Sen arrogant about denunciations

PACIFIC DAILY NEWS
July 8, 2009

Similarly, words of regret by former German naval officer and victim of the Nazis, Martin Niemöller, come to mind: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out --because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me."

A. Gaffar Peang--Meth, Ph.D.

Recently, an old colleague from the Khmer Republic's foreign affairs ministry, Srey Pheach, 77, and I met for what seems to be our annual lunch at an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet, to catch up and continue the conversation we started at our last meeting, more than a year ago.

I was pleased to see my friend looking well. His daily treadmill exercise and sensible diet are paying off.

It didn't take long for Pheach to lament how Radio Free Asia didn't air the strong language he used in an interview.

Pheach was angry that the Cambodian court -- politically influenced by Premier Hun Sen and his Cambodian People's Party -- disallowed opposition lawmaker Mu Sochua's lawsuit against Sen for defamation. Furthermore, at the time we met, the CPP--dominated national assembly was moving to lift Sochua's parliamentary immunity, paving the way for her criminal prosecution by the Municipal Court as Sen's countersued Sochua for defaming him.

Pheach's words to RFA: "The thief gets off free and the victim is punished!"

I haven't talked to Pheach since that lunch. As events unfolded, 90 of the 111 legislators present in the national assembly on June 22 voted by a show of hands in a closed-door session to strip Sochua of her parliamentary immunity. And, in a surprise move, on that day 91 also voted to strip the immunity of another opposition lawmaker, Ho Vann. The constitution requires 82 lawmakers' votes to remove a legislator's immunity. The CPP has 90 members in the assembly.

But why should this be a surprise to anyone? Under authoritarian rule, where the chief executive and the ruling party control not only the executive but also the legislative and judicial branches of government, the ruler's words are law.

Of course, responsible officials of donor countries know who and what Sen and his ruling party represent. But their governments act in the interests of their nations and, at this time, many find it preferable to have a working relationship with the Cambodian government in place.

To words of denunciation, inside and outside the country, Sen responds arrogantly. He says stripping the two lawmakers' immunity has an objective to uphold "democracy and the rule of law ... for the court to prosecute them." Sen warned "foreigners and other people" to keep out of Cambodian politics, for "if they play with the law, we will have other laws to sort out those anarchic people."

With those words, life goes on in Cambodia.

A Cambodian blogger warned about replacing the "devil you know" by the "devil you don't know." I am reminded of the words of a reader with years of experience in the diplomatic world: Human rights can't trump vital interests of nation-states.

Twelve years ago, hand grenades thrown at opposition protesters in front of the National Assembly killed and wounded a number of people, including an American citizen. It has been reported that FBI agents completed their investigation within weeks of the attack. But the findings haven't been revealed.

Somehow, it has seemed difficult to find a middle ground between what Harvard University professor James Q. Wilson posited: "Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness."

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people."

Similarly, words of regret by former German naval officer and victim of the Nazis, Martin Niemöller, come to mind: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out --because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Back to my old friend Pheach: Though he laughed heartily as I joked about my "Chicken Run" column, and H.G. Wells's story's "In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," he was bothered by the accusation that it was those who, in 1970, sided with the "Lon Nol regime" who had contributed to the spilling of the Vietnam war into Cambodia and the radicalization of the Khmer Rouge monsters. Pheach said he would like to speak on the airwaves of RFA to respond to such accusation. Oh, dear.

I consoled him by reminding him of Lord Buddha's teaching that nothing is permanent, nothing is irreversible, that the political pendulums swing and that there are young Khmers of the new generation who are emerging, espousing the very things Pheach himself loves -- republican ideals.

I said if these ideals mean so much to him, then he shouldn't hesitate to give those young Khmers a helping hand in their work to establish in Cambodia a governmental system that supports human rights, free expression and democracy. He said he will help.

And I told the veteran Khmer diplomat that progress and success in any endeavor, business or political, cannot be attained in an environment in which free and critical thinking, and encouragement to innovate and to take risks aren't permitted.

And so we ended our yearly lunch, promising to meet again "sooner" than a year to take stock of where we are.

A. Gaffar Peang--Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam,
where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200907080300/OPINION02/907080318