An Unnecessary Feud

"Nak Leng"

Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay
Originally posted at http://cambodianchildren.blogspot.com/

It is socially disturbing to see a thug and a ruffian fight. But it is politically disgusting to see heads of governments fight like a thug and a ruffian. The on-going spat between Thailand and Cambodia driven by the zeal of their respective leaders has increasingly revealed the ugly side of human behaviors. It shows that human beings, even heads of governments, will not shy away from using sleazy methods to settle political scores.

There are many ways to solve a conflict. But there is only one effective way to cordially solve any conflict—that is to refrain from taking retaliatory action against one’s opponent. Sidhortha Gautama, or Buddha, the greatest philosopher ever walked on this planet, advised us that “revenge could only be extinguished by eliminating the desire to extract revenge.” As an enlightened being, Buddha certainly knew this fact more than anyone else that revenge and retaliation will only lead to escalation of conflict, be it personal or international.

Most of us, wise and unwise people alike, know, or at least are aware of the fact, that retaliatory action is not an effective means to solving a conflict, be it domestic, national, or international. Once we take retaliatory action against our adversary, the adverse effects stemming from such action will likely be compounded and continue to spiral down toward the abyss of destruction. As a result, the eventual solution could only be achieved with the banishment of one’s opponent(s). This is what is known as destructive conflict resolution.

Both Mr. Hun Sen and Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva are elected heads of the governments of Cambodia and Thailand, respectively. Like it or not, they are here to dictate their national policy. Likewise, Cambodia and Thailand are neighbors. Neither country could wish for the other to disappear. The two countries have existed side by side for hundreds of years and will continue to exist side by side for many more years to come. Hence it is absolutely unwise for leaders of both countries to bicker with each other like ruffians. Politicians might come and go. But countries and their inhabitants remain in place indefinitely. Thus, creating an atmosphere of animosity will benefit no one, politicians and general population alike.

In Conflict Analysis and Resolution, a basic knowledge which every diplomat or government leader should have acquired, the first step to solving a conflict peacefully and cordially, is to de-escalate it. One way (and it is the only way) to de-escalate a conflict is to minimize retaliatory actions. Unfortunately, both Thailand and Cambodia appear to engage in just that. The diplomatic row between the two countries over Cambodia’s decision to appoint Thai ex-Prime Minister, Mr.Thaksin Shinawatra, as adviser has seen a flurry of retaliatory actions taken by both sides—from withdrawal of diplomatic missions to preparation to revoke Memorandum of Understanding to threat of border closure.

It is quite a shame to see politicians from Thailand and Cambodia engaged in a rather dirty diplomatic maneuvering. Whatever hidden political agenda or grudges those politicians have toward each other, they must realize that sooner or later they will have to come to terms with it. Though it is natural for heads of governments to make maneuver to gain the upper hand, one must remember that in order to settle political differences amicably, such maneuver is sometimes counterproductive.

Chanda Chhay
Washington, D.C.

ECCC Watch

(Photo courtesy Philip Short, Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay
Originally posted at http://cambodianchildren.blogspot.com

CAMBODIA MUST NOT MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY TO THE KHMER ROUGE TRIBUNAL

I am delighted to learn that lately the Khmer Rouge’s Tribunal (KRT) at the Extraordinary Chamber in the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) has issued summons calling on 6 ranking members of the Cambodian government to provide testimonies as witnesses for the investigation of the Khmer Rouge’s crimes against Cambodian people in the late 1970s. What is so significant about these testimonies is that all of these 6 individuals namely: Cambodian National Assembly president, Mr. Heng Samrin, Senate president, Mr. Chea Sim, Senators Sim Ka and Ouk Bun Chhoeun, Finance Minister Keat Chhon, and Foreign Minister Hor Nam Hong are both former members of the Khmer Rouge and victims of the Khmer Rouge regime. Together, these 6 individuals possess unique knowledge on how the Khmer Rouge perpetrated crimes against Cambodian people.

While some people expressed concerns that these 6 individuals’ past connection with the Khmer Rouge and their present involvement in formulating laws to bring those who committed crimes against Cambodian people during the Khmer Rouge’s era to trial would make them biased witnesses, I strongly believe that the appearance of these extraordinary and august individuals before the KRT gives Cambodia the greatest opportunity to tell the world the details of the Khmer Rouge crimes and how Cambodians were treated under their terrible, tyrannical regime.

Based on numerous publications and media reports, it is well known that Mr. Heng Samrin used to work as a military commander under the Khmer Rouge while Mr. Chea Sim, Sim Ka, and Ouk Bun Chhoeun worked as low level officials. As for Mr. Keat Chhon and Hor Nam Hong, they worked as cabinet member and diplomat, respectively. Besides working as Khmer Rouge officials, these 6 individuals were also victimized by the Khmer Rouge with either impending threats of death or outright persecuted with death warrant. For instance, Mr. Chea Sim and Heng Samrin were only able to save their lives by fleeing to Vietnam while Mr. Keat Chhon and Hor Nam Hong were living like death row inmates at Boeung Trobek Reeducation camp/prison.

Unlike most Cambodians who were forced to work as slave labors which, in effect, limited their experiences to that of a victim, these 6 witnesses have, I believe, better knowledge on the Khmer Rouge criminal enterprise than anyone else. As officials at different levels of the Khmer Rouge ruling apparatus, these witnesses, at least, knew, to varying degrees, how criminal policies were carried out. And as victims of the Khmer Rouge persecution, they also, certainly, knew how serious the Khmer Rouge crimes were. These two interconnected factors present the most balanced criteria for these 6 witnesses to be exceptionally credible.

Justice is about searching for the truth and exposing how particular events occurred. Based on their individual life’s experience, perhaps no one is more qualified or has a more balanced knowledge than these 6 witnesses. Hence, if we were to find most knowledgeable witnesses to tell the KRT about our ordeal, these 6 witnesses are the best because, through the twists and turns of their lives, they were able to see and experience both sides of the spectrum. As a Khmer Rouge victim, I wholeheartedly support their testimonies and hope that they will do their best to provide the KRT with credible and compelling accounts on our behalf so that justice is properly served in the context of holding criminals accountable for their crimes and bringing closure to the suffering their victims had endured during their ruthless rule.

Chanda Chhay

THE TALE OF TWO STUDENTS

Thursday, July 2, 2009
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay

Justice Speech

I have been a frequent critic of the verdicts the Phnom Penh Municipal Court handed out to the accused who had the misfortune of going through its door. However, my criticism of the court in this article takes on a rather different level of emotion as the judge who sentenced a newspaper editor to a one year imprisonment and a $2,250 fine is my friend. As a journalist, I am very upset to see that we could be sentenced to jail terms for a mere fact of disseminating the news about alleged wrong doing of public officials. And as the judge’s friend, I am quite troubled to see him made such a lopsided decision. But, putting personal feelings aside, I think our story presents a good opportunity for us to observe how different political and social environments shape our lives.

Before I begun the story, I wish to make it clear to those journalist purists that by writing this story, in which I have a personal connection to the subject, I have violated one of the journalist codes of ethics. However, to be fair to the other Phnom Penh Municipal Court’s judges who had been criticized by me in the past, I am obliged to write this story so that my conscience won’t condemn me for being biased.

Judge Din Sivuthy and I have known each other since we were boys playing in the dusty road in Kompong Thom province. In the early 1990s, as I was studying journalism and political sciences in a U.S. university, Judge Din Sivuthy was studying laws in the former Soviet Union. For about 5 years in which we pursued our respective studies, we exchanged many letters about our perspectives of the world and what our future could become, given the fact that Communism and its dictatorial way of operation has been crumbling down like dominoes. By the late 1990s, as he returned to Cambodia and took up a post in the Cambodian Ministry of Justice, Judge Din Sivuthy and I once again re-established our contact through my frequent visits to Cambodia. Though our ways of life and patterns of thought have been somewhat driven apart by the different political and social environments in which we live, our thoughts at the intellectual levels still have many things in common. I remembered, in 1998 when we first met again, Judge Din Sivuthy and I had a discussion about judicial system in the U.S.A. Throughout our conversation, I could see the wishful thinking in his eyes when I told him that judges in the U.S. are either appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative branch of government or elected by the people. Once they were appointed to their posts, judges are immune from any influence by the people who appointed them, and they could serve as public servants for the rest of their lives. The only case that a judge could be removed from his/her post is when he or she committed a serious crime.

After listening to my lecture on the U.S. judicial system, Judge Din Sivuthy told me that it would be a dream if Cambodia had such a system in place. At that instance, I wish I could grant him that dream. But, we all know that such a dream in Cambodia is indeed very far-fetched. However, putting negativism aside, I somehow remain optimistic that some day such a dream could come true. All we need is a collective will from everyone involved, especially the top leadership in government, to work together to achieve it.

When we went to school to train to become a journalist or a judge, we all aspired to doing it right according to the knowledge we acquired. But when we deviated from our aspiration to doing it right, we all suffer the consequences—journalist going to jail while judge getting criticized.

Just as I don’t want any judge telling me what I could or could not write on any issue of social concerns, I am fully aware that I have no right to tell Judge Din Sivuthy what to do concerning his duties. But, as his friend, I believe I have a duty to tell him that his sentencing of a newspaper editor, Mr. Hang Chakra, to a one year imprisonment and a $2,250 fine is too excessive. Based on news reports on the case, the crime of reporting false information, which yet to be proven as false, does not warrant jail terms.

Chanda Chhay
Washington, D.C. (USA)