CAMBODIA: Democrats can develop leadership qualities and lead successful actions against autocracy

An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth published by the Asian Human Rights Commission


Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth

In a little more than two weeks, the United States will celebrate its 235th anniversary of independence from England. Compared to Cambodia whose history dates back more than 2,000 years, the US is a toddler, but this toddler remains the world's political, economic, and military leader, while Cambodians in general are preoccupied with real or imagined fear that their nation and culture may disappear, diluted and overcome by their aggressive neighbors.

Think and Become

I have yet to understand the logic of Cambodia and her predominantly 14 million Buddhists "disappearing," as if their fate is pre-ordained. Didn't Lord Gautama Buddha say, "I do believe in a fate that falls on (people) unless they act"? Didn't he mean by this that man can influence his own lot in life? "He is able who thinks he is able," Buddha preaches, i.e., think "Yes, we can," and act on it like we cannot fail, then maybe we won't fail. Thus, Buddha taught positive thinking 2,500 years ago: "What we think, we become."

Rather than think and fear "disappearance," Cambodians should think and believe that as their ancestors could build Angkor and an Empire that ruled most of Southeast Asia, so today they can fend off their neighbors to the east and west and Cambodia will always remain Khmer: Think, believe, act on that belief.

As Albert Einstein said, "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."

Will Obama push for democracy?

July 7, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)

Words can be tricky things, as two convoluted comments, quoted here, remind us. One is attributed to State Department spokesman Robert McCloskey: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." The other is former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan: "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."

Clarity would seem to be more evident in the 52-page "National Security Strategy" released on May 27 by the Obama team, outlining U.S. goals and actions in the world.

"To achieve the world that we seek, the U.S. must apply our strategic approach in pursuit of four enduring national interests" which are "inextricably linked" -- security (of the U.S., its citizens, its allies and partners), prosperity (a prosperous American economy), values (respect for universal values at home and abroad), international order (let nations pursue their interests, especially when they diverge).

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote an op-ed piece in the June 29 Washington Post in which he listed five recent, noteworthy foreign policy actions taken by President Obama.

Highest on the list was Obama's nomination of Gen. David Patraeus as commander in Afghanistan. It signaled "Obama's determination to succeed in Afghanistan" and warned of the "never realistic" July 2011 departure of U.S. troops.

Second, the U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran, though "mild, badly watered down by China and Russia," won't stop Iran from getting a bomb, but does increase pressure on Tehran. Third was Obama's handling of the U.S. base in Okinawa: "firm but engaged," and Tokyo's reaffirmed commitment to a U.S. alliance. Fourth, a free-trade agreement with South Korea represents the "first actual evidence" that the U.S. "is back" in Asia -- "If Congress can be persuaded to pass the agreement"!

Last, Obama's public "Reset Fact Sheet" shows Washington's "serious disagreements" with Moscow over Georgia." It calls for the end to Russian "occupation" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."

What happened to Obama and democracy and human rights?

In the May 31 "A worldview that's light on human rights," the Post's deputy editorial page editor, Jackson Diehl, asked, "What sort of international order does Barack Obama seek?" He quoted Obama's introduction to the NSS, where he spoke about "the challenges of our times: countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds."

"That's a big agenda," Diehl wrote, "But isn't something missing? ... Nowhere in that long sentence ... does Obama suggest that the international 'engagement' he proposes should serve to combat tyranny or oppression, or promote democracy. In that sense, ... human rights come second."

Obama has said the U.S. must shape a world order relying as much on the persuasiveness of its diplomacy as the might of its military; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describes U.S. leadership as "building the coalitions that can produce results against those shared challenges ... providing incentives for states who are part of the solution, whether they recognize it or not, enabling them and encouraging them to live up to responsibilities that even a decade ago they would never have thought were theirs, and disincentives for those who do not."

