UN rights men Hun Sen's long-time whipping boys
April 7 - 20, 2006
By Cat Barton
Phnom Penh Post
"If indeed it is true that donor agencies are not very mindful of human rights or democracy, but just wish to build a cosy relationship with the government, then it seems to me that they are not only failing the people of Cambodia but their own domestic taxpayers as well, who approve these grants in the expectation that the poor people of these countries will be the beneficiaries."
—Yash Ghai
—Yash Ghai
Rude, ill informed, unwelcome in Cambodia – some of the epithets Prime Minister Hun Sen has used in recent speeches to describe the United Nations new Special Representative for Human Rights, Professor Yash Ghai. But Hun Sen's highly personal attacks on Ghai and UNCHR staff in Cambodia have been met with a carefully considered silence.
"I have now decided that no useful purpose will be served by further comments from me," Ghai told the Post in an email on the April 4.
The relationship between the Cambodian government and the UN Special Representative and the UN Office for Human Rights has always been antagonistic. Since 1993 and the end of UNTAC, there have been four special representatives — an Australian, a Swede, an Austrian and a Kenyan. Hun Sen has attacked each of them in turn said Brad Adams, Human Rights Watch Asia Director.
"Each arrived with impeccable credentials and reputations," he said. "Each was clearly independent of any government. And each looked at Cambodia with his own eyes and reported what he saw, which when it comes to human rights is not very pretty.
"In each case instead of working with him to address the problems, Hun Sen has lashed out in very personal and vitriolic terms. Hun Sen and his team have suggested that each was biased. This is nonsense. What interest would any of those men have in reporting inaccurately on the situation in Cambodia?"
Hun Sen's attack on Ghai is part of a broader pattern of antagonism, Adams said.
"Hun Sen has always opposed the presence of the UN human rights office," he said.
In 1995 he and Prince Norodom Ranariddh formally asked for the office to be closed, but donors and the UN said no. Maintaining a UN human rights office and Special Representative in Cambodia is essential, Adams said, for three key reasons, which underscored the UN's refusal to withdraw the office in 1995 and are still valid today.
"First, the underlying human rights situation remains quite poor," Adams said.
"Second, there is little doubt that once the UN is out, Hun Sen would start targeting civil society in much tougher ways than even last year, shutting down critical NGOs and imprisoning activists. He and others in the government still do not believe in pluralism, which is what civil society represents.
"Finally, the smart diplomats — and in 1995 this included France, Japan, Australia and the United States — realized they were doing Hun Sen a favor by keeping the UN human rights presence. Hun Sen is prone to excesses, as with the 1997 coup. He needs institutions to restrain him. There are few, if any, Cambodian institutions that can do this. But the UN human rights office, backed by the international community, can play this role in a crisis."
The verbal attacks on Ghai came hot on the heels of the successful conclusion of the 2006 Consultative Group (CG) meeting at which donors pledged $601 million to the Cambodian Government. The timing was not coincidental, Adams said.
"I don't think there is any chance that Hun Sen would have responded the same way before the CC, meeting," he said.
"He was in real trouble with donors and a lot of money was at stake. His actions over the previous year — arresting so many activists and forcing Sam Rainsy into exile — violated every promise he had made to donors about pluralism, support for civil society, and the rule of law.
"And on the commitments the government had made on reform, none in the area of human rights, corruption, good governance, or the rule of law had been met. So he took a tactical step back. But thus far there hasn't been any real change."
Despite the lack of concrete developments, the tactical step back served to reassure donors that all was well, Adams said.
"Once again, as they seem to do every year, the donors accepted a charade. Either consciously or unconsciously, they made Hun Sen's public relations exercise a success."
Ghai himself lambasted what he perceived as donor complicity in Cambodia's worsening human rights record in the comments concluding his mission. He argued that if donor agencies condone rights violations in the name of forging strong links with the Cambodian government, they betray their own citizens as well as Cambodians.
"If indeed it is true that donor agencies are not very mindful of human rights or democracy but just wish to build a cosy relationship with the government, then it seems to me that they are not only failing the people of Cambodia but their own domestic taxpayers as well, who approve these grants in the expectation that the poor people of these countries will be the beneficiaries," Ghai said on March 28.
His criticisms of the donor community found strong support from the Asian Human Rights Centre (AHRC) and other members of the donor community who have long been calling for stronger conditions to be imposed on aid.
"The AHRC has referred to the connivance of the donor community [as a major factor] in preventing genuine democracy and human rights from taking root in Cambodia through its unwillingness to impose aid conditionality," a press release issued on March 30 stated.
Adams, too, holds that the donor community cannot escape blame for the deterioration of human rights in Cambodia.
"Hun Sen has been running circles around the diplomatic and donor community for many years, and he just did it again," he said.
"If this were a sport you'd have to admire his skill. But this is about people's rights and the quality of their lives — $600 million a year is still a lot of money for Cambodia and largely keeps the government afloat. It's time to use the leverage that accompanies it wisely."
"I have now decided that no useful purpose will be served by further comments from me," Ghai told the Post in an email on the April 4.
The relationship between the Cambodian government and the UN Special Representative and the UN Office for Human Rights has always been antagonistic. Since 1993 and the end of UNTAC, there have been four special representatives — an Australian, a Swede, an Austrian and a Kenyan. Hun Sen has attacked each of them in turn said Brad Adams, Human Rights Watch Asia Director.
