them. Even the appointment of Cambodian ministers and important officials had to be approved by the Resident-General. Thus, the king was a puppet in the hands of the French Resident-General, who used the king to indirectly command the Cambodian people and implement colonial rule. France’s preservation of the monarchy not only did not hinder colonial rule but actually facilitated it. A colonial advisor, Bell, who visited Cambodia in 1926, candidly stated: ​“The continued existence of the monarchy is a matter of indifference. The emperor or king of such a country is merely a relic of the past, serving to comfort the masses. Under proper control, this dignified ​‘puppet’ is harmless and even beneficial to rule. On one hand, it serves as a mouthpiece for the protectorate’s orders, reducing the people’s resentment and making them more obedient. On the other hand, it deceives the people, as the ignorant masses believe that the nation still exists.”

In terms of government organization, France adopted a ​“dual-track” system, with a ​“native government” coexisting with a ​“superior European government.” The ​“native government” referred to the Privy Council, composed of five ministers under the king. Nominally, the Privy Council assisted the king in managing state affairs, with the monarch as their leader. However, the French Resident-General in Cambodia was the ex-officio chairman of the Privy Council. Thus, these high-ranking officials, while holding prestigious titles, were in fact subordinate to the Resident-General. They were responsible for the behavior of all native officials and had to absolutely obey the French administrative head. Their policies could not deviate from the French administrator’s directives.

To strengthen colonial rule, France established a four-level administrative system below the central Privy Council: provinces, districts, counties, and villages, replacing the old feudal system with ​“native civil servants.” According to the 1884 treaty, France stationed officials in provinces and major towns. The appointment of native civil servants at all levels also required the approval of the French Resident-General, and they had to obey the provincial French officials. In other words, ​“France ruled the country indirectly through native administration. These native civil servants, while nominally loyal to the monarch, were in fact completely managed and directed by their French counterparts.” To prevent ​“misconduct” by native officials, the offices of Cambodian provincial governors were often adjacent to those of the French officials. Cambodian officials’ actions were closely monitored by French officials, who visited the native administrative offices daily. Thus, nothing could escape the eyes of the European officials.

To ensure the loyalty of native officials to the colonial authorities, France also sought to cultivate new elites loyal to France, even influencing the succession to the throne. When King Norodom died in 1904, the crown prince, Yukanthor, should have succeeded him. However, because Yukanthor opposed the Resident-General’s oppression of the king, France disregarded Cambodian succession traditions and deprived Yukanthor of his right to the throne, instead installing Norodom’s brother, Sisowath, who had cooperated with France in suppressing popular resistance. France also replaced old noble officials with anti-French sentiments, promoting new officials loyal to France. To win over these new elites, France satisfied their various desires, making them grateful and willing to serve the colonial authorities. The colonial authorities exploited Cambodian officials’ obsession with ranks and titles, following Cambodian traditions to confer various titles and honors. Officials deemed to have ​“served faithfully and made special contributions” were awarded medals. These costless titles and honors achieved the desired effect, making Cambodian officials complacent and more loyal to France. The colonial authorities also spared no expense in providing comfortable living conditions for Cambodian officials, such as building luxurious residences. This policy of high titles and generous salaries cultivated a pro-French elite. As Bell noted, ​“Many recipients of honors formed a special class, proud of their titles and very loyal to the government (i.e., the colonial authorities).” Bell lamented that in other protectorates, ​“such useful influences were not properly utilized or were completely ignored.”

France tightly controlled the military and police forces in Cambodia. In addition to stationing French troops, France took over and controlled Cambodia’s existing armed forces, turning them into tools for maintaining colonial rule and suppressing the Cambodian people. In the Cambodian military and police, all officers were French, with Cambodians only able to serve as deputies.

France not only tightly controlled Cambodia politically and militarily but also dragged the ancient country’s economy into the vortex of capitalist economics. As Lenin pointed out: ​“To make a country a colonial dependency, it must be subordinated not only in terms of state law but also in finance and economics.”

