Youk Chhang
Director of Documentation Center of Cambodia
As a survivor of the Khmer Rouge regime, I strongly support the new film by Chhay Bora about the Khmer Rouge period titled “Lost Loves.” The film is extremely sad, yet incredibly beautiful and powerful. You can see your tears when you cry. It is an extraordinary film for several reasons.
First, it depicts the unimaginable pain, suffering, and courage of victims of the Khmer Rouge regime with honesty, simplicity, and grace. Based on the true story of Mr. Chhay’s mother-in-law, Amara, this film is able to capture the raw emotions of that era using only a single camera and a modest budget. Extremely moving and heart-breaking, this film tells the story of Amara and her struggle to survive the brutal reign of Democratic Kampuchea. Coming from a middle-class background, Amara and her family were labeled as “April 17th people” and considered corrupt, lazy, and dangerous to the Communist Party of Kampuchea. Throughout the film, she repeatedly encounters overwhelming heartbreak from the deaths of several family members, her child, and an elderly woman whom she befriended during the regime. Despite the enormous gravity of her loss, she is able to move on with her life. Through the story of Amara, the film shows the unyielding courage and resilient strength of all survivors of the Khmer Rouge regime. “Lost Loves” is a film about the love loves of all Cambodians.
Second, this film provides a voice and encouragement to survivors who are unable or have a difficult time talking about what happened to them. Although there are millions of victims of the Khmer Rouge regime, many of them feel alone in their suffering and pain. This is the result of decades of silence- a silence that was both an official policy and socially maintained. At the national level, a shared sense of suffering or an openness to reveal one’s tragic story did not exist. Personally, Cambodians have been too busy struggling to move forward to devote time for reflection and healing. After the fall of the regime, Cambodians have had to tackle civil war, international condemnation, electoral and societal violence, and the real struggle to simply live. Many still live below the poverty line. The concerns of feeding and taking care of oneself and one’s family naturally has been prioritized above all else, including the process of coming to terms with a brutal past. The experiences depicted including those of starvation, exhaustion, separation from family members, and the loss of family members, are universal among victims of the regime. This film provides a needed space for people to remember, feel, understand, and witness the tragedy of Democratic Kampuchea. Its perspective comes directly from the hearts and spirits of survivors and as such, has the ability to genuinely reach out to and represent them. Thus, survivors who still have a hard time confronting their past can watch this film and feel a sense of solidarity and community. Moreover, after watching this film, they will know that it is important to remember and okay to cry; these are both ways to help one cope with the past.
Third, “Lost Loves,” serves as a tool for educating Cambodia’s young generation about the Khmer Rouge period so that they can understand and believe the experiences of their parents as well as learn about an important part of their country’s history. As such, this film continues the critical mission of teaching the generation born after the regime about Democratic Kampuchea so that they will not repeat the past. Even if some children still refuse to believe, the survivor generation must continue to educate them regardless. As Director Chhay has made poignantly clear, the survivor generation must never give in to the disbelief of Cambodian youths. Their disbelief should not discourage, but instead motivate the survivor generation to continue telling the story of what happened under Democratic Kampuchea.
Further, the film can also help to promote understanding, empathy, and healing among Cambodia’s troubled youth. Its message is simple yet powerful: the experiences of the Khmer Rouge regime, no matter how horrific, need to be known and remembered for the sake of memory, justice, and future peace. Now more than ever, Cambodia’s young generation need hear this message. In particular they need to have a strong connection with their parents and other survivors of the regime. For a number of reasons- poverty, violence in the home, absence of parental guidance, sexual abuse, the culture of corruption, the weak educational system, romantic breakups, negative role models, etc.-many of Cambodia’s youth are irresponsible, undervalued, addicted to drugs, commit violent crimes, or abandon school. “Lost Loves” can help these troubled youths by showing them that despite the hardships their parents and grandparents went through, they had the courage and will to overcome them. Certainly this film is not a panacea, but it does have the potential to create a needed connection between delinquent youths and the survivor generation, especially their parents.
“Lost Loves,” while simple in scope and production, delivers a powerful and emotional message. From one victim to another, this film helps to create a shared sense of suffering, survival, and strength. This comforts survivors who have trouble facing the Khmer Rouge past and educates those born after the regime about an important part of their parents’ and country’s history. It is a film that should be shown across Cambodia in schools and in villages.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Jeopardy
Barbara Crossette
November 15, 2010
Surrounded from its inception by squabbles between the Cambodian government and the United Nations, mired in charges of corruption and perennially short of cash, the tribunal set up to judge surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime is once again in jeopardy.
The question of where the tribunal is headed arose again in early November because of two events: an unusually candid and critical farewell message from the departing chief of the defense support section and the publication by the New York–based Open Society Justice Initiative of a report acknowledging that the court will sooner or later be wound down, and that plans should be made now to avoid having its work cut short by the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has made no effort to hide his distaste for it.
In a third, separate but not unrelated development, Hun Sen has told the UN that unless it removes its chief human rights representative in Cambodia, Christophe Peschoux, the government will close down the Phnom Penh office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the first of its kind to be established in a national capital. Peschoux, who is accused by officials of favoring opposition politicians, has been outspoken on threatened political and economic rights, including the beating of protesters and the practice of "land-grabbing," when poor Cambodians' properties are seized illegally for the use of politically well-connected people or foreign companies.
The Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights said on November 2 that the dual threats to the Khmer Rouge tribunal and the UN human rights office "seriously question the state of the rule of law and the development of democratic institutions in the country."
