April 17, 1975: What could the French Embassy in Cambodia do, and what did international law provide for?

On April 17, 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized Phnom Penh, marking the beginning of a horrific chapter in Cambodia's history. The French Embassy in Phnom Penh became a refuge for refugees, sheltering around 1,500 people, including French nationals, Cambodians, and other foreigners seeking protection from the advancing Khmer Rouge forces. However, the embassy's ability to save these refugees was severely limited by the political and military realities of the time.

Illustration DC-Cam

Despite the presence of refugees within its compound, the French embassy was unable to grant asylum to many Cambodians. The Khmer Rouge demanded the expulsion of all Cambodians sheltered there, threatening to use force if the embassy did not comply. Under this pressure, the embassy handed over the Cambodian refugees to the Khmer Rouge, including prominent former government officials. Many of those expelled were never seen again, victims of the genocide that followed. The French authorities also refused political asylum to certain dignitaries such as Ung Boun Hor and Prince Sirik Matak, who surrendered voluntarily to avoid armed conflict inside the embassy.

From the perspective of international law at the time, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol established the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

This principle is intended to protect refugees from forced return to dangerous situations. However, Cambodia in 1975 was a complex case: the Khmer Rouge was a victorious revolutionary regime exercising control over its territory, and the French embassy was located on Cambodian soil but under diplomatic status.

The embassy's ability to offer protection was limited by diplomatic norms and the threat of violence. Although international law prohibits refoulement, enforcement mechanisms were weak, and embassies could not unilaterally guarantee asylum or protection from the demands of a hostile regime. The voluntary surrender of Cambodian officials to avoid bloodshed inside the embassy was considered by a French judge, decades later, to be a conscious decision rather than a forced expulsion by the French authorities.

While the capture of Phnom Penh has given rise to numerous commemorations that have been fairly well received by survivors and their descendants, a few voices have been raised against the embassy's position at the time, accusing it of having handed over the Khmers present that day a little too quickly. Among them was Jean Kroussar, who was present at the embassy and regularly criticized the French position at the time, asserting with strong conviction that other solutions were possible to save the lives of the refugees without confrontation.

Hypotheses

What would have happened if the situation had escalated that day? Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, embassies are considered sovereign territory of the sending state. An attack constitutes an infringement of this sovereignty and a violation of international law, obliging the host country to protect diplomatic premises and personnel. People sometimes seek refuge in a foreign embassy to escape arrest or persecution by the authorities of the host country, as was the case on that dark day of April 17, 1975.

However, although embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the country they represent, granting asylum within an embassy is not automatically recognized as refugee status under international law. This type of refuge is often temporary and politically sensitive. Given the Khmer Rouge's position toward the West and their blatant disregard for the law as a whole, negotiations could only take place in an extremely tense context, well outside the frameworks provided by diplomacy and international law.

As such, the French military presence in 1975 was limited to a diplomatic and humanitarian protection mission in a context of civil war and the fall of the pro-Western regime, without direct military intervention in the conflict. France therefore had no combat troops in Cambodia at that time, unlike the US forces that supported the Lon Nol government until the fall of Phnom Penh. On that day, France had no means at the local level to risk an armed confrontation between the two countries without escalation, with the consequences that one can imagine after the traumas of the Indochina and Vietnam wars.

It should also be noted that France in 1975, despite a remarkable artistic boom, was also very busy dealing with the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis, which led to economic recession, inflation, rising unemployment, and severe social tensions.

Could France have exerted more pressure and negotiated more to rescue refugees? Could it have anticipated this tragedy? Perhaps. Officially, France stated that there was no room for diplomacy. Less officially, some claim that intelligence services regularly informed the French government and that a larger evacuation was risky but possible. Many French dignitaries of the time disappeared, probably taking with them some secrets about this tragic decision.

In fact, on April 17, 1975, the French embassy in Phnom Penh was overwhelmed by an influx of refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge. Despite international legal principles aimed at protecting refugees, the embassy was unable to fully protect asylum seekers due to the demands of the Khmer Rouge and the limits of diplomatic protection. The tragic fate of many Cambodians expelled from the embassy highlights the gap between legal ideals and harsh political and military realities during one of the darkest moments in Cambodia's history.

In the broader international context, the United States responded to the Indochina refugee crisis by passing the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act in May 1975, shortly after these events. This law authorized the admission and resettlement of tens of thousands of refugees from Southeast Asia, including Cambodians, recognizing the urgent need for international protection and assistance. It reflected a growing global recognition of refugee rights, even though these frameworks were still in their early stages of development and implementation.