As a longstanding Australia-based Cambodia-watcher who is not afraid to acknowledge
his identity, I did not know whether to be amused or appalled at the imperious tone
of the comments by the anonymous "longstanding Washington-based Cambodia-watcher"
(apparently male) whose e-mail was so liberally quoted at the end of your article
"Squabbling donors see demobilisation at standstill."(October 15-28, page
While we are being so coy about who we are, may I be allowed to speculate that this
unknown Cambodia-watcher might possibly be an aide to a well-known Washington congressman
who has a long track record of telling Cambodians how to run their internal affairs?
Whoever this mysterious person is, he might like to try to substantiate his arrogant
pronouncements on what the Cambodian Government must do in order to please Washington
lawmakers. For example, he might attempt a reasoned response to the critique I presented
in my lecture to the CICP on 22 July, to the effect that one of Cambodia's biggest
problems remains the determination of some foreigners to interfere in Cambodian affairs
and to pontificate on matters that are properly Cambodia's business as a sovereign
state. Or is that too big a challenge? (It's easier to just go on pontificating).
Tony Kevin, Canberra, Australia