Hello,
First of all, I really appreciate your site – keep up the good work. I know this is a little late in coming, but I figured that you might be interested in this video of David Chandler speaking following his testimony at the Khmer Rouge.
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/
Feel free to post it on your site if you’d like.
Best,
(New York) - Pronouncements by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen that the UN-backed tribunal on Khmer Rouge atrocities should not prosecute additional suspects call into question the court's independence, Human Rights Watch said today.
In the latest in a series of similar statements, Hun Sen told President Nicolas Sarkozy of France last week that the tribunal should not threaten the peace in Cambodia, which "means only prosecuting these five people," according to a senior Cambodian aide present at their meeting. "Hun Sen has no role in this court, yet he keeps trying to use his hold over its Cambodian personnel to interfere," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The UN and international donors need to put their foot down so that the court can get on with its work in an independent and impartial manner." In a public speech in March, Hun Sen said he would rather see the tribunal fail than have war return to Cambodia as a result of additional trials. "I would pray for this court to run out of money and for the foreign judges and prosecutors to walk out," Hun Sen said. After the speech, Judge Silvia Cartwright, the most senior international judge at the tribunal, said, "Countries where the rule of law is respected and where their citizens can be sure of a fair trial are those in which the independence of the courts and judges is guaranteed. ... Comments, politically motivated or otherwise, which appear to be an attempt to interfere with that independence are therefore to be deplored." Based in Phnom Penh, the UN-backed tribunal, known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia (ECCC), is prosecuting Khmer Rouge leaders for crimes against humanity in the deaths of up to 2 million people in the late 1970s. Five senior Khmer Rouge officials are in custody: Kaing Khek Iev (Duch), the former chief of Tuol Sleng prison; Nuon Chea, who was the deputy to the Khmer Rouge leader, Pol Pot; the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, Ieng Sary; social affairs minister, Ieng Thirith; and head of state, Khieu Samphan. Human Rights Watch called for the tribunal's pre-trial chamber, scheduled to meet next week in Phnom Penh, to make a prompt, transparent, and independent decision about the scope of the prosecutions to thwart growing perceptions that court decisions are directed by the government. The issue has been referred to the pre-trial chamber following a dispute between the Cambodian and international co-prosecutors on the referral of additional cases. In January 2009, the Cambodian co-prosecutor, Chea Leang, rejected the submission of an additional six suspects (one of whom has since died) by the international co-prosecutor, Robert Petit, who asserted that the additional prosecutions fall within the court's mandate and "would lead to a more comprehensive accounting of the crimes that were committed." While not contesting the strength of the evidence in the individual cases, Chea Leang defended her decision by citing considerations about "Cambodia's past instability and the continued need for national reconciliation." She asserted that the tribunal's mandate - to try senior Khmer Rouge leaders and those most responsible for crimes committed during their four-year rule - can be fulfilled by prosecuting the five people already detained.The pre-trial chamber, consisting of three Cambodian and two international judges, was designed to resolve disagreements between co-prosecutors and between co-investigating judges. Its decisions are made by a "super majority" of four of these five judges. Four judges would have to agree with the Cambodian co-prosecutor in order to stop the prosecutions from going ahead.
"It is specious for the Cambodian prosecutor to assert that prosecuting five people for the deaths of as many as 2 million people is sufficient," said Adams. "The court has the capacity to take on additional cases. Each decision to prosecute an individual should be based on evidence, not politics."
| Written by Sophan Seng | |
| Tuesday, 31 March 2009 From The Phnom Penh Post | |
Dear Editor,The benefits to be had from a fair court are more important than the thought of social instability. The participation from all political leaders and the people can enhance the achievements of the court. The benefits of thinking outside the box in relation to the tribunal are more beautiful and elegant than just assigning blame and pointing fingers. I was deeply impressed by Noam Chomsky’s perspectives on political dissent ["Tribunal ignoring US role, says Chomsky", The Phnom Penh Post, March 27, 2009]. In the US, Chomsky is well-known for his radical ideas about US foreign policy. He is a renowned linguist, but what made him a vital political commentator was his strong opposition to the Vietnam War. Chomsky saw nothing wrong with the North Vietnamese struggle and nothing wrong with the Vietnamese troops invading Cambodia to topple the Khmer Rouge. In the interview, Chomsky addresses US support for the Khmer Rouge. I don’t intend to challenge Chomsky on his sharp criticism of the US and the Khmer Rouge tribunal. It is not simply a matter of pointing fingers and assigning blame, as depicted in the amusing “Sacravatoons No 1348 ["Point the finger", at www.sacrava.blogspot.com] The Khmer Rouge tribunal has a more fundamental meaning than just pointing fingers at each other. The central goals of this tribunal are the achievement of national healing, national reconciliation, a national collective consciousness, national unity, the strengthening of Cambodia’s judicial system and the elimination of impunity, among others. In addition to these expected outcomes, the tribunal will also help Cambodia become a “full and progressive sovereign state”. Political thinker Charles Tilly has argued that “war makes a state” in the context of European state-making. If this theory is applied to Cambodia, then the agony endured by the Cambodian people in past wars and under the brutal reign of the Khmer Rouge can enlighten all Cambodian people and their political leaders. As the Khmer proverb says: “After the dark sky, the bright moon and stars will shine”. Will the Khmer Rouge tribunal yield such fruit?
The answer wholly depends on Cambodian political leaders, Cambodian people and their national collective consciousness. If they see the Khmer Rouge tribunal simply as part of a political game, the “full and progressive sovereign state” of Cambodia might disappear. Moreover, if the Cambodian people and their collective consciousness view the tribunal simply as punishment for a handful of perpetrators, the “full and progressive sovereign state” of Cambodia might also disappear. It should be noted that the Khmer Rouge tribunal, the independence of the court, and the expansion of the number of defendants - including current political leaders - will enrich the tribunal, not distort the court or cause instability in Cambodia at all. The benefits to be had from a fair court are more important than the thought of social instability. The participation from all political leaders and the people can enhance the achievements of the court. The benefits of thinking outside the box in relation to the tribunal are more beautiful and elegant than just assigning blame and pointing fingers. Sophan Seng
|