The section on "values" affirms "certain values are universal" -- freedom to speak one's mind, to assemble without fear, to worship as one pleases, and to choose one's own leaders -- and states the U.S. "will work to promote them worldwide." Autocratic rulers "have repressed basic human rights and democratic practices in the name of economic development and national unity," but the "U.S. supports those who seek to exercise universal rights around the world."

Obama's introduction to the NSS states: "In all that we do, we will advocate for and advance the basic rights upon which our Nation was founded. ... We promote these values by living them, including our commitment to the rule of law. We will strengthen international norms that protect these rights and create space and support for those who resist repression."

Walter Shapiro of USA TODAY found the foreign policy buzz word "engagement" "brandished 42 separate times in 52 pages." He wrote: "Engagement is the active participation of the US in relationships beyond out borders ... the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes."

For Foreign Policy's Will Inboden, "While the NSS rightfully devotes more rhetorical attention to the promotion of human rights and democracy, it unfortunately puts too much emphasis on the U.S. example alone" and "What (international reformers) want is active (U.S.) advocacy and support -- even when that support might cause friction in diplomatic engagement with their own governments."

Critics say there are certain rights and policies the U.S. should support unconditionally, regardless of how many other nations in the world oppose them. One stated that President Obama needs to back up his political rhetoric with support for political rights reform.

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.

Cambodians Watching Spike in Thai Violence [-Cambodians do not support the Red Shirts who are supported by Hun Xen?]

A Thai woman prays as Thai policemen get ready soon after 3 p.m. deadline at Victory Monument in Bangkok, Thailand, Monday, May 17, 2010. The Thai government on Monday warned protesters barricaded within their 'occupation zone' in the heart of the capital to leave by 3 p.m., saying anyone who remains there will be violating the law and will face two years in prison. (AP Photo/ Manish Swarup)

Chun Sakada, VOA Khmer
Phnom Penh Monday, 17 May 2010

“The use of guns to kill the red shirts by the government is not a right or democratic act.”

Cambodians in Phnom Penh on Monday said they were watching the unrest and increasing violence in Bangkok, but sympathy between the authorities and anti-government protesters was split.

Violence escalated in Bangkok over the weekend, where at least 36 people have died since Thursday in the worst violence to hit the capital in decades. “Red shirt” protesters have seized a key part of the capital, and Thai security forces have begun to move in on their blockade, with the government calling for protesters to leave their entrenchment.

But who was to blame for the violence was debated in Cambodia, with many supporting the government in what they see as an illegal demonstration.

“I support the crackdown by the government on the red shirts, to avoid the negative effects on the economy, security, order and harmony of Thai society,” Ly Sokheng, a 24-year-old student at the Royal Phnom Penh University, said Monday. “The crackdown was right. The Bangkok government informed the red shirts about the crackdown if they didn’t disperse. On the other hand, the red shirts were armed against the authorities [which is] an illegal act.”

Cambodia is no stranger to street violence. Phnom Penh saw fighting in 1997, when the Cambodian People’s Party seized power from Funcinpec in a violent coup. Lessons from years of war were more apparent in older Cambodians Monday.

“The use of guns to kill the red shirts by the government is not a right or democratic act,” said Chim Rotha, a 43-year-old street sweeper, who was working near the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Monday. However, he said the red shirts bore some responsibility for using weapons against the authorities.

“The authorities and the red shirts must not use weapons to solve the problem,” he said. “They should use peaceful negotiations. The red shirts’ use of weapons is illegal, but the government’s shooting of red shirts violates human rights.”

Others called for calm amid the violence.

“The red shirts should accept the road map composed by the prime minister…to hold a new election in November in exchange for the dispersal of the anti-government rally,” Ngoeum Phally, a 21-year-old student at Phnom Penh University, said. Both sides should sit and talk to resolve their differences, she said. “But right now the government’s use of force to kill the red shirts is shameful.”

Chhet Takk, 25, a student at the Kampuchea Mekong University, blamed both sides for the violence. “The government and the red shirts must now be responsible for the dead,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement Monday, saying the “severe violence” was “gravely” affecting the image of Thailand and 10 Asean members. The statement called on all parties to resume peaceful talks and “restore peace and normalcy to the Thai people, thus stability to the region.”

