December 24, 2008
By HRACH GREGORIAN
Special to the Middle East Times
Two countries suffered unspeakable horrors in the last quarter of the 20th century. While separated by substantial cultural, historical and physical space, Cambodia and Lebanon exhibit uncanny resemblances in the way issues of justice have come to be handled in the aftermath of violent conflict.
From 1975 to 1979 an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians died as a result of the policies of the Khmer Rouge regime. Those responsible at the senior most levels are dying off and few will be brought to justice before they meet their maker.
In 2003, almost a quarter century after the heinous acts were committed, the U.N. General Assembly established the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia to finally address the issue of genocide. The Extraordinary Chambers are a hybrid of the U.N. and Cambodian systems of justice.
The hybrid approach has been singularly ineffective in achieving the mission that was set out for it. Some are guardedly optimistic that after many false starts the Extraordinary Chambers are now gaining some traction. A fundamental structural problem renders such optimism open to question. The Chambers are grounded in a corrupt and inefficient national judicial system controlled by a government that has limited political will to address the past.
Cambodian "democracy" is a sham, a façade to mollify an international community all too willing to turn a blind eye, this is particularly true of international financial institutions, which this year exceeded even Cambodian expectations in their largess.
Cambodia has a viable constitution and political institutions appear to operate normally, but scratch the surface and quickly are revealed a legislature and judiciary domination by the executive. There is virtually no accountability to the people. While there is a lively press in Phnom Penh, most Cambodians live in the countryside, cannot read or afford to buy newspapers, and thus rely on radio, which is state-controlled. What is left of a political opposition is harassed or worse eliminated, reportedly by the police and the armed forces.
The Khmer Rouge destroyed Cambodia's professional class, leaving in the wreckage a judicial system that by all measures is incompetent. Human rights commissions have been established, but they are not independent and they have largely failed to promote or protect the human rights treaties to which Cambodia is a signatory. Government created NGOs muddy the waters and independent voices are muffled by increasingly restrictive legislation.
Between 1975 and 1990 a succession of conflicts were fought in Lebanon. Widespread violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses were witnessed throughout this period. The statistics from the civil war era are startling, given the relatively small size of the Lebanese population: 3,925,502 (2007 est.) 145,000 killed, 185,000 wounded, 17,000 missing, 2,000 murdered after being raped, approximately 800,000 forcibly displaced. As in the case of Cambodia, eager to return to some semblance of normalcy the Lebanese parliament granted a general amnesty in 1991 that virtually closed the books on the crimes of the previous period.
What happened in Lebanon's transition from war to peace has been well documented. As in the case of Cambodia, political expediency trumped justice and true closure for victims and their families.
As Lebanese civil rights activist Nizar Saghieh has noted, rather than advancing justice and rule of law, Lebanon's leaders were more interested in "consolidating their position as superior to the rest of the population … the victim was repeatedly marginalized and responsibilities for the violence were overlooked…"
And for all its high minded rhetoric about genocide, human rights and the responsibility to protect, the international community had little to say about the fate of the Lebanese victims of the 15-year conflict.
So what do these two societies have in common in addition to suffering and a lack of closure?
The common denominator in these cases, as in other like cases, is fear. Fear of what unearthing the past will mean for peace and stability; fear of culpability, particularly by individuals currently occupying and profiting from positions of power; and fear of the psychological and financial costs of truly comprehensive judicial remedies.
What is missing too is official efforts to advance truth, reconciliation and collective healing, as has been tried in South Africa, Argentina, and East Timor, to name a few. Fear causes a culture of silence, a culture of corruption, a culture of impunity, and an uneasy culture of amnesia.
Where such fear predominates, the expropriation of people's land, torture, and killings, frequently continue to go unpunished, whether such acts are committed by home-grown autocrats or by powerful interests in neighboring countries. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable are forced to suffer in silence.
--
Hrach Gregorian is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute of World Affairs.
From 1975 to 1979 an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians died as a result of the policies of the Khmer Rouge regime. Those responsible at the senior most levels are dying off and few will be brought to justice before they meet their maker.
In 2003, almost a quarter century after the heinous acts were committed, the U.N. General Assembly established the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia to finally address the issue of genocide. The Extraordinary Chambers are a hybrid of the U.N. and Cambodian systems of justice.
The hybrid approach has been singularly ineffective in achieving the mission that was set out for it. Some are guardedly optimistic that after many false starts the Extraordinary Chambers are now gaining some traction. A fundamental structural problem renders such optimism open to question. The Chambers are grounded in a corrupt and inefficient national judicial system controlled by a government that has limited political will to address the past.
Cambodian "democracy" is a sham, a façade to mollify an international community all too willing to turn a blind eye, this is particularly true of international financial institutions, which this year exceeded even Cambodian expectations in their largess.
Cambodia has a viable constitution and political institutions appear to operate normally, but scratch the surface and quickly are revealed a legislature and judiciary domination by the executive. There is virtually no accountability to the people. While there is a lively press in Phnom Penh, most Cambodians live in the countryside, cannot read or afford to buy newspapers, and thus rely on radio, which is state-controlled. What is left of a political opposition is harassed or worse eliminated, reportedly by the police and the armed forces.
The Khmer Rouge destroyed Cambodia's professional class, leaving in the wreckage a judicial system that by all measures is incompetent. Human rights commissions have been established, but they are not independent and they have largely failed to promote or protect the human rights treaties to which Cambodia is a signatory. Government created NGOs muddy the waters and independent voices are muffled by increasingly restrictive legislation.
Between 1975 and 1990 a succession of conflicts were fought in Lebanon. Widespread violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses were witnessed throughout this period. The statistics from the civil war era are startling, given the relatively small size of the Lebanese population: 3,925,502 (2007 est.) 145,000 killed, 185,000 wounded, 17,000 missing, 2,000 murdered after being raped, approximately 800,000 forcibly displaced. As in the case of Cambodia, eager to return to some semblance of normalcy the Lebanese parliament granted a general amnesty in 1991 that virtually closed the books on the crimes of the previous period.
What happened in Lebanon's transition from war to peace has been well documented. As in the case of Cambodia, political expediency trumped justice and true closure for victims and their families.
As Lebanese civil rights activist Nizar Saghieh has noted, rather than advancing justice and rule of law, Lebanon's leaders were more interested in "consolidating their position as superior to the rest of the population … the victim was repeatedly marginalized and responsibilities for the violence were overlooked…"
And for all its high minded rhetoric about genocide, human rights and the responsibility to protect, the international community had little to say about the fate of the Lebanese victims of the 15-year conflict.
So what do these two societies have in common in addition to suffering and a lack of closure?
The common denominator in these cases, as in other like cases, is fear. Fear of what unearthing the past will mean for peace and stability; fear of culpability, particularly by individuals currently occupying and profiting from positions of power; and fear of the psychological and financial costs of truly comprehensive judicial remedies.
What is missing too is official efforts to advance truth, reconciliation and collective healing, as has been tried in South Africa, Argentina, and East Timor, to name a few. Fear causes a culture of silence, a culture of corruption, a culture of impunity, and an uneasy culture of amnesia.
Where such fear predominates, the expropriation of people's land, torture, and killings, frequently continue to go unpunished, whether such acts are committed by home-grown autocrats or by powerful interests in neighboring countries. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable are forced to suffer in silence.
--
Hrach Gregorian is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute of World Affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment