Western donors must stand up to Cambodia's government

Protesters demonstrate against plans by the Cambodian government to bring in a law requiring NGOs and associations to register. Photograph: Licadho

Phnom Penh's NGO law seeks to tighten its grip on civil society, but aid donors mustn't cave in to this government threat

Monday, May 09, 2011

Naly Pilorge (Licadho)

Guardian.co.uk

More than a month has passed since the Cambodian government released the second draft of the hotly debated law on associations and NGOs, and all is quiet on the legislative front. While it's too early to tell whether this is a positive sign, there are clues that it might be.

Many expected that the government would push the law through the national assembly immediately after the release of the second draft, as has been done in the past with other controversial legislation. But this has not happened.

The current silence follows the uncharacteristically loud and unified outcry from local and international civil society organisations in early April. The draft law was universally condemned as the most significant threat to civil society in years. Even Cambodia's big foreign donors chimed in, most notably the US, which publicly stated that passage of the law in its current state could threaten aid money.

It is not hard to see why opposition to the law is so strong: as the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (Licadho) pointed out in its analysis of the law (pdf), it's a transparent attempt by the government to control civil society and stifle dissent. It's also a blatant violation of domestic and international protections on association, assembly and speech.

Among other things, the law requires all NGOs and associations to comply with burdensome registration procedures, and outlaws those that don't. Meanwhile, it gives authorities unbounded discretion to approve registration applications, with few substantive guidelines to steer their decisions. There is no appeals process if registration is denied.

The draft is also sloppy – one example being its apparently unlimited scope. It's unclear whether this aspect was intentional, but the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) concluded that the law would require "every group of individuals who gather together with a differing level of frequency and perform the broadest variety of imaginable activities, from trekking and football fans, to chess and silk-weaving groups" to register. Failing to do so would be a violation of the law. (So would, apparently, founding an NGO or association without the required number of Cambodian citizen "founding members" required by the law – three and 11, respectively).

It may seem incongruous that the Cambodian government feels compelled to pass a special law to strengthen its grip on civil society. This is, after all, a country where an activist was recently shot dead after helping his community protest against a military land grab. Nearly 40 human rights defenders were in prison as of November 2010. The authorities are shameless in persecuting those who pose a threat to their grip on power and resources, even in the most minor cases.

But the fact that the government feels the need for new legislation indicates that it does indeed have an achilles heel. Under current law, confronting NGOs is a messy and embarrassing business that often requires trumped-up charges. This tarnishes Cambodia's reputation and threatens the two things that the government really cares about: western aid money and the international legitimacy that comes with it. Cambodia's leaders don't want the country to become another Burma. (They also need the money; foreign aid still makes up half of the national budget.)

The new law takes confrontation behind the scenes, out of public view. One paperwork error, real or imagined, and the organisation will cease to exist. The government covets this type of control over civil society: the tyranny of the technicality.

And while this tyranny may be reserved for grassroots communities and a select few organisations working on politically sensitive human rights issues – groups that president of the national assembly, Heng Samrin, says "speak too freely" – development organisations should be concerned as well. Local groups are often the best source for information on human rights and development. Their closure could create a significant information gap, making development programmes much harder to design, implement and monitor.

It appears that the backers of this law are now regrouping. It is unclear what their next step will be, but this much is certain: continued opposition from western donors and international NGOs is key to preserving Cambodia's independent civil society. That opposition must be unified, firm, and tied to the two things the government cares about – money and legitimacy.

The government has played chicken with western donors before, cynically manipulating their fears – China's growing influence, the prospect of abandoning ordinary Cambodians, and the need to "engage" at all costs – in order to keep the money flowing. Too often it's the donors who flinch.

This time should be different. Civil society teeters on the brink, and all of the proverbial chips are on the table. This is not the time to be timid; it's time to call the government's bluff.

• Naly Pilorge is the director of the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (Licadho)