Though the Cambodian government has usually been cast as the villain in this long-running story—the court was first proposed formally in 1997 and took a decade to be fully functioning—both the UN and the United States are complicit, given their missteps in the years leading to the tribunal’s creation.
Cambodia’s autocratic and uncooperative government, and Hun Sen himself, might not be so strongly and willfully entrenched if the UN, running a transitional administration in the early 1990s, had not so readily given in to his bullying. Hun Sen was a holdover from a government installed under virtual Vietnamese occupation after Hanoi’s troops overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, and he stood for reelection in 1993, under UN oversight. His Cambodian Peoples Party lost decisively to a royalist party led by Nordom Ranariddh, a son of King Norodom Sihanouk.
In the years that followed, Hun Sen, as co-prime minister with Ranariddh in an unworkable coalition, simply pushed the victor aside by claiming key ministries—with UN acquiescence—and finishing the job with a coup after the UN was no longer in charge.
From the American side, UN legal experts say that there was intense pressure on them to set up a tribunal to try Khmer Rouge figures. The United States and Southeast Asian nations had in the 1980s backed an armed opposition arrayed against Hun Sen and the Vietnamese that included the defeated Khmer Rouge. There was something exculpatory about the way Washington campaigned for a tribunal to try leaders of the monstrous regime after that fact. The State Department also funded the Cambodia Genocide Project, an archive of Khmer Rouge atrocities based at Yale that later moved much of its operation to Phnom Penh.
Kofi Annan, then UN secretary-general, and his top legal advisor, Hans Corell, a Swedish judge, were skeptical of the odd hybrid of a tribunal being created, and wanted to back out at one point, but the United States pressed on, at times in almost a threatening manner, UN officials said. What resulted was a court based in Cambodia (on a military outpost no less) that is officially part of the Cambodian justice system. It is a half-and-half setup, with the UN supplying half the professional legal staff and the Cambodians the other half. Prosecution and defense teams have to work in tandem, one local and one international, literally side by side. Judges are an international mix. To make life even more complicated, the court uses three languages: Khmer, English and French. Finding quality translators and interpreters have been persistent problems.
On November 10, Richard J. Rogers, the British-born international lawyer who has been chief of the defense support section—not an easy mantle to wear when the Khmer Rouge are the defendants—said in his departing statement that the court operates "in a country where the institutions of justice and respect for the rule of law are still developing." He added that "the greatest challenge for the defense remains the threat of political interference that may undermine the independence of the court."
Rogers and others working in the defense section were not only under constant scrutiny by the government (which has former Khmer Rouge figures in its ranks) but also faced strong public reaction against the very idea that Khmer Rouge leaders should have their day in court. A weak and politically manipulated judicial system has not taught Cambodians the principle of fair trial.
Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge regional official himself who fled to Vietnam when the movement split in the late 1970s—is content to see the biggest names of the "other" faction on trial, but wants to leave it at that. The danger to him seems to be that more prosecutions would sooner or later focus on some people in his government.
As the showcase trial of four top Khmer Rouge leaders still alive looms in the new year, pressure is mounting on the court to wind up its business and not indict any further figures from the 1975–79 experiment the revolutionaries called Democratic Kampuchea, which left up to 2 million Cambodians dead or in exile.
So far only one trial has been completed, that of Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, the commander of Tuol Sleng prison and torture center, who was convicted in July and is appealing a jail sentence.
Next on the docket—combined into one case—are Nuon Chea, “Brother Number Two” to Pol Pot, who died in 1998; Khieu Samphan, the regime’s head of state, and the powerful couple of Ieng Sary, foreign minister, and his wife, Ieng Thirith, minister for social affairs. All are in their 80s or late 70s, none of them in robust health, and there are concerns that one or more of them may die before the completion of their trials, due to start in mid-2011.
Prosecutors for the court want to add another round of cases, with a total of five more defendants, none of them named so far. That provoked Hun Sen, who told Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in October that new cases beyond that of the big four now preparing to go on trial will not be allowed.
The report from the Open Society Justice Initiative, part of the Open Society Institute founded and funded by George Soros, suggests that additional trials would not necessarily have to prolong the tribunal’s life, since they could take place parallel to the one beginning in 2011, which is bound to be dragged out, possibly over a year or more.
The report—Salvaging Judicial Independence: The Need for a Principled Completion Plan—strongly rejects the proposal that any new cases should be turned over to Cambodian national courts. The Justice Initiative, which has a Cambodian branch in Phnom Penh, says that both the UN and donor countries, chafing at perennial demands for more funds, would be failing in their responsibility to insure that trials would meet international standards if cases were transferred entirely to Cambodian jurisdiction from the hybrid tribunal, formally titled Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, or ECCC.
This would amount, the report says, to the tribunal risking the appearance that it is "dumping" new cases "because it is unwilling or unable to deal with the political interference that has come to haunt the ECCC."
The Nation Since 1855Copyright © 2010 The Nation.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
November 15, 2010
Surrounded from its inception by squabbles between the Cambodian government and the United Nations, mired in charges of corruption and perennially short of cash, the tribunal set up to judge surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime is once again in jeopardy.
The question of where the tribunal is headed arose again in early November because of two events: an unusually candid and critical farewell message from the departing chief of the defense support section and the publication by the New York–based Open Society Justice Initiative of a report acknowledging that the court will sooner or later be wound down, and that plans should be made now to avoid having its work cut short by the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has made no effort to hide his distaste for it.