First, France destroyed Cambodia’s feudal land ownership system, establishing a new land system compatible with colonial rule, transforming state-owned land into private ownership. Before the French invasion, all land in Cambodia belonged to the king, following the principle that ​“all land under heaven belongs to the king.” Ancient Cambodian law stipulated that the king was the ​“chief owner of the land,” and ​“the king’s property included all the people, water, land, forests, and mountains of the kingdom.” Treasures buried underground also belonged to the king, and anyone who discovered gold or silver had to hand it over to the king, or else be charged with theft. People cultivated land granted by the king, with only the right to use it, not to sell or transfer it. If a cultivator abandoned the land, others could take it over, following the principle of ​“first come, first served.” This land system supported a self-sufficient natural economy. To turn Cambodia into a source of raw materials and a market for French capitalist industry, France had to change this land system. In the June 1884 treaty, France specifically stipulated that ​“the land of the kingdom, which until now has been the exclusive property of the king, will no longer be inalienable.” Allowing land transfer meant permitting land sales, thus stripping the king of his exclusive rights to the nation’s land. Lenin said: ​“In the era of serfdom, whoever owned the land had power and authority.” Destroying the state-owned land system fundamentally shook and destroyed the economic foundation of the Cambodian feudal ruling class. To promote the transformation of the land system, on October 28, 1884, the French Governor-General of Indochina issued a decree stating: ​“The land of Cambodia, which until today has been the exclusive property of the king, will henceforth belong to the state.” ​“State ownership” meant ownership by the French colonial authorities. Using this decree, the colonial authorities implemented a ​“concession system,” auctioning off almost all wasteland at the lowest prices. Only French bourgeoisie and officials loyal to the colonial authorities could obtain these concessions. The colonial authorities even granted land concessions for free to greedy colonizers, allowing them to occupy vast amounts of land. By 1938, French plantation owners had occupied 120,000 hectares, while Cambodian officials loyal to France had obtained about 40,000 hectares.

French colonizers used this land to cultivate rice, pepper, rubber, and other crops. Through the brutal exploitation of plantation workers, they amassed fabulous profits and provided essential industrial raw materials for French capitalist industry. For example, Cambodia’s rubber production ranked second in the Indochina Federation, accounting for about 30% of the federation’s total output. Cambodia’s rubber industry was dominated by two major French rubber conglomerates: the Michelin Group and the Banque de l’Indochine Rubber Group, with the Michelin Group holding a more significant position. The largest rubber company in Cambodia, the ​“Cambodian Company,” was one of the pillars of the Michelin Group. Another pillar of the Michelin Group, the ​“Red Earth Plantation Company,” also operated rubber plantations in Cambodia. This company, established in 1910 with a capital of 2.3 million francs, had grown to 110 million francs by 1935, a 49-fold increase in 25 years, averaging nearly a twofold increase annually.

The high profits of French rubber companies were achieved through the brutal exploitation of rubber workers. Workers in French plantations were either deceived or forcibly recruited as contract laborers. Once they entered the plantations, they were deprived of their freedom and subjected to heavy labor. According to Wilfred Burchett, these plantations were like living hells. For example, in the Chup Rubber Plantation, 5,000 workers were housed in 15 ​“villages,” each surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by armed sentries. The plantation owners established their own prisons and laws, holding the power of life and death over the workers. Workers could not leave the plantation without permission. Anyone attempting to escape faced punishment, imprisonment, or even death, turning the plantations into a state within a state. Workers had to wake up at dawn to tap rubber and collect latex, working until sunset. If they failed to meet their daily quota, their wages were docked. Many workers had to borrow money from the plantation owners, accumulating debts that forced them to remain on the plantations even after their contracts ended, enduring continued exploitation. Due to the damp and dark working and living conditions, workers often suffered from epidemics. Plantation owners inhumanely buried sick workers who could no longer work alive. Dead workers were buried under rubber trees as fertilizer. Workers bitterly lamented: ​“Each rubber tree stands on the corpse of a worker.” The oppression and exploitation of workers by the colonizers were no different from ancient slavery.

The French colonial authorities also used the ​“concession system” to register land traditionally occupied by Cambodian farmers, extorting money and increasing the exploitation of farmers. As early as 1884, the colonial authorities implemented a land policy requiring farmers to register their land to obtain ownership rights. Under the guise of purchasing land certificates, farmers had to pay a fee to the colonial authorities. Due to resistance from Cambodian farmers, this policy was delayed. After suppressing the 1884 – 1893 peasant uprisings, the colonial authorities reiterated in a December 1897 decree that ​“the government reserves the right to sell or grant land in the kingdom,” claiming that ​“the purpose is to make the recipients owners and ensure the fixation of ownership.” In April 1906, the colonial authorities, through the newly enthroned King Sisowath, announced: ​“We are prepared to grant ownership of wasteland and cultivated land to those who request concessions and current occupiers.” Despite this, the new land policy was not fully implemented until 1928. By January 1937, the colonial authorities had extorted 73,257 piastres from farmers through land certificate sales. More importantly, the land registration allowed the colonial authorities to control the nation’s land ownership, enabling them to implement a new land tax (based on land area) to replace the old ​“tithe” system (a tax of one-tenth of the harvest) and increase the economic exploitation of farmers. Starting from January 1, 1940, the colonial authorities fully implemented the new land tax in Cambodia, leading to a continuous increase in land tax revenue: from 2.884 million piastres in 1939 to 3.161 million in 1940, and 3.947 million in 1942.

