The start last month of the French trial of Hing Bun Heang and Huy Piseth, bodyguards of former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, for their alleged role in a 1997 grenade attack in Phnom Penh was not enough to draw a large turnout from the Cambodian diaspora in the country.
Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy was the target of the grenade attack, which killed at least 16 people and left more than 100 wounded. A French investigation is possible because Sam Rainsy has French as well as Cambodian citizenship. The proceedings ended after three days, with the court in Paris deciding it needed further information to be gathered over the coming year before it can continue.
A few Cambodian opposition supporters attended the proceedings, but much of the time, the courtroom was largely empty. The U.N.’s International Organization for Migration has estimated that the Cambodian diaspora in France stands at about 72,000. Not all of them, of course, support Sam Rainsy, but there is a core of Cambodians in France who do, and Sam Rainsy has over the years regularly been able to organize well-attended political meetings.
Neither of the defendants was present, nor were there any defense lawyers. Officially, the Cambodian government was not present at the trial. Anyone sent by the government who entered the courtroom would have immediately been conspicuous. But it would have been easy for any member of the public to wait in the crowded corridors of the Palais de Justice to check on who was going in and out of the trial.
That possibility was clear to supporters of the Cambodian opposition who decided not to take a chance on attending. Most Cambodians in the French and global diaspora retain at least some connection with their country of origin and have families back home. Cambodians both in France and in continental Europe, who asked not to be named, told me that they and others stayed away because they were afraid of repercussions from the Cambodian government.
The calculation is a rational one, as Hun Sen hasn’t even tried to conceal the reality of transnational repression. When he visited Brussels in 2022, Hun Sen ordered his henchmen to take photos of protestors and put them on display at Phnom Penh International Airport. The families of the protestors could expect visits from the authorities, Hun Sen said.
The strategy used by the Cambodian government is global, and diaspora members in the U.S. and Australia have regularly been threatened. Vanna Hay is a young critic of the Hun regime living in Japan. His political activism led to his Cambodian-based brother, Vannith Hay, being arrested on August 16, 2024. Vanna Hay made a video “confession” on Facebook on October 18, which secured his brother’s release.
One Cambodian in France who has persisted in speaking out against the Hun regime is Sorn Dara, who is based in Lyon. Sorn Dara fled Cambodia in 2017 in the wake of the arrest of Kem Sokha, then leader of the Cambodia National Rescue Party. From Lyon, Sorn Dara has kept up a stream of criticism of the Hun regime via his Facebook page, which has over 200,000 followers.
This is enough to put Sorn Dara firmly on Hun Sen’s radar. While still prime minister, Hun Sen in May 2023 threatened to fire Sorn Dara’s relatives from government employment. “You want to try me if your parents don’t teach you lessons,” Hun Sen said at a graduation ceremony in Phnom Penh. “I will fire your parents from their jobs.”
“You are so rude. I will invite your father and your sister-in-law to learn some lessons and don’t complain that I am taking your relatives as hostages,” Hun Sen added.
That, of course, was exactly what happened. Sorn Dara’s father, Sok Sunnareth, is an army colonel and the deputy chief of staff of the Kampong Speu Provincial Operations Area. He was summoned to a special meeting at military offices in Kampong Speu province on November 13, 2024.
When he arrived by car outside the office, the car was taken over by a member of the military and driven into the compound with Sok Sunnareth still inside. The compound was surrounded by military police, and the street had been cleared in advance to prevent the possibility of photographs being taken.
When Sok Sunnareth entered the meeting, he was told that he was being arrested for drug trafficking. At the same moment, drugs were being planted inside his car. Sok Sunnareth is being held at Kampong Speu provincial prison on a fabricated charge of drug trafficking.
He has difficulty walking and had a knee operation in Thailand shortly before his arrest. His instructions from the doctor in Thailand include regular further consultations, which have not taken place because of his imprisonment.
Transnational repression is “the new intimidation that the Cambodian authorities use,” Sorn Dara told me. “It’s happening all around the world. People don’t want to get involved in politics.”
The issue of transnational repression in France, of course, extends beyond the Cambodian diaspora. China is a major perpetrator, and is reported to operate unofficial “police stations” to monitor the diaspora in Paris. In March, Uyghur activists in France re-filed a complaint to the courts alleging that China has been carrying out transnational repression.
The issue, however, barely registers on the French political agenda. A well-known global organization that campaigns on transnational repression told me that it could not understand the French government’s consistent lack of interest. Domestic politics, perhaps, is part of the reason. Mainstream French politicians are more concerned with trying to stem the rise of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, previously known as the National Front. In that context, free speech for repressed diasporas doesn’t get a look in.
The result is that in France and other Western countries, most ordinary citizens don’t even know what transnational repression means. Politicians don’t understand the views of diasporas, which are too scared to express them, and the basic workings of democracy are compromised. Western countries such as France would be better able to defend their democratic systems if they were able to show that they can safeguard diasporic rights to free speech.
