HRW Brad Adams urges the US to take additional measures against Cambodia for the deporation of Uyghur refugees

Letter to Secretary Clinton on Cambodia’s Deportation of Uighur Asylum Seekers to China

April 9, 2010

Dear Secretary Clinton,

We write in the aftermath of the forcible deportation of 20 Uighur asylum seekers from Cambodia on December 19, 2009 without an examination of their refugee claims. We appreciate your personal intervention as well as the efforts of numerous State Department officials, including Ambassador Carol Rodley and her team in Phnom Penh, in this matter.

We share the State Department's deep concern about the fate of this group, which included two children. We have received unconfirmed reports that some returnees have been tried and sentenced to death, while others have been sentenced to prison. We cannot confirm this information, but our inability to establish the facts highlights the refusal of the Chinese government to provide information on the fate of the returnees. We ask that you personally and urgently insist that the Chinese authorities make public the whereabouts, conditions and legal status of the individuals returned on December 19.

The flagrant violation of international and domestic law by the Cambodian government is part of a disturbing recent trend. At the best of times, Prime Minister Hun Sen and other officials routinely violate the human rights of people in Cambodia and ignore the government's obligations under international law. But this action suggests a new and profound disregard by the Cambodian government for minimum standards of due process, refugee protection, and international cooperation.

We appreciate the State Department's December 19 statement that, "This incident will affect Cambodia's relationship with the U.S. and its international standing." We take this opportunity to make recommendations about Cambodia's policies and practices with respect to refugees, and also about steps the US could take in its bilateral relationship that are likely to have the greatest impact on those responsible for serious abuses.

The 2008 transfer of sole responsibility for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) to the Cambodian government was clearly premature. The deportation of the Uighurs shows that Cambodia is not willing to assess asylum claims fairly and impartially and to provide sufficient protection for registered asylum seekers and recognized refugees, especially those from Vietnam and China.

This is not the first time that, in violation of its obligations as a state party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Cambodia has forcibly repatriated refugees and asylum seekers who are citizens of countries with whom it has close relations, such as Vietnam and China. Large numbers of Vietnamese asylum seekers have been returned to Vietnam, while Human Rights Watch knows of at least four Chinese asylum seekers under the protection of UNHCR who were arrested in Phnom Penh in 2002 and 2004 and sent back to China.

The return of the Uighurs is connected to the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia in recent years, which Human Rights Watch, the State Department and others have documented. The problems include chronic impunity for police, military, and government officials involved in serious rights violations, land grabbing and forced evictions, and restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

Known rights abusers are gaining increasing power, with the promotion in 2009 of several military officials implicated in torture, extrajudicial killings, and political violence, including two military commanders linked to the deadly March 30, 1997 grenade attack on an opposition party rally. Military units are complicit in Cambodia's epidemic of forced evictions and land grabbing, often deployed to carry out forcible and violent evictions of villagers whose ownership claims to the land had never been properly or fairly dealt with by the courts. Police and soldiers frequently used excessive force in evictions, such as in March 2009, when security forces opened fire on unarmed farmers protesting confiscation of their land in Siem Reap, seriously wounding four villagers. Cambodian armed forces personnel have increasingly been involved in land-grabbing from villagers, either for personal benefit or on behalf of government officials or private companies. They have been involved in carrying out evictions ordered by government officials in violation of Cambodian law and without authority or training to exercise police powers.

The use of heavily armed soldiers in forced evictions has had deadly results. In November 2007 in Preah Vihear province, for example, soldiers and border police shot and killed two unarmed villagers during an eviction of more than 300 families. For 30 hours after the incident, soldiers sealed off the area, blocked workers from nongovernmental organizations from entering, and looted the belongings of the evicted families.

Human Rights Watch remains particularly concerned about US training and military assistance to Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) units or individuals that have been implicated in serious human rights violations. This includes counter-terror training to personnel from Prime Minister Hun Sen's elite Bodyguard Unit and Brigade 70, who have been moved to a special anti-terrorist unit that was created in January 2008. Both these units have been implicated in countless rights abuses, including the March 30, 1997 grenade attack and more recent instances of arbitrary detention and torture. While the US Under Secretary of Defense's response in October 2009 to a congressional query referred to "additional background checks" having been conducted on personnel from the new anti-terrorism unit with regard to the 1997 period, the Under Secretary of Defense did not respond to a congressional question as to what actions the US government has taken to establish the identities of the Bodyguard Unit personnel who were present during the March 30, 1997 grenade attack, and what the US government is doing to ensure that these individuals are not included in any US-sponsored training of RCAF forces.

The counter-terrorism unit's links to Hun Sen's Bodyguard Unit and Brigade 70 raise disturbing questions. They raise doubts about the standard of vetting of US military aid recipients and the possibility that the new counter-terrorism unit was created, at least in part, in order to avoid the Leahy Amendment's restrictions. The Under Secretary of Defense noticeably did not respond to a congressional question asking how many members of the National Counter-Terrorism Special Forces unit come from Hun Sen's Bodyguard Unit, while asserting that all personnel involved in military training in the United States have undergone "individual vetting."

US training has also been provided to members of Airborne Brigade 911. Both the unit and its commander, Maj. Gen. Chap Pheakdey, have been implicated in well-documented violations, including arbitrary detentions, post-election violence in 1998, and the torture and summary execution of FUNCINPEC commanders during the 1997 coup.

US-donated trucks have been provided to Brigade 31 (formerly known as Division 44 and then Battalion 44), under its long-time commander Brig. Gen. Srun Saroeun, which has been implicated in recent years in illegal logging, land-grabbing from poor villagers, and intimidation of opposition party activists during the 2008 national elections, as well as the summary executions of FUNCINPEC soldiers during the 1997 coup.

These are but a few examples of units and individuals that should have been excluded from US military assistance on the grounds that they have been implicated in gross human rights violations. US training and military support for such units raises serious questions about the quality of vetting done by the State and Defense Departments of RCAF units and individuals and shows why better screening is vital.

Recommendations regarding Cambodia

Following discussions in Phnom Penh, Washington DC, and Geneva with various US and UN officials, we urge the US government to:

• Relocate the 2010 Global Peace Operations Initiatives (GPOI) operation from Cambodia to another country. Prohibit participation of the Cambodian military, police, and gendarmerie in GPOI activities until a thorough vetting process screens out abusive members of participating units.
• Ensure that US government vetting of Cambodian military, police, counter-terror, and gendarme units is thorough and effective and does not allow human rights abusers to receive support, training, authorization to visit the US, or awards such as those given in the past by the FBI. Press other countries offering training and support to such units to also conduct effective vetting. Make continuing US support and training for such units conditional on serious investigations and prosecutions of human rights abusers.
• End all high-level contacts between US and Cambodian military officials, such as last year's meeting between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Cambodian Defense Minister Tea Banh, until genuine progress is made in establishing accountability within the Cambodian military.
• Reinstate bans on US government funding to the Cambodian government for International Military Education and Training and Foreign Military Financing and prohibit the participation of Cambodian military, police, and gendarmes in US-sponsored training programs, including access to US military academies. Once the process of vetting the human rights records of units seeking to participate in US training and other programs has undergone a thorough evaluation and substantial improvements have been implemented to address current deficiencies in the vetting process, and units and individuals implicated in gross human rights violations have been excluded from participation in US-funded programs and material support, the Departments of State and Defense should then consider resumption of military assistance.
• Urge Cambodia to return responsibility for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) to UNHCR. The Cambodian government has clearly demonstrated that it is unable or unwilling to impartially carry out RSD, a key part of the refugee screening process.
• Offer sanctuary and protection in future instances in which asylum seekers are clearly in jeopardy in Cambodia. The US embassy has the ability to offer protection, process these cases, and resettle such individuals.

Recommendations regarding China

The US should press the Chinese government to:

• Make public the whereabouts, conditions and legal status of the 20 Uighurs returned to China from Cambodia on December 19, 2009.
• Allow appropriate UN agencies and members of the international diplomatic community regular and unrestricted access to the Uighur returnees, so that their conditions can be adequately monitored.
• Allow UNHCR to complete the Refugee Status Determination process that it had already initiated when the returnees were arrested or, if that is not possible, allow US officials access to conduct RSD for the purpose of in-country refugee processing as part of the US refugee resettlement program.
• Immediately release the returnees unless charged with a cognizable criminal offense on the basis of credible evidence, and provide full due process rights, including access to legal counsel and family members, as provided under international law.
• Ensure that returnees who are charged with a criminal offense receive a fair and public trial before a competent, independent and impartial court that meets international fair trial standards.