"Each arrived with impeccable credentials and reputations," he said. "Each was clearly independent of any government. And each looked at Cambodia with his own eyes and reported what he saw, which when it comes to human rights is not very pretty.
"In each case instead of working with him to address the problems, Hun Sen has lashed out in very personal and vitriolic terms. Hun Sen and his team have suggested that each was biased. This is nonsense. What interest would any of those men have in reporting inaccurately on the situation in Cambodia?"
Hun Sen's attack on Ghai is part of a broader pattern of antagonism, Adams said.
"Hun Sen has always opposed the presence of the UN human rights office," he said.
In 1995 he and Prince Norodom Ranariddh formally asked for the office to be closed, but donors and the UN said no. Maintaining a UN human rights office and Special Representative in Cambodia is essential, Adams said, for three key reasons, which underscored the UN's refusal to withdraw the office in 1995 and are still valid today.
"First, the underlying human rights situation remains quite poor," Adams said.
"Second, there is little doubt that once the UN is out, Hun Sen would start targeting civil society in much tougher ways than even last year, shutting down critical NGOs and imprisoning activists. He and others in the government still do not believe in pluralism, which is what civil society represents.
"Finally, the smart diplomats — and in 1995 this included France, Japan, Australia and the United States — realized they were doing Hun Sen a favor by keeping the UN human rights presence. Hun Sen is prone to excesses, as with the 1997 coup. He needs institutions to restrain him. There are few, if any, Cambodian institutions that can do this. But the UN human rights office, backed by the international community, can play this role in a crisis."
The verbal attacks on Ghai came hot on the heels of the successful conclusion of the 2006 Consultative Group (CG) meeting at which donors pledged $601 million to the Cambodian Government. The timing was not coincidental, Adams said.
"I don't think there is any chance that Hun Sen would have responded the same way before the CC, meeting," he said.
"He was in real trouble with donors and a lot of money was at stake. His actions over the previous year — arresting so many activists and forcing Sam Rainsy into exile — violated every promise he had made to donors about pluralism, support for civil society, and the rule of law.
"And on the commitments the government had made on reform, none in the area of human rights, corruption, good governance, or the rule of law had been met. So he took a tactical step back. But thus far there hasn't been any real change."
Despite the lack of concrete developments, the tactical step back served to reassure donors that all was well, Adams said.
"Once again, as they seem to do every year, the donors accepted a charade. Either consciously or unconsciously, they made Hun Sen's public relations exercise a success."
Ghai himself lambasted what he perceived as donor complicity in Cambodia's worsening human rights record in the comments concluding his mission. He argued that if donor agencies condone rights violations in the name of forging strong links with the Cambodian government, they betray their own citizens as well as Cambodians.
"If indeed it is true that donor agencies are not very mindful of human rights or democracy but just wish to build a cosy relationship with the government, then it seems to me that they are not only failing the people of Cambodia but their own domestic taxpayers as well, who approve these grants in the expectation that the poor people of these countries will be the beneficiaries," Ghai said on March 28.
His criticisms of the donor community found strong support from the Asian Human Rights Centre (AHRC) and other members of the donor community who have long been calling for stronger conditions to be imposed on aid.
"The AHRC has referred to the connivance of the donor community [as a major factor] in preventing genuine democracy and human rights from taking root in Cambodia through its unwillingness to impose aid conditionality," a press release issued on March 30 stated.
Adams, too, holds that the donor community cannot escape blame for the deterioration of human rights in Cambodia.
"Hun Sen has been running circles around the diplomatic and donor community for many years, and he just did it again," he said.
"If this were a sport you'd have to admire his skill. But this is about people's rights and the quality of their lives — $600 million a year is still a lot of money for Cambodia and largely keeps the government afloat. It's time to use the leverage that accompanies it wisely."
3 comments:
Talk is cheap and wasteful for individual like Hun Sen.
Cambodia Human rights respect is a core of democracy and survivability...
Slapping wrist is no use to this imbecile,Hun Sen.He understands force and tough action.
To strangle him,UN especially USA must thumb Viet Nam nose and pinch China ears.Then call his bosses, Chea Sim and Heng Samrin, prompt attention. Hun Sen is a thug.Go to the root,then pull the rotten tooth out.
$601 million,a lot of cash for the alternate regime to take care of Hun Sen memory lapse.
Remember US owes Cambodia moral responsibility and war reparation done by US gang of two,Kissinger-Nixon.
Donors needs to confer with UN Human Rights envoy before cutting the checks . Let UN envoy be a final say. UN alike ;with consensus fromm ASEAN; must impose serious measure with corrective plans.If no compliance simply no money plus sanction and suspend membership and bar Hun Sen from set foot at UN Assembly for period until all measures were met.
Sounds harsh but that is a realistic one to get this bonehead, Hun Sen, attention.
Hun Sen is no lesser of Mao or Kim and Seke Mbutu or hypocrite Ferdinand Marcos.
Khmer Rouge infamous and deadly slogan "Keep you no gain,lose you no loss" may be applicable to ex Khmer Rouge Hun Sen.
This will remind his leanred behaviors as nothing is belonged to him but Angkar.Hun Sen knows this by heart.He fears only this.
Sensible dignity and respect for others, he has none left in his head.
he has to play that games in order to feed his bosses and the gay king..! now another one..the old, baby skin dr. cripple king of the shinese slave...Ah kom pourn!! eeyore!
Post a Comment