Asia's 'Democratic Crisis'

September 12, 2008
Opinion by MICHAEL AUSLIN
The Wall Street Journal

Wherever one looks, democracy seems besieged in Asia.

In Japan, the region's oldest and most stable democracy, the second prime minister has resigned within the space of one year, and the 120-year-old Diet is paralyzed, freezing even the most basic legislation. Thailand's prime minister has declared a state of emergency in Bangkok to quell growing street protests, and is under pressure to resign. Mongolia's parliament is just getting to work after a two-month hiatus caused by that country's first-ever riots after an election, but charges of cheating still dog the ruling party. South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak, saw his popularity implode over the issue of U.S. beef imports, and Seoul's streets were filled with thousands of candle-holding demonstrators, paralyzing the government for several weeks. In Taiwan, which held a peaceful election in March, dark rumors swirl that the new president, Ma Ying-jeou, is really plotting to surrender the island's sovereignty to China.

What's going on? From an optimistic perspective, this is exactly what is supposed to be happening. Democracy is messy, factions abound and the voice of the people is not always measured and harmonious. Except for Japan, the liberal nations of Asia are still only a few decades old. Political theorists quarrel over when a democracy is "real" or "mature," but one measure is that a generation has to pass after the granting of constitutionally based rights before a democratic system is stable. Others hold that there must be at least two peaceful handovers of power between opposition parties before the system can be called stable.

By that measure, many Asian countries are just on the brink of democratic maturity. Both Taiwan and South Korea have passed the two-turnover mark, while none of Asia's democracies have yet reached a generational passage, except Japan. Thus, the cronyism, nepotism, inefficiency and fraud inherent in democracy is largely meliorated by law and political mechanisms in America and Europe, but in Asia those remedies are still developing. If these countries can just hold on a bit, so the optimistic theories go, they should make it through these growing pains and in the process learn valuable lessons about constructing viable political systems.

Pessimists might argue, however, that so-called "Asian values" of harmony, hierarchy and informal networks are incompatible with Western notions of democracy, but nonetheless may serve as a kind of bridging mechanism between liberal politics and unrepresentative governments.

More dispassionate pessimists, however, would say that democratic politics in much of Asia simply have been hijacked by corrupt or incompetent elites, while the needs of the common citizen have been ignored. The belief here is not that transparency, rule of law, a free press and more freedoms are not possible in Asia, but rather that the democratic system has been gamed by those more interested in personal power than in working to create a viable liberal framework. Yet in reality, each national experience is unique, and reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the politicians, voters and special interests in their country.

Those who worry about the fate of democracy in Asia should note the passion that drives millions of voters to the polls, and tens of thousands into the streets to defend causes they believe in. We should also recognize that there are no credible voices calling for a return to authoritarian days, even in Thailand, where democratic elections may well be more circumscribed. However, no one should be blindly optimistic that democracy will somehow work through all its problems in Asian countries. The trust of the people in liberal democratic systems is a fragile thing. Once damaged, it sometimes cannot be repaired.

The United States and other democracies must stand shoulder to shoulder with the democrats of Asia. Our moral support, as well as expertise in democratic governance, should be readily offered, even as we stay out of internal political squabbles. Our economic power should be geared to promoting free trade and technology transfers that can better lives throughout the region. Our military presence can assure nations that the regional status quo will be protected as they work out their domestic issues.

The problems facing Asian democracy today are ones of implementation, not a question of the fundamental suitability of democracy for Asian cultures. Part of the "solution" will be not overstating the problem. A certain amount of messiness is normal in any democracy, and no one should expect that elections will always return wise leaders, or leaders other countries like. Rather, the key is to ensure that elections keep happening -- that the public over time has a chance to change its mind, and demand better of its leaders. As democracy entrenches itself, there's every reason to believe that it will become an indelible part of the lives of Asians just as it is for so many of their European and American peers.

Mr. Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.