We further urge the United States to continue to express its concerns to the Chinese government that China's intense pressure on the Cambodian government to return the Uighurs and violate its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and numerous Cambodian laws was unacceptable.

There are also lessons for the role of UNHCR. Human Rights Watch believes that part of the reason that UNHCR failed this group of asylum seekers is its weakness in the region. We believe that UNHCR did not opt to take responsibility for this group at a point in time when it is possible that the Cambodian authorities would have been willing to defer responsibility to UNHCR. Later, when it appeared that the Cambodian government had asserted that it had sole responsibility regarding their asylum claims, UNHCR could have cited its Manual on Mandate RSD, which lists circumstances in which UNHCR may exercise its own RSD mandate in states that have their own RSD procedures. One of those circumstances is when doing so would help secure durable solutions for the asylum applicants should they be recognized as refugees.

In the future, if it appears that UNHCR cannot or will not carry out RSD or provide adequate protection, the US should use the "Priority One" authority provided by US refugee processing priorities to identify and to resettle vulnerable and at-risk refugees directly from Cambodia, without the necessity of a UNHCR referral.

We also urge the US government to insist that UNHCR immediately put in place protection and expedited RSD measures for other high-risk asylum seekers currently in Cambodia from countries such as China and Vietnam.

Thank you for your consideration. We would be pleased to discuss this further with relevant US government officials at their convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Adams
Director, Asia Division

Bill Frelick
Director, Refugees Program

cc:
Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State, EAP
Eric Schwartz, Assistant Secretary of State, PRM
Scot Marciel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, EAP
Carol Rodley, US Ambassador to Cambodia
Scott Busby, Director for Human Rights, Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, NSC
Kasidis Rochanakorn, Director of the Asia Bureau, UNHCR

Tough Love: CCHR commends US decision to cancel shipment of military vehicles

Cambodian Center for Human Rights

PRESS RELEASE
Phnom Penh, 6 April 2010

Tough Love:
CCHR commends US decision to cancel shipment of military vehicles, calls on international community to use leverage to promote and protect human rights in Cambodia

The Cambodian Center for Human Rights (“CCHR”) welcomes the decision by the United States (“US”) to suspend a military shipment of 200 vehicles to Cambodia, following the deportation by the Royal Government of Cambodia (“RGC”) of 20 ethnic Uyghurs to the People’s Republic of China (“China”) in December 2009. The CCHR commends the US’s stance and calls on all countries that value democracy and human rights to use their leverage to promote and protect human rights in Cambodia.

The US was following up on its promise that there would be consequences to the RGC’s decision to deport the Uyghurs before the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) in Cambodia had completed its assessment of their refugee status. The Uyghurs were deported to China days before an announcement was made that the government of China and the RGC had concluded an agreement that included an aid and soft loans package reported to be worth US$1.2 billion. It is widely considered that the Uyghurs are likely to be subject to ill-treatment or worse in China. The deportation of the Uyghurs takes on an added poignancy when considered in light of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Cambodians sought and received refuge in other countries in the late 1970s and 1980s.

The RGC has stated that it is unconcerned by the US military sanction. This response echoes the RGC’s recent reaction to the call by the United Nations (“UN”) for sufficient time for consideration of and debate on the new anti-corruption law: the RGC described these comments as “interference” and threatened to expel the UN Resident Coordinator. CCHR President Ou Virak commented: “The international community should not be bullied by the RGC, buoyed as it is by unconditional aid from countries that have little concern for human rights at home let alone in Cambodia. The RGC needs foreign aid, trade and investment to develop and rule Cambodia. Those countries that value democracy and human rights and care about safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of the Cambodian people are therefore in a strong position to speak out when these freedoms are threatened, and put real conditions on their dealings with Cambodia that encourage the RGC to respect human rights. Ou Virak added: “As respect for civil and political rights in Cambodia deteriorates and land grabbing resulting in mass displacement continues unabated, history could judge silence and inaction as complicity.”

The CCHR calls on the RGC to honour its international and constitutional obligations to respect human rights. Further, the CCHR urges the international community – including those signatories to the Paris Peace Agreements that have undertaken to “promote and encourage respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cambodia” – to take a tougher line on imposing human rights conditions on aid and to speak out when the RGC fails to respect human rights.

For more information, please contact:
Mr. Ou Virak, President, CCHR
Tel: +855 12 404051
Email: ouvirak@cchrcambodia.org

Sacrava's Political Cartoon: The Grapes Are Too Green

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

"If the US gives us the equipment, we are happy. And if they won't give it to us, it is also good": Khieu Kanharith

Cambodia shrugs at US punishment over Uighurs

04/02/2010
Agence France-Presse

PHNOM PENH--The Cambodian government on Friday said it was untroubled by a US refusal to send military aid to the Southeast Asian nation as punishment for its deportation of 20 Chinese Uighurs.

The US stopped a shipment of 200 military trucks and trailers on Thursday in response to Phnom Penh's controversial December deportation of the ethnic Uighur asylum seekers to China, where they said they would face torture.

Nations and rights groups deplored Cambodia's move to expel the Uighurs, who had been labelled "criminals" by Beijing after fleeing China's far western Xinjiang region following violent clashes with the majority Han.

Cambodian government spokesman Khieu Kanharith said his country was not concerned by the cancelled donation of surplus US military supplies, part of an American aid programme.

"If the US gives us the equipment, we are happy. And if they won't give it to us, it is also good," he told AFP.

"There will be no effect to our military work," the spokesman added, saying that the UN refugee agency had been too slow in assessing the Uighurs' claim to refugee status.

The decision to deport the Uighurs came a day ahead of a visit by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, during which he agreed 1.2 billion dollars in aid and loans to Cambodia with Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Clashes between Xinjiang's Uighurs and China's majority Han ethnic group in July left nearly 200 dead and 1,600 injured, according to official tolls.

The US State Department in its last annual human rights report said that China was stepping up cultural and political repression against Uighurs in Xinjiang.

Cambodia bristles at US aid cut over deportations

Friday, April 02, 2010
AP

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — Cambodia bristled Friday at a U.S. decision to cut a small military aid program to protest the December deportation of Muslim asylum seekers to China, saying if they deserved protection the United States could have offered it.

The United States announced Thursday it had suspended the program that supplied surplus trucks and trailers. It was a response to Cambodia's deportation of the 20 Uighurs who had fled ethnic violence last year in China's far west. China accused the Uighurs of involvement in the violence.

The suspension involves about 200 vehicles supplied directly to the Cambodian military and does not affect the roughly $60 million civilian aid program to Cambodia, said U.S. Embassy spokesman John Johnson.

In statements to the U.N. refugee agency, the Uighurs said they witnessed and documented the July rioting in the Xinjiang region between their minority group and majority Han Chinese and that they feared lengthy imprisonment or even the death penalty if they were returned to China. It was China's worst ethnic violence in decades.

"These Uighurs were not real political asylum seekers," said Cambodian government spokesman Khieu Kanharith. "If they were real political asylum seekers, the United States could have granted them asylum in the U.S."

"We're happy if the United States provides us with aid, but it's their right to suspend it," he said.

China had called the group criminals and presented Cambodia with arrest warrants, the spokesman said. Cambodia said it deported the group because they had entered the country illegally.

"Cambodia couldn't refuse the request from China to deport them, because China sent us arrest warrants," Khieu Kanharith said.

China is key ally and donor to impoverished Cambodia.

Days after the deportations, China announced a $1.2 billion aid package to Cambodia. China has denied the aid was linked to politics saying it came with "no strings attached."

The group of Uighurs had made the journey from China's far west through to Vietnam and then Cambodia with the help of a network of missionary groups.

The U.S., the U.N. and several rights groups had urged Cambodia not to deport the group. Following the deportations, the U.S. said it was "deeply disturbed" and that the incident would affect Cambodia's relationship with the United States.

China has not revealed the fate of the deportees.

Overseas activist groups say Uighurs in China have been rounded up in mass detentions since the summer's violence that killed about 200 people in Xinjiang. Almost 200 people have been tried and several dozen death sentences have been handed down, although authorities haven't said how many people have been executed.

