Phnom Penh (Cambodia). 12/12/2007: Human rights activist demonstrating with inhabitants of the Dey Krohom community on Human Rights Day. (Photo: John Vink/ Magnum)
Ka-set in EnglishFor a year now, Human rights activists have found themselves more and more blamed and pointed at by Cambodian authorities who reproach them for inspiring feelings of rebellion and encourage citizens to act out of a legal framework. NGOS reject this reading of the situation loud and clear and worry about the threats which now hang more heavily over their staff. They see there an attempt by the Cambodian authorities to discredit them and muzzle them better, with as a background, the fear caused by the future adoption of a law regulating NGOs and which according to them might markedly undermine their independence. In its 8th annual report on the Human rights situation in Cambodia, presented on Tuesday February 3rd, local association ADHOC particularly puts the emphasis on this worrying point and sounds the alarm.
Yet, the mission of NGOs is clear...
Concern is the order of the day, ADHOC president Thun Saray indicates. In 2008, Human rights defenders, “providing advice to victims of land and resource seizures on seeking redress with the courts or authorities, or the release from detention of their community representatives” have been the particular target of threats and accusations of incitement to protest. “Such accusations from government officials were designed to intimidate workers and activists”, from providing legal advice and assistance to victims in land disputes with private companies and powerful people, ADHOC denounces in its report. In 2008, according to the Human rights NGO, at least 164 Human rights defenders were subjected to such threats in 63 separate cases.
Such pressure already existed in 2007 but mainly targeted community representatives, Thun Saray stresses. Pressure increased towards activists in 2008. “Yet, what we do is not illegal, I would like to insist on that point. We explain their rights to inhabitants and provide them with legal advice, for their claims not to turn into unlawful ones. I do not want to hear that NGOs encourage villagers to express claims, this was never the case. Residents act as part of a will of their own! We invite them, on the contrary, not to give up in front of the destruction of public property and property of others”, the ADHOC president argues.
Similar tone of speech at the headquarters of the LICADHO, another Cambodian organisation for the defence of Human rights. Its president, Kek Galabru, observes with the same concern the increase in the number of threats towards activists, whether they be attached to NGOs or not. “We have already pointed this out in several reports. I will give you a recent example: one of our employees was hit at Dey Krohom as he was only explaining their rights to residents! Our staff also received unsigned mail containing the drawing of a skull and crossbones... Saying that we are the ones behind the demonstrations is only an excuse used by the government to avoid solving problems. We never acted like that!”, LICADHO president says.
However, Ou Virak, president of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR), strikes a different note. He acknowledges that the authorities sometimes put the blame on Human rights NGOs, but according to him, the situation has improved since 2007. “The authorities seem to understand more the role of NGOs and citizens' rights, even if there are certain limits... In 2008, every time our centre organised forums in the provinces, authorities did not prevent their holding like they did in 2007, especially in the Kampong Chhnang and Ratanakiri provinces.”
NGOs: When local authorities hamper the work of activists
Thun Saray points an accusing finger at “some provincial authorities who shut their door on NGOs and refuse to collaborate with us”. A province, Kratie, he adds, even put ADHOC down on its blacklist when another one, Ratanakiri, gives its activists a hard time and holds them responsible for demonstrations led by members of ethnic minorities. Another example, that of a civil servant working at a provincial cabinet of Battambang, who wanted to file a lawsuit against ADHOC for having, here again, encouraged inhabitants to demonstrate outside the tribunal. The lawsuit was not carried through since the governor intervened and pointed out that the civil servant did not have any evidence, Thun Saray reports.
The principle adopted by ADHOC is to transfer any activist subjected to threats. “Our goal is not to seize power from the authorities but only to bring justice to citizens. We continue to explain our mission to the authorities and we encourage our campaigners not to give up. Even though there are disappointments...”
Bad elements on both sides, according to the government
Interviewed on that particular point, government spokesman Khieu Kanharith tries to temporise. “There are a few cases in the Northeast of the country, where inhabitants legally sold their land but Human rights representatives encouraged them to claim their land back. I am not saying that this person is right and that other is wrong, I am simply saying that we have to look at both sides. There are bad elements within the government, and we do not support them, as there are bad elements in NGOs, and the latter are not tevodas or such divinities! We must be conscious that reports made by our subordinates are not always correct... It is neither perfect on one side nor is it on the other, but if both parties admit it, we will be able to better collaborate together!”
Land conflicts at the basis of the NGO / authorities conflict
Intimidation of Human rights activists generally happen in the context of land disputes in which violence has increased, ADHOC deplores. In 2008, military officials have been far more involved in those conflicts, with a threefold increase in the number of cases in which they actually constituted one of the conflicting parties (125 cases reported in 2008 compared to 40 in 2007), the report points out.
Ny Chakriya, head of the ADHOC monitoring office of investigators, notes that “most land disputes are linked with the construction of military barracks”, which affect villagers who are already established there. “A single case of land-grabbing affects a minimum average of 500 families and applies to an area ranging from 200 to 500 hectares.” The most affected provinces are Battambang, Banteay Meancheay, Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri and Kratie.
Disputes increasingly violent
ADHOC reports that the severity of violence relating to land conflicts increased in 2008, with three people killed in disputed areas and five who died later in hospital as a result of injuries (compared to two persons killed in 2007). The court system remains heavily influenced by private companies and powerful individuals, the organisation repeats, and was used increasingly to arrest and detain complainants in land conflicts. In 2008, out of 306 cases listed, “150 people were arrested and detained compared to 139 from 350 cases in 2007”. Aside from those cases, over 100 people who faced arrest warrants managed to avoid capture. To date, according to the ADHOC report, there are still 59 people detained in prison.
Nothing changes, the NGO regrets, since the main reasons for forced evictions remain the renting or sale for development of occupied land to private companies without adequate compensation to the current occupants. The government committed to providing land to poor people in the form of Social Land concessions, but results do not measure up to expectations. According to information obtained by ADHOC, only 409 hectares of land were provided compared to the 225,090 hectares (that is to say 550 times more) provided to some 71 private companies in the form of Economic Land Concessions. These concessions are said to have had negative consequences on more than 10,000 families in Cambodia, as those lands were granted without any prior social impact assessment, the report states.
