Our World: Cambodia's elite tip the scales of justice

Yet, as Human Rights Watch's Asia director, Brad Adams, put it, "No one has ever been accountable under the Cambodian armed forces for the human rights violations," and, "People who are criminals are senior officials in the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces now."

October 29, 2009
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)

I wrote in this space last week, on the 18th anniversary of the signing of the Paris Accords on Cambodia, about how the stipulations in the Accords and the articles in Cambodia's Constitution it established promised the country and its people high hopes for the future. After 18 years, both the Accords and the constitution have failed to deliver a "liberal democracy" and "respect for and observance of" human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the idea of an "independent judiciary" has become only a dream.

The international non-governmental organization Global Witness calls Cambodia's ruling elite a "kleptocratic elite" that robs public assets and natural resources to enrich themselves.

Some forty percent of the people in Cambodia live below the poverty line and many have been forcibly evicted from their homes and their land.

American Physicist Albert Einstein said, "Don't listen to their words; fix your attention on their deeds," and America's 34th President Dwight David Eisenhower said: "Remember that it is not by a tyrant's words, but only by his deeds that we can know him."

Here's an illustration of Cambodia's judiciary serving as Premier Hun Sen's tool to punish the opposition:

On Oct 14, Cambodia's Appeals Court upheld the Municipal Court which, on June 10, dismissed Cambodian lawmaker Mu Sochua's lawsuit against Premier Sen for defaming her in a nationally broadcast speech in Kampot province -- Sochua's constituency.

In the speech, Sen spoke of a Kampot woman "choeung khlang" (literally, "strong leg," -- a hustler) who, "in the [July 2008] national election campaign, went to hug someone, then accused someone of undoing her blouse's buttons."

As the press reported, in the July 2008 election campaign Sochua spotted an army officer using a state vehicle in the campaign for the ruling party, an act not authorized by law. In a confrontation, the officer twisted Sochua's arms and her blouse was torn open. Sochua subsequently sued the officer for assault.

Sochua considered Sen's speech an offense to her "dignity," sued the premier for 13 cents for defaming her. But, Sen responded, he didn't mention Sochua's name in his speech; he countersued Sochua for defaming him. A few days after the second exchange, Sen called on the Parliament to lift Sochua's immunity.

In April, the Asian Human Rights Commission's said in a statement, this "seemed to be deliberate and was meant to threaten and intimidate" Sochua. The AHRC referenced Sen's past techniques: "court action, lifting of immunity, imprisonment or exile, and then pardon if [political opponents] surrendered to him."

The Municipal Court ruled that Sen did not mention Sochua by name, hence, he never defamed Sochua; and found it was Sochua who defamed Sen by suing him; so on Aug. 4 it ordered her to pay $2,500 in fines to the state, and $2,000 in compensation to Sen. So, about whom did Sen speak in Kampot? Which other woman had her "blouse's buttons" undone? How did the speech touch on the spirit of the law?

Yet, the Appeals Court found the lower court's decision had followed the spirit of the law. Lacking independence, the court's decision was not surprising.

Sochua decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court as the outcome seems predetermined. She declared, "there is no balance of justice in Cambodia ... this law does not render justice for me ... it only rendered justice for the prime minister."

Edmund Burke's words should be recalled here: "All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Two days after the Cambodian court's ruling in Sochua's case, the Cambodian Center for Human Rights issued a statement of concern on Oct. 16, over provisions in Cambodia's Penal Code that "jeopardize the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression," and called on the government to bring it "into line with international standards."

With Article 31 of Cambodia's constitution making international law "part of Cambodian law," the CCHR called for "the removal of the offense of defamation from the Penal Code to bring Cambodian domestic law into conformity with international principles." It charges, the Penal Code's "vague and ambiguous terminology ... creates a lack of clarity in the law, leaving it open to judicial interpretation and potential abuse," and it expressed alarm over "the inclusion of excessively harsh penalties throughout the Penal Code."

"It is of utmost importance for justice in Cambodia that our laws -- and particularly legislation as far reaching as the Penal Code -- conform with international law and the treaty commitments Cambodia has undertaken," declared the CCHR.

In the United States Congress, a group of lawmakers introduced a House Resolution on the "worsening problem of human trafficking in Cambodia," and condemn "the repression of opposition candidates by the ruling Cambodian People's Party." A non-binding resolution, it was nevertheless attacked by a CPP lawmaker as an "unthoughtful" piece by the "long-noses" who live "more than 1,000 kilometers away" -- "Our laws and those of the U.S. are different."

Still, donor countries, including the U.S., continue to make up half of Cambodia's national budget, and U.S. military aid continues to flow to the regime.

Yet, as Human Rights Watch's Asia director, Brad Adams, put it, "No one has ever been accountable under the Cambodian armed forces for the human rights violations," and, "People who are criminals are senior officials in the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces now."

In the words of Bertrand Russell, "We have two kinds of morality side by side: one which we preach but do not practice and another which we practice but seldom preach."