Cambodia shrugs off U.S. halting shipments of military trucks

April 02, 2010
Source: Xinhua

Cambodia shrugged off U.S. suspended shipments of 200 military trucks over retaliation of Cambodia's deportation of Chinese asylum seekers last year.

Koy Kong, spokesman for Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, said that Cambodia has her full sovereignty to implement its policy in deporting the illegal 20 Chinese Uighur asylum seekers back to China in December last year.

"It is the rights of U.S. government to either donate or suspend such assistance. Cambodia is implementing its own policy and laws within the frameworks of full sovereignty," Koy Kong told Xinhua.

"That means U.S. can implement their policy and we can implement ours."

Foreign media quoting United States Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States informed Cambodia last month that it was suspending the shipment of 200 military trucks and trailers as a consequence of Cambodia's December decision on the illegal Chinese Uighur asylum seekers.

Cambodia dismisses US retaliation over Uighur deportations

Fri, 02 Apr 2010
DPA

Washington/Phnom Penh - The Cambodian government on Friday brushed off reports that the United States has suspended shipments of military vehicles.

The announcement by the US State Department on Thursday was in response to Phnom Penh's deportation in December of 20 Uighur asylum seekers to China. The Chinese Muslims had fled to Cambodia last year.

"It's no problem for Cambodia - no problem at all," Cambodian foreign affairs spokesman Koy Kuong said. "It is the right of the US government to donate or suspend its military aid."

Koy Kuong said Phnom Penh stood by earlier assertions that in deporting the Uighurs it was merely following its own immigration laws, adding he had not heard whether the US would take further punitive steps.

But he again denied the deportation was in any way connected to China's announcement, subsequent to the deportations, that it would provide Phnom Penh with 1.2 billion US dollars in grant aid.

Washington strongly objected to the deportations, saying Phnom Penh had failed to follow international asylum norms.

US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said Thursday that Washington informed Cambodia on March 19 of its decision to suspend the delivery of trucks and trailers.

"As we said, there would be consequences for their failure to live up to their international obligations," Crowley said.

The US fears that the Uighurs would be subjected to abuse if returned to China, and has refused to repatriate Uighurs held at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility who were captured in Afghanistan.

Later this year Cambodia is to host thousands of soldiers from the United States and countries in the Association of South-East Asian Nations regional bloc as they take part in the US-led Global Peace Operations Initiative. The initiative is designed to improve the capability of peacekeeping operations.

US Assist. Sec. Philip J. Crowley's press briefing on the suspension of US military aid to Cambodia

Click here to watch the video of the press briefing

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC
April 1, 2010
Source: US Department of State
TRANSCRIPT:

1:14 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. A couple of you were with us in New York yesterday when the international community came together in a significant way to support Haiti’s short- and long-term recovery. There was $5.3 billion pledged for 2010 and 2011 to cover the immediate needs of Haiti, and then a total of $9.8 billion pledged towards reconstruction and the support of essential social services, governance, and broad-based sustainable development. Donors, of course, will be guided by the principles agreed upon earlier this year in Montreal. The recovery effort will be Haitian-led, inclusive, accountable and transparent, and this started yesterday as pledges were announced in real time, coordinated, results-oriented and sustainable.

The United States pledged $1.15 billion, and this will go towards reconstruction and multilateral debt relief. And we look forward to the establishment of the multi-donor trust fund at the World Bank and the formation of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission that will be co-chaired by Prime Minister Bellerive and former President Clinton.

We mentioned back in December our concern about the Cambodian Government returning 20 Uighur asylum-seekers to China, which contradicted earlier statements by the government that they would honor their international obligations by working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees regarding – to determine whether these individuals qualified as refugees. And we expressed our concern at the time. We have recently – on March 19th – informed the Cambodian Government that, as a consequence, we are suspending the provision of excess defense articles, including new shipments of trucks and trailers as a consequence of the government’s action.

QUESTION: But wait, can I just ask something about that?

MR. CROWLEY: Let me just do one more and then I’ll be with you.

And finally, we’ve released an announcement this afternoon that Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela will begin a weeklong trip to Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru next week, and we expect topics discussed will include security cooperation, social inclusion, economic competitiveness, democratic governance, and human rights.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. I think it was either – it’s April already, so maybe it was last month or the month before, I had asked about what the consequences the Cambodian Government thought --

MR. CROWLEY: Indeed. You did.

QUESTION: This is my answer?

MR. CROWLEY: This is an answer.

QUESTION: March 19th it was – they were told?

MR. CROWLEY: March 19th.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask why it takes – took until April Fool’s Day to announce this?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) I – Matt, I was asked to mention this today and I did.

QUESTION: Okay right. All right. Is there a dollar amount on that?

MR. CROWLEY: No. I think it involves 200 vehicles and trailers that had been identified for shipment to Cambodia.

QUESTION: And this is – when you say – you called it excess military equipment?

MR. CROWLEY: It comes under a program called EDA, excess defensive articles, where items that are surplused to our military needs are provided to countries. And this is something that I think is important to Cambodia and obviously, as we said, there would be consequences for their failure to live up to the international obligations.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So in consequence to their actions, what – how would you characterize the seriousness of this diplomatically?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we have diplomatic relations with Cambodia. We have diplomatic relations with countries even though every action that they might take are – we do not agree with. So in this particular case, we indicated our displeasure. I mean, go back to December, we had the Secretary and Deputy Secretary had both personally called the ministry of foreign affairs to express our concern and the importance with – we attach to this issue. They failed to heed not only our call that they step up to their international obligations, but in fact, specific obligations they have as a country. And we said there would be consequences and this is a step in that direction.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: There are some reports that a Lebanese TV’s personality who is – a psychic – is going to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for allegedly practicing witchcraft. Now, given the fact that in your recent Human Rights Report you said that there have been some improvements in the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the fact that people of whatever type of religious or practices are being beheaded for their --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I have no knowledge of this case. We’ll be happy to look into it and provide a comment. Obviously, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, are central universal principles that we believe in. But I’ll take the question in terms of the facts of this case.

QUESTION: Right. You’re suggesting that psychics somehow are a religion --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m just saying I will – we will --

QUESTION: Witchcraft is a religion.

MR. CROWLEY: -- take and evaluate – see what we know about this case.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. Government position on extrasensory powers?

MR. CROWLEY: This is April Fool’s Day isn’t it? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions, but I’ll ask them one at a time, okay?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The first one – and you can answer and then I’ll ask another one.

MR. CROWLEY: And we’ll have things ricocheting all over the room. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The first one is: We understand that Cheryl Mills had a meeting with a Cuban foreign minister on the sidelines of the Haiti meeting in New York yesterday. Can you tell us what they talked about?

MR. CROWLEY: They talked about Haiti. In particular, she did meet with Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez to ensure that our assistance is consistent with the priorities established by the Haitian Government. Cuba has volunteered, I think, in the significant assistance in the health sector, and they want to see – make sure that this assistance is implemented in a coordinated fashion. So it was a specific meeting about Cuba’s – the support that they wish to provide to Haiti.

QUESTION: So they didn’t touch on other bilateral Cuba-U.S. relations?

MR. CROWLEY: I think during the course of the conversation we brought up the issue of Alan Gross. That was a part of the conversation.

QUESTION: What is the current coordination on the ground between the U.S. and Cuba in terms of Haiti, in terms of the assistance?

MR. CROWLEY: It’s a good question. I don’t know the answer. I mean, to the extent that we need to talk to any country about the nature of their assistance, we will be prepared to do so. I mean, obviously --

QUESTION: I’m not talking about talking, but are there, like, specific kind of USAID officials or workers or contractors or whatever working hand-in-glove with Cubans on the ground, do you know?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn't say that it’s hand-in-glove, but I wouldn't rule out that there have been pragmatic contacts on the ground in Port-au-Prince in terms of support that – I think Cuba has a hospital on the ground, if I’m not mistaken, and I can’t rule out that we’ve had contacts there, I mean, as we do on specific issues that are in our interest. So I wouldn't rule out that we have had specific conversations in the context of the provision of assistance to Haiti.

QUESTION: But you’re not – just one last one. You’re not averse to kind of working together on a project, are you?

MR. CROWLEY: I think it was former President Clinton that had one of the lines of the day yesterday in terms of saying that we don’t agree with Cuba and Venezuela on very much, but we all agree on the importance of assistance to Haiti.

QUESTION: On Cuba, sir. During this meeting, was the human rights situation and the fact that two new dissidents are on hunger strike brought up somehow?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know the extent – this was a very – I mean, we do have regular meetings with Cuba in the context of migration talks and specific issues, like postal services. When we do have discussions with Cuba, we always bring up the issue of human rights, we always bring up our concerns about prisoners who are held there. And in this particular case, we did. I’m aware of that the specific issue of Alan Gross came up. I just don’t know if the broader issues were touched on as well.

Samir.

QUESTION: The opposition parties in Sudan declared today that they will boycott the coming elections. What are you going to do about that?

MR. CROWLEY: Actually, Scott Gration is in Sudan as we speak. He is – continues to meet with officials on implementation of the CPA and the upcoming elections. Our – we’re troubled by any decision that reduces the competitiveness and credibility of these elections, but the situation is very fluid, and Scott Gration is there and actively trying to determine more details about the decision by these opposition parties.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. feel that the election can go forward in any credible manner if the opposition parties don’t participate?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we have concerns about the credibility of the election. We want to see it as inclusive and competitive as possible. Scott is there trying to help work here in the home stretch as we get ready for elections coming up. I will tell you that there are lots of things going on at different levels, so even if one decision might represent a setback, there are lots of other things going on that we continue to encourage. But he is there expressly because we want to make sure that the elections that happen in Sudan are as inclusive, as competitive, and as a result, produce a government or governments that will work significantly towards a better future for Sudan.

QUESTION: Just one more on that. Would it be fair to say that he is encouraging the opposition parties to take part in the election?

MR. CROWLEY: I’d prefer not to characterize what the current situation is. He’s there trying to work through these issues. As we have more, we’ll continue to report it to you.

QUESTION: Why are you reluctant to characterize the situation when most of the opposition candidates are pulling out of an election?

MR. CROWLEY: He’s actively working on those – on these issues, so at this point, I think we – our goal is to produce as competitive an election as possible. We recognize that this is a difficult environment. These are complex and difficult issues. Sudan hasn’t done this in a while. But we’re aware of the issue. We’re looking into it. We’re working with the parties. We want to see full implementation to CPA. But at this particular – I just don’t want to specifically say that what might be occurring at one moment is necessarily going to be the definitive, final answer.

QUESTION: Same thing.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did he go sort of racing off when it appeared that the opposition or the Southern candidates --

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a good question. I don’t know when – Scott left a few days ago. I think it was a reflection of our – I mean, it’s a reflection of the importance with which we attach this election as a major step towards the referendum next year. Getting this right will clearly provide a boost forward for Sudan, both North and South. I’m not sure that we expected this announcement, but clearly, Scott is there working with the parties and seeing what we can do to make sure that the election is as competitive as possible.

QUESTION: Speaking of elections, P.J., President Karzai has come out with some pretty strong accusations about fraud in the Afghan election and that it was all the foreigners’ fault and it had nothing to do with him and it didn’t have anything to do with the Afghans; it was all basically Galbraith and the French general who was in charge of the vote counting. Do you have any reaction to these –

MR. CROWLEY: I haven’t seen those specific comments. I would say we have made our thoughts known in the past about the irregularities in the election. It was not a perfect election – there’s substantial evidence of irregularities. But it’s less about us. It really is more about what Karzai has to do to see in the eyes of his people and what they want to see for – in the future in terms of more effective governance at the national level and, in particular, more effective governance at the local level.

So obviously, we’ve had many conversations with President Karzai, most recently with the President’s trip to Afghanistan last week. And this is a vitally important issue. Karzai has to step forward, lead his government in terms of convincing the international community and the Afghan people that they are taking measurable steps to reduce corruption. Obviously, we continue to discuss with Afghanistan its election processes.

We’re cognizant of the fact that the Afghan parliament has stepped up and questioned a decision by President Karzai in terms of who will appoint how many individuals to the independent electoral commission. This is very important to Afghanistan’s future. We have to make sure that as Afghanistan goes forward – they’ve got important elections coming up later this year – that there is a credible process, there’s an independent body to execute and oversee the election results, that there’s significant monitoring both inside Afghanistan and from outside parties so that ultimately you see electoral results that are credible, that are legitimate, and that help advance good governance in Afghanistan. So President Karzai has said the right things to us starting with the promises that he made in his inaugural speech late last year, and we are going to continue to work with the Afghan Government and press the Afghan Government to deliver on those commitments.

QUESTION: One of the things he said was that the West – by which I presume he means the U.S. in particular – but in general, the West wants to see him weak or wants to see a weak Afghan president and wants to see a weak parliament. Do you accept that?

MR. CROWLEY: We do not accept that judgment. We want to see effective governance at all levels, at the national level and the government led by President Karzai. We are working to strengthen specific institutions and ministries. We have an accountability system in place. We’re going to deliver assistance through those ministries that are effective that we believe are well-led and are taking affirmative steps to deal with corruption. But we also want to see the emergence of stronger local governance. This is not a zero-sum calculation. The people want to see effective government. They want to see government that delivers services to the Afghan people. That is what we are interested in. That’s why we have the military force levels that we have to try to stabilize Afghanistan and we have made the civilian commitment to put in place specialists to help grow the capacity of the Afghan Government. So we want a strong Afghan Government at all levels. It’s not in anyone’s interests to see Afghanistan poorly led or weakly led in the future.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: On Iran and the sanctions and your discussions with P-5+1 political directors, I’m wondering – and the idea that China would be willing to talk about possible sanctions. Do you have a reasonable expectation that they’re ready to accept the idea of sanctions or are they just willing to consider it? I mean have we really moved or do you think you’re going to get into a process –

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure I understand a difference between those two.

QUESTION: Well, there’s a difference between, like, you’re ready to actually talk about specific sanctions. Do you think that China has come around to the idea of sanctions, or now they’re just not saying, “Absolutely, no,” they’re saying, “Well, we’re willing to consider”? I mean, I’m just trying to judge whether you – whether it’s really moved or they’re just kind of softening their absolute no.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, China’s position on sanctions in the abstract is well-known and it’s been a consistent position that China has held for a long time. That said, China has supported every sanctions regime in the past regarding Iran. And China has said clearly that it desires a diplomatic solution to this. So do we. We want the – we want to see Iran respond to the international community and it has failed to do so. So I think this reflects that China is responding to the same set of facts that we have been responding to, that there has been a significant effort by the international community – not just the United States, variety of countries – to engage Iran and to seek answers to the questions that we have raised, the questions raised by not only their statements about further construction in violation of their IAEA obligations, but also the revelation of the secret Qom facility which has no other explanation, has no civilian nuclear explanation whatsoever. So to the extent that the ongoing recalcitrance of China – of Iran, its unwillingness to come forward and engage in any significant way, China now recognizes, as we do, that part of this diplomatic effort, as the Secretary mentioned yesterday, is the continuing offer of engagement, but it’s also the fact that we are now at a point where we need to consider very specific steps that put pressure on the Iranian Government and demonstrate to them that there will be a consequence for their failure.

QUESTION: So – I’m sorry. What I’m asking is: Do you see this as you’re moving with China as well as the rest of the Security Council to negotiating specific sanctions that will be put in a resolution, or do you think that China is now just willing to talk about the idea of sanctions? Have you moved to actually checking your list and negotiating specific --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I – let me talk about the United States. We believe that we are at the point now where we have to have more earnest discussion about specific steps, what would concretely be in a potential Security Council resolution. And China has indicated a willingness to be a full participant as we go through the specifics of what would be in a resolution.

QUESTION: On the same subject, clearly, the visit of President Hu at the Nuclear Security Summit is a big deal for everybody. Will there be discussion of the Iran issue during those talks?

MR. CROWLEY: Of course. (Laughter.) The President, the Secretary, others will have bilateral meetings during the course of the Nuclear Security Conference that’ll come up early next – in the middle of next month. I am certain that there’ll be a range of issues discussed during these bilaterals, and Iran will be one of them.

QUESTION: Can you give me a general sense of how important President Hu’s decision to come to Washington is?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we welcome his decision. We have looked at the Nuclear Security Summit as a very important conference, and I think China’s participation at the highest possible level reflects China’s concern as well about nuclear security going – in the future.

QUESTION: Does the visit in any way signal that we’re over what’s been a slightly rocky patch in U.S.-China relations?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, that’s really a decision to ask China.

QUESTION: Why? Are you saying that China was responsible only for the rocky patch?

MR. CROWLEY: No. I mean, I think you should take this at face value. This is a very important conference coming up, a significant number of high – of presidents, prime ministers, kings will be attending. And I think the fact that China has decided to have President Hu Jintao attend reflects the important – their understanding of the importance of not only this meeting but these topics.

QUESTION: Have the Chinese been given any assurances that Hu won’t be embarrassed by being labeled a currency manipulator within days of arriving here?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, the Nuclear Security Summit is about a vitally important set of issues regarding nonproliferation, and I think you should take this at face value.

QUESTION: Chinese officials won’t confirm what you just said, that they’re onboard with talking about new sanctions. Why would they say that? Are you confident that they’re onboard?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure I understand the question.

QUESTION: Chinese officials won’t confirm that they’re even willing to negotiate a new round of sanctions, so what does that say to your confidence?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we are moving forward this path – on this path, and China is – I mean, China and the United States have the same strategic goal here. No one wants to see the emergence of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We have had maybe differences and some of those differences remain in terms of how best to achieve that strategic objective. But I think the fact that China has indicated it’s willing to engage in the substance of this issue, we think is clearly a welcome step.

QUESTION: So you’re talking to them about specific sanctions that they’d agree to?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we’re at the point – the President’s laid out an ambitious goal to get this done as soon as possible, in a matter of weeks, not months. And so we are at the point where we’re going to begin to discuss in earnest very specific – the specific – the guts of a possible sanctions resolution. And China is now fully united in this process and we welcome that.

QUESTION: It took you – I don’t even remember, but I mean, somewhere between six months and a year to negotiate the last one, so you don’t really have an expectation that in two weeks you’re going to be able to negotiate such a --

MR. CROWLEY: We’re not – I – we – the President has said he wants to get this done as soon as possible, but I’m not aware that there’s a --

QUESTION: Do you think it reflects an accurate --

MR. CROWLEY: -- there’s a specific timetable.

QUESTION: Do you think that – I mean, I understand it’s an ambitious goal. But do you think that goal is grounded in reality, if history is any indicator?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we --

QUESTION: You don’t really – if you look around the Council, Brazil’s not really onboard on sanctions, Turkey is really not thrilled --

MR. CROWLEY: If you look at Foreign Minister Amorim’s statement yesterday, he said he welcomed the opportunity to talk to any country about these issues. And we will obviously have future discussions with Brazil and other members of the Security Council.

QUESTION: Mr. Davutoglu, Turkey’s ambassador to Washington, D.C. – there are some reports in Turkish press that he will be sent back to Washington next week. So it seems that Ankara is taking a step backwards after the telephone conversation between Secretary of State and Mr. --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we would welcome the return of the ambassador, but that is ultimately a decision for Turkey.

QUESTION: No, I wonder – I wonder if any – if Washington has a role in this position change of Ankara, and if any guarantees are given to Ankara about --

MR. CROWLEY: We have had a number of conversations with officials in Turkey. We have encouraged them to return the ambassador to Washington. We think it’s very important to have him here. But that is a decision for Turkey.

QUESTION: And was – one more follow-on question. Has any guarantees – or was it one of the topics that Mr. – president’s remarks which will be done on April 24th? Was it one of the topics in the phone conversation?

MR. CROWLEY: Which telephone conversation?

QUESTION: Between Secretary of State and Mr. Davutoglu, Turkish foreign minister.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we did have a fairly extensive readout of that call the day it happened – or day after it happened. It happened on a Sunday. We continue to talk to Turkey about the – not only the political issue here in the United States, but more importantly, steps that both Turkey and Armenia need to take in terms of normalization, fulfilling their mutual responsibilities under the protocol signed last year, and we continue to encourage them to take those important steps. But we were talking about all of these issues with the Secretary of State and the foreign minister.

QUESTION: When do you expect the Senate to confirm the appointment of Ambassador Ford to Syria?

MR. CROWLEY: He’s had his hearing, but that is – that’s really a decision for the Senate. We obviously want to see him in Syria as soon as possible.

David.

QUESTION: P.J., what is your take on what’s going on in Guinea-Bissau – or reaction?

MR. CROWLEY: Very complex issue. I think all I would say is that we are monitoring it. We are, as a general rule, against coups. We’re against violence. We want to see constitutional rule restored as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: As a general rule, you’re --

MR. CROWLEY: As a general rule.

QUESTION: -- you’re against coups?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That’s really bold.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: P.J.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Back to China and Iran for a second. So today, Saeed Jalili – what is his name – is in Beijing for meetings with, I think, Yang Jiechi. I was wondering if you’ve heard anything from Beijing about that. If so, if you can tell us – did you get a readout about that?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I would assume in some fashion, given our ongoing consultations with all of the members of the P-5+1, that China will report the results of that conversation. We certainly hope that Iran will listen to China and – in terms of resolving the issues that we continue to talk to Iran about.

QUESTION: One on North Korea.

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: This Mr. Hwang, the high-level defector from North Korea, was in town yesterday and gave a talk and basically said that Kim Jong-il would give up his nuclear weapons in anyone’s dreams, that he would never give up his nuclear weapons, and that the only real way to change the course of the regime is to possibly isolate him. Like you shouldn’t – he said, obviously, you shouldn’t use military force. But he said you shouldn’t engage him either. He said that if you make him think that he’s not worthy of negotiating, then he’ll want to negotiate. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on that.

MR. CROWLEY: We have – our current approach that’s shared by all parties in the Six-Party process but one. We are engaging North Korea in a variety of ways. If Kim Jong-il wants to end his isolation, if he wants a better relationship with the United States and other countries around the world and the region, he has a clear choice.

QUESTION: Back to the Haiti donors conference just for a second. I’m still a little bit unclear – Prime Minister Bellervive made a very specific request in his opening remarks for $350 million in direct budget support for the Haitian Government, saying this was key to actually getting them able to start implementing all the things everyone wants them to do. And I – by the end of the conference, even President Preval didn’t seem very clear about whether or not that request for $350 million had been covered by all of these different – or any of these different pledges that have come in. And I’m just wondering if we have any clarity on that at this point.

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not – I think – obviously, we’re aware of the $350 billion – $350 million budget gap for Haiti. I don’t think we’ve made a decision on how to best close that gap.

QUESTION: Does the United States ever try the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il invite to the Washington, D.C. coming Nuclear Security Summit? Ever try then Kim Jong-il --

QUESTION: Did you invite Kim Jong-il --

QUESTION: -- invited to the D.C. Nuclear Security Summit?

MR. CROWLEY: I can – I’m going to go on a limb here. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Why not?

MR. CROWLEY: Why not?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we will invite leaders to this summit who are committed to actually strengthening the nonproliferation regime around the world.

QUESTION: Well, I thought part of this whole engagement policy --

MR. CROWLEY: And North Korea is a serial proliferator. They have, as has been said, not yet made that fundamental decision to give up their nuclear program as the international community is demanding. That is in North Korea’s interest. It’s in the region’s interest. It’s in the broader international community’s interest. But North Korea has yet to show the seriousness of purpose that they are committed to the world’s nonproliferation agenda. In fact, they were (inaudible) parties to the NPT and withdrew.

So I don’t think we ever contemplated inviting North Korea to the NSS.

QUESTION: So what you’re saying though – so Ahmadinejad should be waiting by the mailbox for his invitation to show up?

MR. CROWLEY: I doubt it.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, I thought part of your whole engagement policy is to get these countries that you don’t agree with on various issues to --

MR. CROWLEY: And we are willing to engage North Korea, and we are willing to engage Iran. We have taken a step forward ourselves. We’ve offered meaningful engagement. The results have been episodic, as you have reported. But the countries that are coming to the Nuclear Security Summit are those who are committed to strengthening the nonproliferation regime rather than undercutting it.

QUESTION: Well, don’t you think the whole current nuclear and proliferation regime right now is about these two particular countries in particular?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, that’s true.

QUESTION: So don’t you --

MR. CROWLEY: They are --

QUESTION: So you don’t think they should be involved in these discussions?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, there is a broad concern. It is about countries like North Korea and Iran, although I wouldn’t put the NSS strictly through that lens. It is about how do you keep nuclear material, nuclear knowledge secure, how you prevent it from getting into both state actors and non-state actors. It’s a broader agenda than, obviously, North Korea and Iran. But clearly, we are strengthening the nonproliferation regime expressly because of the irresponsible behavior of countries like Iran and North Korea.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:48 p.m.)