In addition to land taxes, the colonial authorities imposed various other taxes on the Cambodian people, such as head taxes, corvée taxes, animal taxes, crop taxes, and more. Taxes were levied on everything from cows to trees, houses, boats, and fishing nets. Other taxes included business taxes, income taxes, registration taxes, and various monopoly and licensing fees. As Bell admitted: ​“Almost every action requires a fee. To transfer livestock or other valuables, one must first obtain a permit and pay a fee. Even docking boats at public piers requires a fee.” These numerous taxes placed a heavy burden on the Cambodian people, and the tax burden continued to increase. For example, the head tax, levied on all individuals aged 18 to 55, increased from 2.17 million piastres in 1931 to 4.75 million in 1939, more than doubling.

The French colonizers also controlled Cambodia’s economic lifeline through trade monopolies, currency issuance, bank loans, and various investments, extracting huge profits. France monopolized trade in Indochina (including Cambodia). Industrial raw materials and food produced in Indochina were shipped to France, while French industrial goods and consumer products were dumped in Indochina. For example, in 1938, 97% of Indochina’s rubber, 26% of its rice, 89% of its corn, and 73% of its cement were exported to France. Meanwhile, 89% of Indochina’s cotton cloth, 96% of its tires, 94% of its clothing, and 89% of its alcoholic beverages were imported from France. The exported goods from Indochina were all raw materials and food, while the imported goods from France were industrial products and consumer goods. Moreover, the price disparity between imports and exports was significant: the average price of goods exported from Indochina to France was 710 francs per ton, while the average price of goods imported from France was 4,000 francs per ton, a fivefold difference. France reaped huge profits from this trade.

The Banque de l’Indochine, established in 1875, represented the French national bank in Indochina, enjoying the right to issue and manage currency. The bank’s total profits increased from 393,000 gold francs in 1885 to 2.666 million gold francs in 1905, a 6.5‑fold increase in twenty years.

The colonial authorities implemented monopoly policies on alcohol, salt, and opium, earning substantial revenues from these monopolies. For example, in 1900, the total budget expenditure of the Indochina colonial authorities was 20.796 million piastres, while the revenue from alcohol, salt, and opium monopolies alone was 10.05 million piastres. French capitalists profited even more from these monopolies. In 1902, the authorities granted the alcohol monopoly to the Fontaine Company. This company, with a capital of only 2.5 million gold francs, earned an annual profit of 2.3 million gold francs.

These examples illustrate the enormous profits France extracted from Indochina. As Bell noted after his investigation in Indochina: ​“Indochina has now become a continuously expanding source of wealth for France, producing many raw materials essential for her industry, while she exports many industrial products to the region.”

In terms of culture, the French colonial authorities suppressed the development of Cambodian culture, seeking to keep the Cambodian people in a state of ignorance to maintain permanent rule. Under French colonial rule, Cambodia’s once rich and vibrant culture was stifled. During the colonial period, Cambodia had no universities, and even high schools were few and far between. The colonial authorities also discouraged Cambodian youth from studying in France. Before World War II, only one Cambodian had obtained a medical degree in France, and this was only because he had served in the French Expeditionary Corps during World War I and was allowed to stay in France as a reward. The only Cambodian university-trained engineer before the war was the son of this doctor. It was only in the later stages of colonial rule, under pressure, that the French colonial authorities reluctantly provided some university education at the University of Indochina in Hanoi. However, the total number of Cambodian graduates was less than thirty. A few young people studied in Paris, but their numbers were extremely small. The colonial authorities were reluctant to allow Cambodian youth to study in France, fearing that they would be ​“influenced by French communist and radical ideas” and ​“arouse national consciousness among the people” upon their return. France also preferred to hire European teachers for high schools, paying them high salaries, rather than employing local teachers, fearing that ​“local teachers would inevitably pose a great danger.” The French colonizers smugly believed: ​“The relative peace and quiet of Cambodian peasants is mainly due to the lack of disruptive forces that could be created by local teachers.” Only those youths deemed ​“honest” and ​“loyal to France” by the colonial authorities were allowed to attend high schools. To cultivate pro-French sentiments and loyalty to France, the colonial authorities mandated that all subjects be taught in French, using French textbooks. The education system was entirely French-oriented. Primary education was left to Buddhist monasteries, with only a few towns having formal elementary schools. Only about 10% of school-age children could attend these schools.