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

Paris accords failed to save Cambodia

July 08, 2009
By Gaffar Peang-Meth
Guest Commentary
UPIAsia.com

Washington, DC, United States, — In 1991 there were high hopes for Cambodia’s future. The brutal regime of Pol Pot had been knocked from power; guerilla warfare between the four Cambodian factions was being transformed from a shooting war to a contest at the ballot box; and the Final Act of the Paris Peace Accords promised Cambodia a liberal democracy whose citizens would at long last enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms.
Some interpreters of historical events dub what followed in Cambodia after the Peace Accords as a United Nations “success story.” It could have been a success story. The words and the vision in the settlement framework pointed to that direction.

The Final Act of the Paris Accords sought to “restore peace” to Cambodia, ravaged by “tragic conflict and continuing bloodshed,” through “an internationally guaranteed comprehensive settlement.” It was adopted on Oct. 23, 1991 by 18 participating governments – Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam – where officials of Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia represented the non-aligned movement and the U.N. Secretary-General and his special representative were participants.

Signatory states declared to “commit themselves to promote and encourage respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cambodia, as embodied in the relevant international instruments to which they are party.”

Among other things, they agreed to maintain, preserve and defend Cambodia’s “sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity”; restore and maintain Cambodia’s peace; promote national reconciliation; “ensure the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Cambodian people” through free and fair elections; and the “non-return to the policies and practices of the past.”

The Accords stipulated Cambodia’s Constitution as “the supreme law of the land”; promised adherence to fundamental rights of “life, personal liberty, security, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, assembly and association . . . due process and equality before the law, protection from arbitrary deprivation of property or deprivation of private property without just compensation . . . consistent with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international instruments.”

Annex 5 states, “Cambodia will follow a system of liberal democracy,” with an “independent judiciary . . . empowered to enforce the rights provided under the Constitution.”

Yet, from the outset of the Accords, the necessary “neutral political environment conducive to free and fair general elections” was never ensured. “The strict neutrality” of “administrative agencies, bodies and offices” responsible for “foreign affairs, national defense, finance, public security and information,” which the Accords placed under the direct control of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, to “exercise (its authority) as necessary to ensure strict neutrality,” was never consummated. Authority was not assumed by UNTAC, but remained in the hands of the Hun Sen government.

Some people do things simply because they can, with no fear of consequences. When Prince Ranariddh of the royalist FUNCINPEC – the French acronym for the National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia – won the elections in 1993 as the people expressed their right of self-determination, Cambodian People’s Party leader Hun Sen, who had ruled Cambodia under Vietnam’s protection since January 1979, was allowed to elbow himself into a co-premiership with Ranariddh. The peoples’ ballots were rendered irrelevant, with the blessing of the U.N. Transitional Authority.

Hun Sen and the CPP immediately began preparations for the 1998 elections. In 1997, Co-Premier Hun Sen’s forces fought Co-Premier Ranariddh’s royalist troops in the streets of Phnom Penh in a coup d’etat that killed many and sent Ranariddh fleeing to neighboring Thailand.

The world community realized that unless Ranariddh returned to participate in the upcoming elections, the Paris Peace Accords would be meaningless. It took coordinated high-level international pressures and threats for Ranariddh to agree to return to Cambodia. But Hun Sen and the CPP were already in firm control of the country. Recently, from eventual exile in Malaysia, Ranariddh was compelled to foreswear political activity before Hun Sen would allow him to return to his homeland.

In spite of the Paris Accords’ stipulation that “All persons in Cambodia . . . shall enjoy the rights and freedoms embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments,” in contemporary Cambodia, Hun Sen runs the country with an iron fist. He exercises control over the three branches of government.

With opposition much in disarray, an alternative to his rule is lacking. With the international community desirous of political stability, human rights are neglected and donor countries continue to make up half of the national budget that sustains Hun Sen’s regime.

By controlling the purse strings, donor countries assert they have some leverage to demand good governance, even from a dictator. But Hun Sen has made a mockery of both the domestic political and judicial systems – lifting legislators’ parliamentary immunity, filing frivolous lawsuits against his opponents – and the international court that has been seated to try cases against alleged perpetrators of atrocities under the Khmer Rouge regime – of which Hun Sen was a part.

So blatant is his disregard for international norms that he has warned foreigners that he has other “laws” to deal with “foreigners” who play with Cambodian politics. Good governance is entirely absent.

Today’s Cambodia under Hun Sen and the CPP has more roads, bridges, modern buildings, and fancy villas. It is more appealing than the Cambodia of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge whose regime of murder and mayhem devastated the country from 1975-79. But under Hun Sen, the rich get richer, nearly half of the population lives below poverty level, many live off the city’s refuse, and high officials are accused of siphoning several hundred million dollars each year for personal enrichment.

Generous monetary aid to Hun Sen and the CPP helps strengthen authoritarian rule, which is legitimized by elections in an environment of intimidation and fear. The level of deadly attacks may have declined, but how many fewer threats, how much less intimidation, and how many fewer deaths make elections “more free and fair”? Are Cambodians “more free” because they are given ballots to put in election boxes under the watchful eyes of party cadres and agents?

Does a government that sells natural resources for private gain, evicts the weak and the underprivileged from their land in order to permit development by the wealthy and the powerful, sues its citizens and lifts the immunity of lawmakers whose words and opinions aren’t in agreement with those of the party in power, represent progress toward a more democratic future?
--
(Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. He currently lives in the United States. He can be contacted at peangmeth@gmail.com. ©Copyright Gaffar Peang-Meth)