US stops Cambodia shipment over Uighur deportation

Cambodia's military receives vehicles under a program which involves the US providing surplus military supplies to other countries. [Reuters]

Friday, April 02, 2010
ABC Radio Australia

The United States says it has stopped a shipment of military trucks to Cambodia as punishment for sending Uighur asylum-seekers back to China.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley says they failed to heed not only its call to step up to their international obligations but specific obligations they have as a country.

Cambodia in December deported the 20 Uighurs even though they were seeking UN refugee status and said they would face torture if returned.

The United States, which had warned against the deportation, said it was calling off a shipment of 200 trucks and trailers.

The vehicles are provided under a program which involves the US providing surplus military supplies to other countries.

US suspends Cambodian military aid program in protest over Uighur deportations

Apr 02, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States says it has suspended a small military aid program with Cambodia to protest the deportation of 20 Uighur asylum seekers to China in December.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Thursday that the United States informed Cambodia this month that it would suspend shipments of surplus trucks and trailers.

The group of Uighurs had made the journey from China's far west through to Vietnam and then Cambodia with the help of a network of missionary groups. China had accused them of being involved in ethnic rioting in July that pitted the minority group against the majority Han Chinese.

Shortly after the deportations, China announced a US$1.2 billion aid package to Cambodia.

US cuts off military vehicle shipments to Cambodia

Thu, 01 Apr 2010
DPA

Washington - The United States has suspended shipments of military vehicles to Cambodia in response to the government's decision to deport Uighurs to China, the State Department said Thursday.

The State Department informed Cambodia on March 19 that it will not be receiving the shipments of trucks and trailers.

"As we said, there would be consequences for their failure to live up to their international obligations," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said.

Cambodia in December expelled the 20 Uighurs, or Chinese Muslims, who fled seeking asylum. Washington strongly objected to the move, saying Phnom Penh did not follow international asylum norms.

The United States fears that the Uighurs would be subjected to abuse if returned to China, and has refused to repatriate Uighurs who were captured in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and held at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility.

U.S. suspends some aid to Cambodia over Uighur case

Thursday, April 1, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Thursday it had halted shipments of some surplus military vehicles to Cambodia to retaliate for the Southeast Asian nation's decision to deport a group of Uighurs back to China over U.S. protests.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States informed Cambodia last month that it was suspending the shipment of 200 military trucks and trailers as a consequence of Cambodia's December decision on the Uighurs.

"We said there would be consequences and this is a step in that direction," Crowley said.

Cambodia in December defied international pressure and expelled 20 Uighur asylum seekers, a move that underlined its growing economic and diplomatic links with China.

Two days later it signed 14 deals worth an estimated $850 million with China. Beijing denied any link.

Uighurs are a Turkic Muslim group native to China's far western region of Xinjiang, where ethnic rioting in July killed 197 people. Many there chafe under Chinese restrictions on their culture and religion.

The deported Uighurs were smuggled into Cambodia late last year and applied for asylum at the U.N. refugee office.

But Cambodia brushed off concerns they would be mistreated if returned and deported them for immigration offenses, a move sharply criticized by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United States.

Crowley said Cambodian authorities had ignored appeals from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her deputy on the Uighurs, and that Washington had decided that suspending the truck and trailer shipments was an appropriate response.

"This is something that is important to Cambodia, and obviously as we said there would be consequences for their failure to live up to their international obligations," he said.

(Reporting by Andrew Quinn; Editing by Xavier Briand)

US cancels Cambodia trucks [-No more toys for the authoritarian regime?]

Apr 2, 2010
AFP

WASHINGTON - THE United States on Thursday stopped a shipment of military trucks to Cambodia as punishment after it sent Uighur asylum-seekers back to China in defiance of international appeals.

Cambodia in December deported the 20 Uighurs, members of a largely Muslim minority group in western China, even though they were seeking UN refugee status and said they would face torture if returned.

The United States, which had warned against the deportation, said it was calling off a shipment of 200 trucks and trailers under a programme by which the United States provides surplus military supplies to other countries.

'They failed to heed not only our call that they step up to their international obligations but specific obligations they have as a country,' State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters.

'We said there would be consequences, and this is a step in that direction,' he said.

'This is something that I think is important to Cambodia,' he said of the trucks. But the assistance pales in comparison to aid from Beijing. China, which had put heavy pressure on Cambodia to hand over the Uighurs, signed off on one billion dollars in assistance days after the deportation, although Beijing denied there was a link.

Hun Sen Paved Way for Uighur Expulsion: HRW

Hun Xen (R) (Photo: Reuters)

By Chun Sakada, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
25 March 2010

Days before Cambodia deported 20 Uighur asylum seekers to China, Prime Minister Hun Sen signed a sub-decree that undermined the country’s international obligations, Human Rights Watch said Thursday.

The government writ “allows the interior minister to ignore both the procedures and the recommendations on refugee status of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees,” the international organization said in an open letter to Hun Sen.

“We respectfully urge you to amend the sub-decree so that it will truly be an instrument for implementing the Refugee Convention and for fulfilling the government of Cambodia’s obligations as a state party,” Bill Frelick, Human Rights Watch’s refugee policy director, and Brad Adams, its Asia director, wrote.

“We also urge you to consult with the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, to allow them access to all people seeking asylum in Cambodia, and to respect and honor the exercise of their mandate in Cambodian territory,” they wrote.

The new regulation smake Cambodia especially dangerous for asylum seekers in politically sensitive cases, such as that the Uighurs, from the restive western Chinese province of Xinjiang, found themselves in December.

In the days leading up to the deportation, Chinese officials said the asylum seekers were fleeing criminal charges stemming from unrest in the province.

After the asylum seekers, who had found their way to UNHCR, were put on a plane and sent to China, Chinese leaders pledged $1.2 billion in aid to Cambodia.

Government spokesman Khieu Kanharith said the organization had in its letter “worked with political motivation” against the sub-decree.

“We recognize political asylum cases, if it is a real political refugee, but not an economic refugee or a refugee from the law,” he said.

Cambodia: New Regulations Fail Refugees

Source: Human Rights Watch

Revised Procedures Aided Unlawful Return of Uighurs to China

(New York, March 24, 2010) – New Cambodian asylum regulations do not meet Cambodia’s obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Prime Minister Hun Sen today.

On December 20, 2009, three days after Hun Sen signed new procedures for determining refugee status, the Cambodian government forcibly returned 20 ethnic Uighur asylum seekers to China in violation of international law. Strikingly, the document outlining the procedures, known as a sub-decree, allows the interior minister to ignore both the procedures and the recommendations on refugee status of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

“Cambodia’s new regulations allow the government far too much leeway to deny refugee status and to forcibly return people who fear persecution,” said Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch. “And the return of the Uighurs to China three days later raises major doubts about whether Cambodia takes its obligations toward refugees seriously.”

Human Rights Watch said the new regulations would be especially dangerous in politically sensitive cases like those involving the Uighurs, some of whom may now face the death penalty in China.

Human Rights Watch’s letter to Hun Sen provides a point-by-point analysis of the refugee sub-decree and urges him to amend it to bring it into conformity with the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Cambodia is a party. It also urges the Cambodian government to consult with the UN refugee agency to allow it access to all people seeking asylum in Cambodia, and to respect and honor the agency’s exercise of its mandate to recognize and protect refugees in any country, including Cambodia.

To read Human Rights Watch’s letter to Prime Minister Hun Sen, please visit:

http://www.hrw.org/node/89303

To read Human Rights Watch's analysis of the Sub-decree on Procedures for Examination, Recognition, and Provision of Refugee or Asylum Status for Aliens in the Kingdom of Cambodia, please visit: http://www.hrw.org/node/89296

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Cambodia, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/en/asia/cambodia

For more information, please contact:
In Washington, Bill Frelick (English): + 1-202-641-4344; +1-240-593-1747 (mobile)
In San Francisco, Brad Adams (English): +1-917-535-4093 (mobile)
In Washington, Sara Colm (English; Khmer): +301-980-8835

Beijing's moneyed advance on Southeast Asia

Two men row their fishing boat along the Mekong River near Phnom Penh. The industrializing area has become a tug of war between China and Japan in recent years. (Reuters)
China's Vice President Xi Jinping toasts with Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen after signing an agreement on cooperation in Phnom Penh on Dec. 21, 2009. (Reuters)

Friday, March 5, 2010
By Brendan Brady,
Special to CBC News (Canada)

A few days before Christmas, Cambodia hastily deported 20 ethnic Uighur asylum-seekers back to China over the strong objections of Western nations.