During the colonial period, the French authorities imposed a reign of terror, completely depriving the Cambodian people of their political rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association. The ​“Detective Building” in Phnom Penh was a secret police agency established by the colonial rulers to suppress the Cambodian people. Anyone with even a hint of national or democratic aspirations was persecuted by the ​“Detective Building.” Even Cambodian officials serving the colonial authorities were not spared if they showed any patriotic sentiments. If a Cambodian official was found to have close ties with the local people, they were immediately transferred or dismissed. To create an illusion of ​“democracy,” in 1913, the colonial authorities had the king issue a decree establishing ​“Native Councils” at the national and provincial levels. Council members were partly appointed by the government and partly elected. However, only certain high-ranking Cambodian officials, retired officials, and local chiefs were eligible to be elected. Ordinary people had no right to vote or be elected. The councils were purely advisory, meeting only once a year, with the French Resident-General and provincial officials serving as ex-officio chairmen. Council members could only express their wishes on issues like new taxes, public works, and economic development, and were strictly prohibited from discussing political matters. Even these limited rights could only be exercised during council meetings. As Bell admitted: ​“The political power exercised by these councils is extremely limited.” Such councils were a mockery of even bourgeois democracy.

#### III

French colonial rule in Cambodia brought immense suffering to the Cambodian people. During World War II, the French colonial rulers, who had previously oppressed the Cambodian people, succumbed to Japanese pressure and handed Cambodia over to Japan without resistance. Through the so-called ​“Franco-Japanese Protocol on the Joint Defense of French Indochina” signed in 1941, Japan occupied Cambodia. On March 9, 1945, Japan completely disarmed the French colonial forces, dismantled the French colonial institutions, and directly imposed fascist rule on the Cambodian people. On August 15, 1945, Japan announced its unconditional surrender. On October 5, 1945, French troops, with British assistance, parachuted into Cambodia and reoccupied the country.

France’s return aimed to maintain its colonial rule. However, the victory of the anti-fascist World War II ​“opened up broader possibilities and more solid paths for the liberation of the working class and oppressed nations worldwide.” The desire for national independence, liberation, and democracy became an irresistible historical trend. The Cambodian people, awakened during World War II, were ​“determined to no longer be enslaved, to resist foreign aggression, and to achieve national independence and freedom.”

After reoccupying Cambodia, France, to conceal the nature of its colonial rule, signed a ​“Provisional Agreement” with the Cambodian Kingdom in January 1946, announcing the abolition of the protectorate system and granting Cambodia ​“autonomy” within the French Union. On the surface, the Cambodian government was given the right to manage internal affairs, but the agreement stipulated that France would appoint a ​“High Commissioner” to replace the former ​“Resident-General.” Cambodian laws and regulations still required the High Commissioner’s approval to be enacted. France stationed ​“advisors” in all Cambodian government ministries and retained the right to station troops in Cambodia. Cambodia could not establish independent diplomatic relations with foreign countries. In essence, this was a continuation of colonial rule under a different name, with the ​“protectorate” rebranded as an ​“autonomous state.”

The Cambodian people saw through this ruse and realized they were once again under French colonial oppression. In June 1946, the Khmer National Liberation Committee was established in Battambang, forming the first national liberation armed force. In August 1946, this force annihilated the retreating French garrison, liberating Battambang. Although the resistance suffered setbacks due to fierce French counterattacks, the spark of armed struggle spread across the country. By the end of 1948, the Khmer resistance movement had established four guerrilla bases in the southwest, northwest, southeast, and northeast. In April 1950, Cambodian patriotic armed forces held a congress, announcing the formation of the National People’s Liberation Committee (later renamed the Khmer Central People’s Liberation Committee) and the Khmer National United Front (known as the Khmer Issarak), electing Son Ngoc Minh as chairman. The congress also formulated a struggle program, outlining clear tasks for national liberation. On April 19, the Central People’s Liberation Committee issued a ​“Declaration of Independence,” exposing the colonialists’ aggression and plunder under the guise of ​“civilizing missions.” The declaration called on all patriotic Cambodians, ​“regardless of gender, wealth, age, religion, or political belief, to unite and fight for Cambodia’s independence and freedom against the French colonizers.” Under the unified leadership of the Khmer Central People’s Liberation Committee, the national liberation movement rapidly developed. By the end of 1950, ten of Cambodia’s fourteen provinces had established anti-French guerrilla bases. By 1953, one-third of the country’s territory and one-quarter of its population had been liberated.