In a third, separate but not unrelated development, Hun Sen has told the UN that unless it removes its chief human rights representative in Cambodia, Christophe Peschoux, the government will close down the Phnom Penh office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the first of its kind to be established in a national capital. Peschoux, who is accused by officials of favoring opposition politicians, has been outspoken on threatened political and economic rights, including the beating of protesters and the practice of "land-grabbing," when poor Cambodians' properties are seized illegally for the use of politically well-connected people or foreign companies.
The Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights said on November 2 that the dual threats to the Khmer Rouge tribunal and the UN human rights office "seriously question the state of the rule of law and the development of democratic institutions in the country."
Though the Cambodian government has usually been cast as the villain in this long-running story—the court was first proposed formally in 1997 and took a decade to be fully functioning—both the UN and the United States are complicit, given their missteps in the years leading to the tribunal’s creation.
Cambodia’s autocratic and uncooperative government, and Hun Sen himself, might not be so strongly and willfully entrenched if the UN, running a transitional administration in the early 1990s, had not so readily given in to his bullying. Hun Sen was a holdover from a government installed under virtual Vietnamese occupation after Hanoi’s troops overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, and he stood for reelection in 1993, under UN oversight. His Cambodian Peoples Party lost decisively to a royalist party led by Nordom Ranariddh, a son of King Norodom Sihanouk.
In the years that followed, Hun Sen, as co-prime minister with Ranariddh in an unworkable coalition, simply pushed the victor aside by claiming key ministries—with UN acquiescence—and finishing the job with a coup after the UN was no longer in charge.
From the American side, UN legal experts say that there was intense pressure on them to set up a tribunal to try Khmer Rouge figures. The United States and Southeast Asian nations had in the 1980s backed an armed opposition arrayed against Hun Sen and the Vietnamese that included the defeated Khmer Rouge. There was something exculpatory about the way Washington campaigned for a tribunal to try leaders of the monstrous regime after that fact. The State Department also funded the Cambodia Genocide Project, an archive of Khmer Rouge atrocities based at Yale that later moved much of its operation to Phnom Penh.
Kofi Annan, then UN secretary-general, and his top legal advisor, Hans Corell, a Swedish judge, were skeptical of the odd hybrid of a tribunal being created, and wanted to back out at one point, but the United States pressed on, at times in almost a threatening manner, UN officials said. What resulted was a court based in Cambodia (on a military outpost no less) that is officially part of the Cambodian justice system. It is a half-and-half setup, with the UN supplying half the professional legal staff and the Cambodians the other half. Prosecution and defense teams have to work in tandem, one local and one international, literally side by side. Judges are an international mix. To make life even more complicated, the court uses three languages: Khmer, English and French. Finding quality translators and interpreters have been persistent problems.
On November 10, Richard J. Rogers, the British-born international lawyer who has been chief of the defense support section—not an easy mantle to wear when the Khmer Rouge are the defendants—said in his departing statement that the court operates "in a country where the institutions of justice and respect for the rule of law are still developing." He added that "the greatest challenge for the defense remains the threat of political interference that may undermine the independence of the court."
Rogers and others working in the defense section were not only under constant scrutiny by the government (which has former Khmer Rouge figures in its ranks) but also faced strong public reaction against the very idea that Khmer Rouge leaders should have their day in court. A weak and politically manipulated judicial system has not taught Cambodians the principle of fair trial.
Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge regional official himself who fled to Vietnam when the movement split in the late 1970s—is content to see the biggest names of the "other" faction on trial, but wants to leave it at that. The danger to him seems to be that more prosecutions would sooner or later focus on some people in his government.
As the showcase trial of four top Khmer Rouge leaders still alive looms in the new year, pressure is mounting on the court to wind up its business and not indict any further figures from the 1975–79 experiment the revolutionaries called Democratic Kampuchea, which left up to 2 million Cambodians dead or in exile.
So far only one trial has been completed, that of Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, the commander of Tuol Sleng prison and torture center, who was convicted in July and is appealing a jail sentence.
Next on the docket—combined into one case—are Nuon Chea, “Brother Number Two” to Pol Pot, who died in 1998; Khieu Samphan, the regime’s head of state, and the powerful couple of Ieng Sary, foreign minister, and his wife, Ieng Thirith, minister for social affairs. All are in their 80s or late 70s, none of them in robust health, and there are concerns that one or more of them may die before the completion of their trials, due to start in mid-2011.
Prosecutors for the court want to add another round of cases, with a total of five more defendants, none of them named so far. That provoked Hun Sen, who told Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in October that new cases beyond that of the big four now preparing to go on trial will not be allowed.
The report from the Open Society Justice Initiative, part of the Open Society Institute founded and funded by George Soros, suggests that additional trials would not necessarily have to prolong the tribunal’s life, since they could take place parallel to the one beginning in 2011, which is bound to be dragged out, possibly over a year or more.
The report—Salvaging Judicial Independence: The Need for a Principled Completion Plan—strongly rejects the proposal that any new cases should be turned over to Cambodian national courts. The Justice Initiative, which has a Cambodian branch in Phnom Penh, says that both the UN and donor countries, chafing at perennial demands for more funds, would be failing in their responsibility to insure that trials would meet international standards if cases were transferred entirely to Cambodian jurisdiction from the hybrid tribunal, formally titled Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, or ECCC.
This would amount, the report says, to the tribunal risking the appearance that it is "dumping" new cases "because it is unwilling or unable to deal with the political interference that has come to haunt the ECCC."
The Nation Since 1855Copyright © 2010 The Nation.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Public Education Forum Between Teachers, Students and Parents
GENOCIDE EDUCATION PROJECT
The Teaching of “A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979)”
Democratic Kampuchea Textbook Distribution and Public Education Forum Between Teachers, Students and Parents
Pong Ror Commune, Chhlong District, Kratie Province
November 14, 2010
On November 14, the Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam)'s Genocide Education Project is conducting a public education forum in Pong Ror Commune, Chhlong District, Kratie Province. The forum is conducted in a mosque, which is the center of Pong Ror Cham community, one of the biggest Cham communities in Chhlong district. About one thousand Cham families live in Pong Ror commune.
Chhlong district was integrated into Eastern zone under the administrative division of the Khmer Rouge. Generally, people’s living situation was reportedly better than that of the other zones in the first two years of the KR revolution. Conditions deteriorated remarkably, starting from 1977 when soldiers and cadres from the Southwest zone occupied the East and began massive purges. The fate of the Cham population in Pong Ror commune during the KR period was not different from that of the other Cham communities in other parts of Cambodia. They were dispersed to live and work among the Cambodian population. They were strongly forbidden not to practice Muslim religion, to speak Cham language, or show Cham identity. They were forced to eat pork and change their names to Khmer-sound names. In many cases, mosques were destroyed or turned into detention centers or pig cages. It is believed that the first Cham rebel during the KR was from Chhlong district. After his struggle for religious and cultural causes in Chhlong, hakim Ly fled from Chhlong to Kroch Chhmar district of Kampong Cham province to seek a safe shelter. This was one of the factors leading to the KR suppressions in Koh Phal and Svay Khleang villages.
The public education forum will discuss the experiences of Cham people during the KR as well as life under the KR in general. The forum will also encourage the younger and the older generations to discuss the importance of genocide education and survivors to share their real life experiences under the KR. The project's team members will distribute copies of the textbook A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) and discuss one chapter from it. Other materials for distribution include the magazine Searching for the Truth and booklets on Khmer Rouge tribunal Cases 001 and 002.
For more information about the forum, please contact: Pheng Pong-Rasy at 012 225522 or 016 212888 or by email: truthrasy.p@dccam.org.
Report: http://www.dccam.org/Projects/Genocide/Genocide_Education_Public_Forum.htm
See also other PDF reports attached herewith.
The forum is being held in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport and funded by The Asia Foundation (TAF). Core support for the program is provided by USAID and Sweden (Sida).
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
The Teaching of “A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979)”
Democratic Kampuchea Textbook Distribution and Public Education Forum Between Teachers, Students and Parents
Pong Ror Commune, Chhlong District, Kratie Province
November 14, 2010
On November 14, the Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam)'s Genocide Education Project is conducting a public education forum in Pong Ror Commune, Chhlong District, Kratie Province. The forum is conducted in a mosque, which is the center of Pong Ror Cham community, one of the biggest Cham communities in Chhlong district. About one thousand Cham families live in Pong Ror commune.
Chhlong district was integrated into Eastern zone under the administrative division of the Khmer Rouge. Generally, people’s living situation was reportedly better than that of the other zones in the first two years of the KR revolution. Conditions deteriorated remarkably, starting from 1977 when soldiers and cadres from the Southwest zone occupied the East and began massive purges. The fate of the Cham population in Pong Ror commune during the KR period was not different from that of the other Cham communities in other parts of Cambodia. They were dispersed to live and work among the Cambodian population. They were strongly forbidden not to practice Muslim religion, to speak Cham language, or show Cham identity. They were forced to eat pork and change their names to Khmer-sound names. In many cases, mosques were destroyed or turned into detention centers or pig cages. It is believed that the first Cham rebel during the KR was from Chhlong district. After his struggle for religious and cultural causes in Chhlong, hakim Ly fled from Chhlong to Kroch Chhmar district of Kampong Cham province to seek a safe shelter. This was one of the factors leading to the KR suppressions in Koh Phal and Svay Khleang villages.
The public education forum will discuss the experiences of Cham people during the KR as well as life under the KR in general. The forum will also encourage the younger and the older generations to discuss the importance of genocide education and survivors to share their real life experiences under the KR. The project's team members will distribute copies of the textbook A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) and discuss one chapter from it. Other materials for distribution include the magazine Searching for the Truth and booklets on Khmer Rouge tribunal Cases 001 and 002.
For more information about the forum, please contact: Pheng Pong-Rasy at 012 225522 or 016 212888 or by email: truthrasy.p@dccam.org.
Report: http://www.dccam.org/Projects/Genocide/Genocide_Education_Public_Forum.htm
See also other PDF reports attached herewith.
The forum is being held in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport and funded by The Asia Foundation (TAF). Core support for the program is provided by USAID and Sweden (Sida).
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Experts See Trauma After Khmer Rouge Forced Marriage
“Forced marriage under the Khmer Rouge period was not just done to females, but males as well."
Under the Khmer Rouge, Cambodians saw a new method of marriage previously unheard of in their traditional way of life. Under the policies of the regime, forced marriages looked more like political meetings than the union of husband and wife.
As many as 160 couples were married at a time under the policy, and neither the bride nor the groom could protest the union.
Those marriages, and the trauma they may have caused, are now at the center of a movement by some groups to have gender crimes added to those already facing Khmer Rouge leaders at the UN-backed tribunal.
Legal experts from many countries, including the US, Germany and Rwanda met at an international conference in Phnom Penh for two days earlier this month to consider gender-based violence under the regime.
“If they didn't go into marriage, they would be accused of misconduct,” Kalyanee Mam, a researcher at the Documentation Center of Cambodia, said recently. They could be accused of “having other lovers, and that they were not loyal to the organization,” she said. “Therefore, all people had to agree to the marriage. There were some who tried to deny the marriage...but they would be imprisoned or killed.”
Some who were forced to marry under the policy learned of the arrangement only moments before they were wed, she said.
“They were forced to marry those who didn't have hands or legs,” she said. The Khmer Rouge “forced newcomers to marry base people who did not have eyes. They did not have time to look at each other, because the marriage consisted of more than 100 couples. They just had a short time to glance at each other.”
As many as 200,000 people were forced into marriage during the Khmer Rouge rule between 1975 and 1979, according to research.
In interviews with journalists, Nuon Chea, the chief ideologue of the regime, who is now in detention awaiting trial at the tribunal, defended the policy, saying the Khmer Rouge needed to bolster the populace. Had they allowed people to choose for themselves, he has said, those injured in fighting would not have had partners.
Natalae Anderson, a researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said some couples ended up staying together after they had children. Others resorted to divorce.
Either way, the forced marriages led to mental or physical trauma, as people were deprived of a pivotal life decision, were coerced into relationships and were forced to raise children from the policy.
“This is a crime against humanity,” said Beini Ye, a legal adviser for the Cambodian Defenders Project. “Because victims were forced into a marriage without having the chance to chose their husband or wife; and they were later forced into having sex. This is a violation to both of them. For men it is a violation for them, and it is the same for the women. Therefore, forced marriage should be investigated and charged in international courts such as the Khmer Rouge tribunal.”
Sin Soworn, a lawyer for the project, said 138 people have filed complaints with the Khmer Rouge tribunal demanding compensation for their forced marriages.
“Forced marriage under the Khmer Rouge period was not just done to females,” she said, “but males as well. These marriages were planned and forced without the consent of either party.”
VOANews.com
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Under the Khmer Rouge, Cambodians saw a new method of marriage previously unheard of in their traditional way of life. Under the policies of the regime, forced marriages looked more like political meetings than the union of husband and wife.
As many as 160 couples were married at a time under the policy, and neither the bride nor the groom could protest the union.
Those marriages, and the trauma they may have caused, are now at the center of a movement by some groups to have gender crimes added to those already facing Khmer Rouge leaders at the UN-backed tribunal.
Legal experts from many countries, including the US, Germany and Rwanda met at an international conference in Phnom Penh for two days earlier this month to consider gender-based violence under the regime.
“If they didn't go into marriage, they would be accused of misconduct,” Kalyanee Mam, a researcher at the Documentation Center of Cambodia, said recently. They could be accused of “having other lovers, and that they were not loyal to the organization,” she said. “Therefore, all people had to agree to the marriage. There were some who tried to deny the marriage...but they would be imprisoned or killed.”
Some who were forced to marry under the policy learned of the arrangement only moments before they were wed, she said.
“They were forced to marry those who didn't have hands or legs,” she said. The Khmer Rouge “forced newcomers to marry base people who did not have eyes. They did not have time to look at each other, because the marriage consisted of more than 100 couples. They just had a short time to glance at each other.”
As many as 200,000 people were forced into marriage during the Khmer Rouge rule between 1975 and 1979, according to research.
In interviews with journalists, Nuon Chea, the chief ideologue of the regime, who is now in detention awaiting trial at the tribunal, defended the policy, saying the Khmer Rouge needed to bolster the populace. Had they allowed people to choose for themselves, he has said, those injured in fighting would not have had partners.
Natalae Anderson, a researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said some couples ended up staying together after they had children. Others resorted to divorce.
Either way, the forced marriages led to mental or physical trauma, as people were deprived of a pivotal life decision, were coerced into relationships and were forced to raise children from the policy.
“This is a crime against humanity,” said Beini Ye, a legal adviser for the Cambodian Defenders Project. “Because victims were forced into a marriage without having the chance to chose their husband or wife; and they were later forced into having sex. This is a violation to both of them. For men it is a violation for them, and it is the same for the women. Therefore, forced marriage should be investigated and charged in international courts such as the Khmer Rouge tribunal.”
Sin Soworn, a lawyer for the project, said 138 people have filed complaints with the Khmer Rouge tribunal demanding compensation for their forced marriages.
“Forced marriage under the Khmer Rouge period was not just done to females,” she said, “but males as well. These marriages were planned and forced without the consent of either party.”
VOANews.com
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
The Duch Verdict Screening in the former Khmer Rouge stronghold of Veal Veng, Pursat November 12, 2010
Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam)’s Living Documents Program is hosting a forum about the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)’s first verdict on November 12 in a former Khmer Rouge stronghold Pramoy commune, Veal Veng district, Pursat province.
Veal Veng, which was led by Uon Yang, today the Head of District Council and a former district chief, was not widely known for its stronghold military base but was used as an important road to transport weapons from Thailand to Khmer Rouge controlled areas in Kampong Speu and Kampot to fight with the government armies. In July 1997, a small group of former Khmer Rouge from Samlot bordering commune, Krapeu 2 in Veal Veng area joined with the KR groups in Samlot to resist against the defection to the government. After 10 months of resistance, the resistant group which led by Iem Phon, a Khmer Rouge Commander, agreed to join with the government in exchange of government positions to their leader. Today approximately 90% of the whole population in Veal Veng district is former Khmer Rouge mostly from Takeo and Kampot who escaped to the mountainous area in 1979. Although the town held its first election to select commune and district chief in 2002, many former KR remain in their leadership position as a result of negotiation with the government.
On July 26, the ECCC issued its judgment against Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch for crimes committed in connection with the S-21 detention center. Since then, DC-Cam has hosted live and replayed screenings of the verdict pronouncement in eight provinces and Phnom Penh to collect and evaluate participants’ reactions. The purpose of these forums is to encourage discussion about the meaning of the verdict in advance of the trial of Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, and Ieng Thirith—the four most senior living Khmer Rouge leaders.
Although limited to one detention site, the Duch trial raised numerous legal, political, historical, and moral challenges. It also provided the first opportunity for Cambodians to hear public discussion and debate on policies of the Democratic Kampuchea period that resulted in the deaths of nearly two million people in only three years, eight months, and twenty days. Duch’s confession of his crimes and the Court’s judgment of his actions can be meaningful even for survivors unconnected to S-21, as they speak to the responsibility of the many other prison chiefs still living who will never be held accountable for similar acts.
After screening the ECCC verdict pronouncement, the Living Documents Team together with Ms. Kim Huoy, a civil party applicant in Case 002, will lead an exchange of views on the judgment and Duch’s 30-year sentence and discuss her prospect for the upcoming Case 002. Ms. Kim is a Khmer Kampuchea Krom who fled to live in Bakan district, Pursat in her grandparents' generation from lower Mekong delta in Vietnam. In 1977, during the Khmer Rouge regime, 26 of her family members including her parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, were targeted for killing for they were identified as Khmer Krom. Discussion of the court's decision and Ms. Kim's participation in the court process is expected to attend by approximately 200 villagers and centers around two questions:
(1) How does the Duch verdict contribute to forgiveness?
(2) How does the Duch verdict contribute to genocide education?
The team will also screen two films: “Behind the Walls of S-21” and “Tuol Sleng 1979.” It will also distribute copies of the Duch verdict, DC-Cam’s booklets entitled Genocide: The Importance of Case 002 and The Duch Verdict: Is Justice Being Served for the 14, 000 Prisoners at S-21, Searching for the Truth magazine, the textbook “A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979),” and ECCC materials.
The Living Document’s Program seeks to increase the participation of ordinary Cambodians in the work of the ECCC, help them better understand DK history and the Court’s legal processes, and provide them with an opportunity to see Court proceedings and to speak to Court officials. Since ECCC proceedings began in 2007, the Program has brought around 10,000 people, including 1500 commune chiefs and nearly 400 Cham Muslim religious leaders, to Phnom Penh to receive legal training, observe proceedings at the ECCC, and participate in discussions about what they have seen. In addition, the Program holds forums about the ECCC around Cambodia.
For more information about the forums, please contact Living Document’s team leader Savina Sirik at 012-688-046.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Veal Veng, which was led by Uon Yang, today the Head of District Council and a former district chief, was not widely known for its stronghold military base but was used as an important road to transport weapons from Thailand to Khmer Rouge controlled areas in Kampong Speu and Kampot to fight with the government armies. In July 1997, a small group of former Khmer Rouge from Samlot bordering commune, Krapeu 2 in Veal Veng area joined with the KR groups in Samlot to resist against the defection to the government. After 10 months of resistance, the resistant group which led by Iem Phon, a Khmer Rouge Commander, agreed to join with the government in exchange of government positions to their leader. Today approximately 90% of the whole population in Veal Veng district is former Khmer Rouge mostly from Takeo and Kampot who escaped to the mountainous area in 1979. Although the town held its first election to select commune and district chief in 2002, many former KR remain in their leadership position as a result of negotiation with the government.
On July 26, the ECCC issued its judgment against Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch for crimes committed in connection with the S-21 detention center. Since then, DC-Cam has hosted live and replayed screenings of the verdict pronouncement in eight provinces and Phnom Penh to collect and evaluate participants’ reactions. The purpose of these forums is to encourage discussion about the meaning of the verdict in advance of the trial of Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, and Ieng Thirith—the four most senior living Khmer Rouge leaders.
Although limited to one detention site, the Duch trial raised numerous legal, political, historical, and moral challenges. It also provided the first opportunity for Cambodians to hear public discussion and debate on policies of the Democratic Kampuchea period that resulted in the deaths of nearly two million people in only three years, eight months, and twenty days. Duch’s confession of his crimes and the Court’s judgment of his actions can be meaningful even for survivors unconnected to S-21, as they speak to the responsibility of the many other prison chiefs still living who will never be held accountable for similar acts.
After screening the ECCC verdict pronouncement, the Living Documents Team together with Ms. Kim Huoy, a civil party applicant in Case 002, will lead an exchange of views on the judgment and Duch’s 30-year sentence and discuss her prospect for the upcoming Case 002. Ms. Kim is a Khmer Kampuchea Krom who fled to live in Bakan district, Pursat in her grandparents' generation from lower Mekong delta in Vietnam. In 1977, during the Khmer Rouge regime, 26 of her family members including her parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, were targeted for killing for they were identified as Khmer Krom. Discussion of the court's decision and Ms. Kim's participation in the court process is expected to attend by approximately 200 villagers and centers around two questions:
(1) How does the Duch verdict contribute to forgiveness?
(2) How does the Duch verdict contribute to genocide education?
The team will also screen two films: “Behind the Walls of S-21” and “Tuol Sleng 1979.” It will also distribute copies of the Duch verdict, DC-Cam’s booklets entitled Genocide: The Importance of Case 002 and The Duch Verdict: Is Justice Being Served for the 14, 000 Prisoners at S-21, Searching for the Truth magazine, the textbook “A History of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979),” and ECCC materials.