Two days later, Beijing followed through on a planned $1.2 billion infrastructure investment in Cambodia, one of Southeast Asia's most impoverished nations.

The two governments denied any quid pro quo but, for many observers, the coinciding moves were just another sign of China's ability to leverage its giant economy to enforce self-serving diplomatic priorities in what is essentially its backyard.

Chinese authorities believe the Uighurs, ethnic Muslims native to the restive Xinjiang province, were involved in violent protests last year and Cambodia was not the only pressure point.

Nepal, Pakistan and Uzbekistan have also carried out extraditions at Beijing's behest, Human Rights Watch reports.

Andrew Swan, a researcher with the Netherlands-based Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, says the Cambodia deportation was part of a growing trend in the region to capitulate to China's diplomatic demands under the weight of its economic muscle.

"China now has more tools to make its reach felt," Swan says. "And its diplomatic confidence is growing."

Courting friends

To feed its booming economy, China has expanded its presence in many Southeast Asian countries with projects for roads, dams, mines, oil, irrigation and telecommunications.

In Cambodia, for example, China has become that country's leading foreign investor as well as one of its leading donors.

On the heels of the Uighur deportations, Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping signed 14 pacts worth $1.2 billion related to infrastructure, construction, grants and loans in Cambodia.

A few days earlier, Xi was in Burma with senior general Than Shwe, the leader of the reclusive state's ruling junta, to sign a deal for a 1,240-kilometre pipeline to bring crude oil from western Burma to southern China.

The groundwork for many of these initiatives was laid years ago, particularly during the Asian financial crisis in 1996-97, when Beijing stepped up its presence in the region to fill the void left by slumping domestic economies and the flight of foreign investment, notably Japan's.

Beijing's primary tools have been aid disbursements, new trade agreements, cultural diplomacy and military ties.

"Part of their diplomacy is that they say they don't want anything" in return, says Joshua Kurlantzick, a Southeast Asia expert at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington and author of Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power is Transforming the World.

"But that's not accurate," he goes on. In return, Beijing has demanded diplomatic loyalty on certain core issues such as Taiwan, Tibet and, latterly, the Uighurs — often at the expense of good governance and human rights in the reciprocating nations.

'No strings'

What distinguishes China's economic aid in Southeast Asia is that, unlike Western countries, it hasn't tied democratic or human rights stipulations to its contributions — demands that are seen by many governments in the region as impediments to their rule.

"There are no conditions," Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said about the aid his country has received from Beijing. "We talk back and forth directly."

Trade giant

In 2008, China surpassed the U.S. to become ASEAN's third largest trading partner, after Japan and the European Union. China is now looking to further entrench its regional economic role by pledging to create a free-trade zone with countries belonging to ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It recently sweetened the deal by offering a $10 billion China-ASEAN Investment Corporation Fund and $15 billion in credit to support ASEAN nations.

But it is precisely this direct conversation, away from public scrutiny, that has Western countries and rights groups worried.

Since 2007, China has strongly outspent the U.S. in Southeast Asia, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, and the effect of this aid can be seen on a variety of fronts.

In the 1990s, for example, when most of Cambodia's aid came from the West and Japan, Phnom Penh worked closely with multilateral aid agencies and the UN.

But, with Chinese patronage, Hun Sen has become emboldened to publicly lash out at these organizations, tossing out a UN human rights rapporteur for his criticisms and banning the group Global Witnesses for a report that was critical of his family's business operations.

China's support has also helped sustain the insular, single-party rule in Laos and Burma.

China's investment in Laos's transportation and hydropower projects vastly outstrips the money the Communist government there receives from the U.S. As does the nearly $5 billion in loans and investments Beijing has made in natural gas-rich Burma since the military junta took power in 1998.

And just as China can dish out the money, it can also withhold it when it feels an affront. Beijing reportedly halted $200 million in aid to Vietnam after the country invited Taiwan to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Hanoi a few years ago.

Not so fast

While China's bolstered presence in Southeast Asia has set off alarm bells in some circles, Robert Sutter, a professor at Georgetown University and author of several books on China's rise, says its role in the region has been more calming than many are making it out to be.

"What you see in China's approach to Southeast Asia is a desire to keep the atmosphere peaceful, take advantage of economic relationships, and reassure countries that might be concerned about China's growing power — it hasn't been a blitz," he says.

"Southeast Asia still isn't the most important place for them — places like Korea and Japan are more important. But it's where they have been most successful in recent years."

In fact, these countries that border China's southern flank have been pulled almost entirely into the economic orbit of their bigger neighbour, with their roads — and businesses — pointed towards Beijing.

Clearly, China wants the region's raw materials to fuel its manufacturing centres. But just as clearly, there are many developed countries in the region — such as Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand — that will buck this model and want to keep their ties to the West.

Indonesian manufacturers are already complaining about the flood of cheaper Chinese goods while some Laotians and Vietnamese have voiced criticism over Chinese land acquisitions, dams and bauxite mines.

Even in isolated Burma, China's dominance seems to have stirred the junta's interest in engagement, albeit limited, with that seemingly passé power, the United States.

Though here, as elsewhere in the region, aid tied with pesky preconditions of enhanced democracy will appear a tough bargain compared to what China is offering.

Uighurs failed by Cambodia's sham refugee law

March 03, 2010
Frank Brennan
EurekaStreet.com.au

Cambodia's long awaited refugee law is a sham. It may be a signatory to the UN Convention, but to date that counts for nothing.

In June last year a solitary Uighur from Xinjiang Province in China arrived in Phnom Penh seeking asylum. He registered his claim with the Cambodian Government and with UNHCR.

Like East Timor, Cambodia became a signatory to all major UN human rights instruments when in receipt of considerable UN assistance. They, with the Philippines, are the only three of Australia's South East Asian neighbours to have acceded to the UN Convention on Refugees. The Cambodian government has been very slow in setting up its own procedures for refugee determinations, being dependent on UNHCR to provide the service.

UNHCR had been working for many years with the Cambodian authorities to come up with a workable refugee law. UNHCR did not invite input from other refugee or human rights organisations and refused any civil society scrutiny of the proposed law. During the interim refugee status determination process, independent legal representation as requested by asylum seekers was neither permitted nor encouraged.

Having been interviewed four times to determine refugee status, the solitary Uighur had a strong claim backed by documentary evidence. He was worried after one meeting with the head of the Cambodian government's unit responsible for refugee processing who told him that China was a good place which respected its people.

Meanwhile, things turned sour back in Urumqi, Xinjiang Province between 5 and 7 July 2009. Tensions between Uighurs and newly arrived Han Chinese erupted in violence in the factories and on the streets. More than 700 persons were arrested and about 200 persons were killed.

By October, participants in the street violence were prosecuted in courts constituted by 'politically reliable' judges and described in a resolution to the US Congress as being 'without the benefits of any due process, public observers, or court procedures in violation of international legal standards'.

A further 21 Uighurs, including a pregnant mother and her two infant children, then fled overland through Vietnam and into Cambodia. They were cared for by the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) which provided them with legal representation and humanitarian assistance. UNHCR provided them with letters stating that they were persons of concern to UNHCR and under the protection of the UNHCR office.

The plight of the Uighurs in Phnom Penh became international news once the Washington Post carried a story about them on 3 November 2009. Radio Free Asia even published the names and dates of birth of some of the asylum seekers. Media reports stated that the Chinese government sought the extradition of the Uighurs.

On 9 November 2009, there were credible media reports that the Chinese government had executed nine persons involved in the Urumqi violence. On 7 December 2009, the Cambodian Ministry of Interior informed the press that they were waiting for a decision from UNHCR on the status of the Uighurs and that the Cambodian government would cooperate with the UN agency.

A week later, UNHCR met with JRS and informed them that the Cambodian Government was very close to promulgating its long awaited refugee law but had asked UNHCR to continue assistance with the refugee determination process of the Uighurs. The Cambodian Government also asked UNHCR to provide a safe house where the Uighurs could be brought together, and assured security.