Driven by the victories of the people’s armed struggle, King Norodom Sihanouk made a patriotic choice. He realized that ​“placing Cambodia within the French Union and accepting the 1949 treaty violated national sovereignty.” ​“At this decisive moment in our nation’s history and our relations with France, I must choose between France and my compatriots. I choose my compatriots.” Thus, he actively engaged in diplomatic struggles with France for national independence and liberation.

To maintain its colonial rule in Indochina, France continuously increased its military presence but suffered repeated defeats, leading to frequent changes in command. In March 1953, France replaced General de Lattre de Tassigny with General Navarre as the new commander, and with U.S. involvement, formulated the ​“Navarre Plan,” aiming to reverse the military situation in Indochina. According to this plan, France sought to concentrate forces to ​“clear” the anti-French forces in northern Vietnam and Laos from Dien Bien Phu, trapping the Vietnamese forces in the Red River Delta for annihilation. To gather sufficient troops, Navarre transferred five out of eight French battalions stationed in Cambodia for this operation. However, the success of this plan depended on maintaining supply lines and bases in Cambodia, which were constantly attacked, disrupted, and blockaded by Cambodian resistance forces, causing Navarre significant headaches. Sihanouk ​“took advantage of the increasing pressure from the Viet Minh in Vietnam and Laos and the growing strength of the Cambodian resistance forces” to force France to make concessions to his ​“Royal Crusade for Independence,” either by sacrificing the Navarre Plan or strengthening forces in Cambodia. France chose the former, making ​“concessions” to Sihanouk. France believed that in Indochina, there were two revolutions: a communist revolution and an anti-communist revolution, both of which were anti-colonial. France’s strategy was to focus on opposing communism, uniting all anti-communist forces. After defeating the communist forces, France would then turn its attention to the bourgeois nationalist forces, forcing them to surrender. Accordingly, in July 1953, the French government announced its readiness to grant Cambodia ​“full independence.” France agreed to transfer judicial and police powers to the Cambodian government and integrate Cambodian soldiers from the French Expeditionary Corps into the Cambodian Royal Army, but retained its military bases and ​“right of military transit” in Cambodia. On November 9, 1953, a ceremony was held in Phnom Penh to mark the withdrawal of French troops from the capital and the cessation of French colonial institutions. The Cambodian government regarded this as a recognition of national sovereignty and declared this day as Cambodia’s ​“Independence Day.”

In reality, France had no intention of relinquishing control over Cambodia. The concessions were a tactical move forced by the circumstances to implement the Navarre Plan. France’s insistence on retaining military bases and the ​“right of military transit” in Cambodia clearly indicated its true intentions. Once the Navarre Plan succeeded and the communist forces were defeated, France would inevitably turn its attention to the bourgeois nationalist forces, forcing them to surrender. However, France’s plans were shattered by the relentless tide of history. The Navarre Plan failed. From May 1953 to the end of 1953, French forces suffered 44,000 casualties across the Indochina theater. Navarre not only failed to improve the military situation but worsened it. Navarre admitted: ​“We cannot hold all places.” After the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the French army was utterly defeated, and the Navarre Plan collapsed completely. On July 21, 1954, France signed the Geneva Accords, agreeing to cease hostilities in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos and issuing a final declaration. According to the accords and declaration, France completely withdrew its troops from Cambodia and pledged to respect Cambodia’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Cambodia’s independence and sovereignty were recognized by all parties at the Geneva Conference. France’s ninety-year colonial rule over Cambodia finally collapsed, and Cambodia achieved true independence.

After World War II, France, in its attempt to maintain colonial rule in Indochina, launched a brutal ​“pacification” war. However, after seven years of war, France lost over 320,000 soldiers and spent three trillion francs, with six changes in command, only to end in failure. This was determined by the unjust nature of France’s war and the inevitable collapse of colonialism. Today, Vietnam’s regional hegemonists, following in France’s footsteps by invading Cambodia, will only meet the same fate: military losses, economic exhaustion, and ultimate defeat.