The Living Document’s Program seeks to increase the participation of ordinary Cambodians in the work of the ECCC, help them better understand DK history and the Court’s legal processes, and provide them with an opportunity to see Court proceedings and to speak to Court officials. Since ECCC proceedings began in 2007, the Program has brought around 10,000 people, including 1500 commune chiefs and nearly 400 Cham Muslim religious leaders, to Phnom Penh to receive legal training, observe proceedings at the ECCC, and participate in discussions about what they have seen. In addition, the Program holds forums about the ECCC around Cambodia.
For more information about the forums, please contact Living Document’s team leader Savina Sirik at 012-688-046.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Learning from Cambodia's bloody experience
.Through their own expansion, and their own self-destruction, we can learn a lot from our Asian neighbours.
Finding out about human nature by exploring its manifestations in different places and at different times was one of the features of the great Enlightenment project that saw science and reason take the scalpel to religion and tradition in the eighteenth century. Learning from history mattered as it should today. Indeed no matter how small a country is there will always be aspects of its history and experience that provide lessons for us all.
Take Cambodia for example. A small nation of just over 15 million people, it occupies 181,000 square kilometres of land and water (WA, by comparison has an area of 2,252,500 square kilometres). Since retiring from politics in 2006, my work as an academic has taken me there on four occasions. Last week I was there lecturing to public servants at the Royal School of Administration in Phnom Penh. Like many Australians I have also taken the opportunity to visit Angkor Wat and other temples located around Siam Reap.
What then can we learn from the experience of the Khmer people?
Lesson One – great cities can decay and collapse.
From the ninth to the 14th centuries the Angkor Empire stretched across much of South-East Asia. At its centre was a great city covering an area similar to the size of greater London today. It possessed a sophisticated network of roads, canals and irrigation ponds. Intensive agriculture supported a city of one million people, arguably the largest in the pre-industrial world.
Visit Angkor today and all that is left of this city is a handful of the estimated 1000 temples constructed in the era of Empire.
What happened? We know that the Empire was already in decline in the 13th and 14th centuries and that the city was sacked by Thai invaders in 1431, causing its population to move south.
Certainly the strains associated with war and conflict played their role but recent research, including that by scholars from the University of Sydney, has been focused on the impacts of climate change, population pressure and the over-use of natural resources. Damien Evans from the Greater Angkor Project put it this way: "You can see the city pushing into forested areas, stripping vegetation and re-engineering the landscape into something that was completely artificial." In a sense the city built itself out of existence.
Add to this evidence of decades of drought interspersed with intense monsoon rains which destroyed much of the infrastructure. Overstretched, over-engineered and vulnerable to external shocks like climate change – does it sound familiar?
Lesson Two – fanaticism and the evil associated with it is never far below the surface of human society.
In more recent times, we know about Cambodia because of the Pol Pot era (1975-79) and his government's campaign of systematic genocide, known as the Killing Fields. Caught up in the Cold War in South-East Asia and preceded by five years of foreign meddling, bombardment and civil war, Cambodia was ripe for revolution in 1975 a situation the disciplined and well-organised Khmer Rouge exploited.
Little did many know, however, about what was to follow. Writing in A HISTORY OF DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA (2007) Khamboly Dy summarised the four years of Khmer Rouge government in this way:
"They wanted to transform Cambodia into a rural, classless society in which there were no rich people, no poor people and no exploitation. To accomplish this, they abolished money, free markets, normal schooling, private property, foreign clothing styles, religious practices, and traditional Khmer culture. Public schools, pagodas, mosques, churches, universities, shops and government buildings were shut or turned into prisons, stables, re-education camps and granaries. There was no public or private transportation, no private property, and no non-revolutionary entertainment. Leisure activities were severely restricted. People throughout the country, including the leaders of the CPK (Communist Party of Kampuchea), had to wear black costumes, which were their traditional revolutionary clothes."
Just as the great city of Angkor was deserted in 1431, so too was Phnom Penh in 1975. In this case it was forced removal of the residents to the countryside in order to fulfil the dream of starting history again in the year zero, free of foreign influence and capitalist temptation.
It is estimated that nearly two million Cambodians died either from disease, starvation, exhaustion from overwork or execution. Torture was commonplace as the country was transformed into what Dy described as "a huge detention centre". It is very difficult to fully comprehend or describe the level and intensity of the suffering that was involved.
Cambodia wasn't the first and probably won't be the last to experience a politically driven attempt to remake human nature at the point of a gun. It reminds us of the dangers of fanaticism and nationalism, just as Angkor reminds us of the dangers of human arrogance in the face of a fragile and interconnected environment.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Finding out about human nature by exploring its manifestations in different places and at different times was one of the features of the great Enlightenment project that saw science and reason take the scalpel to religion and tradition in the eighteenth century. Learning from history mattered as it should today. Indeed no matter how small a country is there will always be aspects of its history and experience that provide lessons for us all.
Take Cambodia for example. A small nation of just over 15 million people, it occupies 181,000 square kilometres of land and water (WA, by comparison has an area of 2,252,500 square kilometres). Since retiring from politics in 2006, my work as an academic has taken me there on four occasions. Last week I was there lecturing to public servants at the Royal School of Administration in Phnom Penh. Like many Australians I have also taken the opportunity to visit Angkor Wat and other temples located around Siam Reap.
What then can we learn from the experience of the Khmer people?
Lesson One – great cities can decay and collapse.
From the ninth to the 14th centuries the Angkor Empire stretched across much of South-East Asia. At its centre was a great city covering an area similar to the size of greater London today. It possessed a sophisticated network of roads, canals and irrigation ponds. Intensive agriculture supported a city of one million people, arguably the largest in the pre-industrial world.