JRS expressed concern to UNHCR, saying the Uighur asylum seekers were at risk. JRS highlighted three concerns in light of the close political ties between China and Cambodia. Cambodia had a chequered history of providing protection to refugees from China; the vice-President of China was about to visit Cambodia to conclude major business deals; and there were credible reports that China had requested the extradition of the Uighur people.

Also discussed was the complaint, previously brought to UNHCR's attention, that the Cambodian head of the refugee office had told the first Uighur asylum seeker that he thought China was a good place that respected its people. JRS also informed UNHCR of threatening telephone calls received by their legal officer, Taya Hunt, asking why she was 'helping terrorists from China'.

JRS advised UNHCR that they wanted to move the Uighurs out of the capital to a less vulnerable place, but UNHCR advised strongly against this.

On 17 December 2009, the Uighur asylum seekers were taken to their final safe house (pictured) after spending the previous night in a site reserved for Montagnard refugees from Vietnam. And after years of delay and protracted negotiations with UNHCR, the Cambodian government mysteriously and promptly issued a sub-decree on procedures for processing refugees and asylum seekers.

Next evening, the Uighurs were praying when Cambodian police entered the safe house and abducted them at gunpoint. Cambodian authorities then rang UNHCR and said they had been deported. The UNHCR representative conveyed this message to JRS, saying that in his 30 years history in UNHCR this was the most flagrant violation of the 1951 Convention on Refugees he had experienced.

Embassies, international bodies and NGOs were alerted. It turned out that the asylum seekers had not yet been deported; they were being housed in the Ministry of Interior. Diplomatic representations at the highest level received no response. The Uighurs, including the pregnant woman, her husband and two infant children and the man who arrived legally in June, were deported via chartered plane the following night.

On 20 December, the day after the forced return, the Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping arrived in Phnom Penh to sign contracts worth US$1 billion.

None of the refugee claims had been determined in accordance with new procedures endorsed by UNHCR. The long awaited Cambodian refugee law provides for an interview process: 'If a negative decision is made, reasons shall be given for the rejected application.' There is then provision for an appeal within 30 days, whereupon the Immigration Department should consider the appeal within 15 days.

None of these procedures were followed in the first test case of the new law two days after its promulgation. No credible explanation was offered for the peremptory rejection of the Uighur claims.

The new law does provide that officials of the Ministry of Interior 'may immediately reject the application for refugee status' if the applicant does not cooperate or if the applicant does anything to harm national security and public order. There was no evidence of non-cooperation or disruptive behaviour. This was simply a matter of political convenience for the Cambodian government not wanting to cause any embarrassment to the Chinese.

Despite years of training for Cambodian immigration officials, the rule of law counted for nothing with the law's first test. In fact, the prompt passage of the sub-decree after years of waiting was a political artifice for the exercise of unreviewable, arbitrary power. The sub-decree underwent a last minute change with a proviso: 'The recognition of a refugee, the termination of refugee status and the removal of refugee status shall be determined by ministerial order of the Interior Minister.'

On the day Vice President Xi Jinping signed the deals, he thanked the Cambodians for the return of the Uighurs. The Cambodian Foreign Ministry reported him saying, 'It can be said that Sino-Cambodian relations are a model of friendly cooperation.' Cambodia's chief government spokesman was quoted in the New York Times: 'China has thanked the government of Cambodia for assisting in sending back these people. According to Chinese law, these people are criminals.'

The Chinese government provides no access for UNHCR, lawyers or family members to the returned Uighurs. On 14 January 2010, a Khmer newspaper published an unconfirmed report that four of the returnees had been condemned to execution and 14 sentenced to life imprisonment. The Uighurs were not only denied protection in Cambodia; they were forcibly returned without even any pretence at determination of their claims. The refugee status determination procedure became a foil for gathering them together awaiting forced return to China.

Cambodia's long awaited refugee law is a sham. It may be a signatory to the UN Convention, but to date that counts for nothing.

Fr Frank Brennan SJ is professor of law at the Australian Catholic University's Public Policy Institute. He visited Phnom Penh last October and met some of the Uighurs being assisted by the Jesuit Refugee Service.

Forcible deportation of Uighur may affect US-Cambodia ties

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
PTI (India)

Washington: Forcible deportation of Uighurs to China by Cambodia would affect its relationship with the United States, the Obama Administration said today.

"We expect governments, including Cambodia, to uphold its international obligations, and this will affect our relationship with Cambodia as well as its international standing," Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley said.

"We obviously expressed our disappointment and we are deeply disturbed that the Cambodian Government, in violation of its international obligations, forcibly removed 20 Uighur asylum seekers to China in December without the benefit of a credible process for determining their refugee status," Crowley told reporters here.

"We have expressed our disappointment and we will factor this into future decisions that we make about our relationship with Cambodia," he said.

Rights Groups Watch for Signs of Uighur Fate

By Sok Khemara, VOA Khmer
Original report from Washington
18 February 2010

Cambodian and international rights groups remain concerned over the fates of 20 Muslim Uighurs ejected from Cambodia in December.

A Chinese government spokesman indicated to the New York Times last week that the Uighurs would be or have been tried.

“China is a country ruled by law,” Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told the Times. “The judicial authorities deal with illegal criminal issues strictly according to law.”

It remains unclear what has happened to the group.

“Of course this is very sad,” Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch, told VOA Khmer from London. “Nobody has any idea what they have been charged with, what the evidence is, what crime they may have committed.”

Chinese trials are not fairly conducted, with defendants unable to effectively defend themselves or produce witnesses in a meaningful way, he said.

His concerns were echoed by Ou Virak, director of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, who said any case against them “should be transparent and shown to the public.”

Twenty-two Uighurs fled to Cambodia late last year, seeking refuge with the UN after a violent crackdown against unrest in their home province of Xinjiang in July.

Cambodian authorities deported 20 of them to China, citing immigration violations, after two escaped. Cambodian officials have said the case of the Uighurs is now under Chinese sovereignty.

Still, with death sentences already handed out to some Uighurs from the July protests, Cambodia will retain responsibility for the fates of the deported, Adams said.

The country could also face consequences in relations with the US, he said, including in trade, aid and military relations.

China Hints at Trials for 20 Seeking Asylum

February 13, 2010
By EDWARD WONG
The New York Times

BEIJING — The Chinese Foreign Ministry has indicated that 20 Uighur asylum seekers who were deported from Cambodia to China in December are being or have been put on trial for what China considers criminal activities.

“China is a country ruled by law,” Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a written statement to The New York Times. “The judicial authorities deal with illegal criminal issues strictly according to law.”

Mr. Ma’s statement came last week in a brief reply to a list of detailed questions The Times sent to the Foreign Ministry inquiring about the fate of the Uighurs.

Chinese officials promised to deal with the Uighurs in a transparent manner when they were returned to China in December, but the Chinese government has so far refused to release any information on the whereabouts and well-being of the Uighurs. After the Uighurs showed up in Cambodia late last year, Chinese officials said they were being investigated for possible crimes related to deadly ethnic rioting that broke out in the western region of Xinjiang in July.

The Uighurs had applied for asylum at a United Nations office in Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s capital. Since the rioting erupted in Xinjiang, a desert region that the Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking Muslim ethnic group, call their homeland, the Chinese authorities have been detaining Uighurs, trying them and on occasion sentencing them to death. The regional government of Xinjiang is doubling its security budget this year compared with 2009.

Even before the unrest last year, many Uighurs in Xinjiang had been complaining about intense discrimination by the Han, who dominate China.

In the rioting on July 5, when Uighurs rampaged through the streets of Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, nearly 200 people died and at least 1,700 were injured, most of them Han, the Chinese government said. Han vigilantes took to the streets after July 5 to seek revenge.

A group of 22 Uighurs arrived in Cambodia in November with the aid of a Christian network in China that helps North Koreans get to countries where they can apply for asylum.

The Cambodian government deported 20 of them right before Vice President Xi Jinping, expected to be the next top leader of China, arrived in Cambodia on a visit. China is the biggest investor in Cambodia. The two Uighurs who were not sent back to China had somehow disappeared, Cambodian officials said at the time. No word has emerged of their fate since.

Virtually all the Uighurs who arrived in Cambodia were men or boys. At least two were infants. Most are believed to have come from desert oasis towns in southern Xinjiang.

Zhang Jing contributed research.