To the extent that Cambodia’s most prominent opposition party, the Sam Rainsy Party, persistently argued for an internationally run tribunal, Hun Sen’s government has held steadfast to the idea of a Cambodian-run tribunal.

Other political dynamics have affected the tribunal process. The United States government, while seeking to keep a low profile in the negotiations, was working hard behind the scenes to help the U.N. and the Cambodians find common ground. The "super majority" formula that will allow Cambodian judges to be in the majority, while still preserving the international judges’ ability to influence judgments, was proposed by Kent Weidemann, the U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia. Similarly, in April 2000, U.S. Senator John Kerry mediated a stalemate in discussions over how the tribunal will handle indictments. As a result of Senator Kerry’s intervention, both sides accepted the idea of a panel of judges-- three Cambodian and two foreign—who would rule on disputes regarding indictments. Four judges would need to be in agreement to block a case from proceeding.

A particular point of contention concerns past U.S. military and political involvements in Cambodia. Various individuals, including Benson Samay, the lawyer of senior Khmer Rouge commander Mok, American lawyer Ramsey Clarke, and even Hun Sen, have stated that America’s actions in Cambodia both before and after the genocide (including the secret bombing of Cambodia in 1970, and the U.S.’s support for the Khmer Rouge after they were ousted in 1979) should fall within the scope of the tribunal. Notwithstanding, the draft law states that the tribunal will only seek to prosecute "senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those who were most responsible for the crimes … committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979."

The Cambodian government clearly has no intention of focussing on the alleged culpability of international actors in the genocide. The most recent delay in processing the tribunal law may be due in part to Cambodia’s cautious approach to the new Bush administration, which may not be as supportive of a genocide tribunal as its predecessor.

The Chinese government, like that of the United States, has reason to worry about the information that might be revealed in a full hearing about the Cambodian genocide. China was the largest financial supporter of the Khmer Rouge, both while they were in power and after they regrouped on the Thai border in 1979. China has steadfastly positioned itself against the idea of a genocide tribunal in Cambodia, and threatened to thwart its establishment by using its veto power in the U.N. Security Council. In addition, the Chinese political and economic presence in Cambodia has been steadily increasing, causing many to fear that the tribunal plans might be sacrificed in the interest of good relations with China.

A trial of former Khmer Rouge leaders in Cambodia is much more than a complex foreign policy issue. A credible genocide tribunal represents an opportunity not only to address past injustices, but also to strengthen the role of the judiciary in peacetime Cambodia. Convening a trial that will establish the truth about what occurred between 1975 and 1979, and hold accountable those who were responsible, will affect all Cambodians. Survivors of the genocide will know for the first time that their suffering has been acknowledged and taken seriously by the world. Younger Cambodians will gain a better understanding of their country’s turbulent history. And by subjecting the events of the past to international rule of law, Cambodia’s leaders will be publicly challenged to end the current culture of impunity.