Visit Angkor today and all that is left of this city is a handful of the estimated 1000 temples constructed in the era of Empire.
What happened? We know that the Empire was already in decline in the 13th and 14th centuries and that the city was sacked by Thai invaders in 1431, causing its population to move south.
Certainly the strains associated with war and conflict played their role but recent research, including that by scholars from the University of Sydney, has been focused on the impacts of climate change, population pressure and the over-use of natural resources. Damien Evans from the Greater Angkor Project put it this way: "You can see the city pushing into forested areas, stripping vegetation and re-engineering the landscape into something that was completely artificial." In a sense the city built itself out of existence.
Add to this evidence of decades of drought interspersed with intense monsoon rains which destroyed much of the infrastructure. Overstretched, over-engineered and vulnerable to external shocks like climate change – does it sound familiar?
Lesson Two – fanaticism and the evil associated with it is never far below the surface of human society.
In more recent times, we know about Cambodia because of the Pol Pot era (1975-79) and his government's campaign of systematic genocide, known as the Killing Fields. Caught up in the Cold War in South-East Asia and preceded by five years of foreign meddling, bombardment and civil war, Cambodia was ripe for revolution in 1975 a situation the disciplined and well-organised Khmer Rouge exploited.
Little did many know, however, about what was to follow. Writing in A HISTORY OF DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA (2007) Khamboly Dy summarised the four years of Khmer Rouge government in this way:
"They wanted to transform Cambodia into a rural, classless society in which there were no rich people, no poor people and no exploitation. To accomplish this, they abolished money, free markets, normal schooling, private property, foreign clothing styles, religious practices, and traditional Khmer culture. Public schools, pagodas, mosques, churches, universities, shops and government buildings were shut or turned into prisons, stables, re-education camps and granaries. There was no public or private transportation, no private property, and no non-revolutionary entertainment. Leisure activities were severely restricted. People throughout the country, including the leaders of the CPK (Communist Party of Kampuchea), had to wear black costumes, which were their traditional revolutionary clothes."
Just as the great city of Angkor was deserted in 1431, so too was Phnom Penh in 1975. In this case it was forced removal of the residents to the countryside in order to fulfil the dream of starting history again in the year zero, free of foreign influence and capitalist temptation.
It is estimated that nearly two million Cambodians died either from disease, starvation, exhaustion from overwork or execution. Torture was commonplace as the country was transformed into what Dy described as "a huge detention centre". It is very difficult to fully comprehend or describe the level and intensity of the suffering that was involved.
Cambodia wasn't the first and probably won't be the last to experience a politically driven attempt to remake human nature at the point of a gun. It reminds us of the dangers of fanaticism and nationalism, just as Angkor reminds us of the dangers of human arrogance in the face of a fragile and interconnected environment.
Independently Searching for the Truth since 1997.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Longtime Scholar Sees Disappointment in Trials Ahead
Im Sothearith, VOA Khmer | Washington, DC Tuesday, 02 November 2010
Photo: AP
David Chandler, a researcher and author who writes a book about Khmer Rouge
history, seen in a screen at the court press center of the U.N.-backed
tribunal in Phnom Penh, in 2009.
[Editor's note: The Khmer Rouge tribunal is expected to benefit Cambodia by
bringing justice to senior-most leaders of the regime, creating
reconciliation for its victims and offering a model to the national courts.
But the measure of its success has been varied. VOA Khmer spoke with David
Chandler, a Cambodian scholar and author and former diplomat posted in Phnom
Penh.]
You have been following Cambodian politics and history closely for decades.
As a diplomat in the early 1960s, did you foresee the tragedy that would
befall the country? How did this happen?
When I was there in 1960, I certainly had no idea that this was going to
happen. We didn’t even know the Vietnam War was going to happen. That was
what catalyzed the Cambodian civil war, followed by the Khmer Rouge victory.
That had barely started when I was there. The fighting had barely begun. I
certainly couldn’t imagine Cambodia changing itself rapidly. But of course
the changes that happened in the late 1960s, when I wasn’t there, were quite
extensive in the society and in the growth of the communist resistance and
in the Vietnam War and in the gradual loss of confidence that people felt in
[then-prince Norodom] Sihanouk. When I was there Sihanouk was immensely
popular, except among a few members of the elite. But by the time he was
thrown out, I think he was quite unpopular, certainly in Phnom Penh. So that
was a big change that I wasn’t able to predict, but it did happen when I was
not there. I was not in the position to foresee anything when I was in
Cambodia in 1960-62. It seemed to me a quite wonderful country to be posted
to and to study.
You taught Southeast Asian history and wrote a considerable number of books,
including “A History of Cambodia,” “Brother Number One,” “Facing the
Cambodian Past,” and “The Tragedy of Cambodian History.” Given your
knowledge, what are your expectations for the Khmer Rouge tribunal? How will
the tribunal contribute to history?
I don’t think it contributes an awful lot to the world at large but it does
add momentum to the International Court of Justice. I think this is one of
its successes, by being able to bring at least Duch [the former head of Tuol
Sleng prison] to trial and bring him safely to a verdict. That was quite the
best that could be expected. In the '90s, I never expected the Khmer Rouge
leaders to come to a tribunal. I think the Cambodian government resisted
this possibility for a long time, and of course Americans in the 1980s were
not interested in doing this.
So there are a lot of people to blame for the delays. But once it got going,
I still wasn’t too optimistic until the Duch trial actually started, and
then it seemed to me that it was worth the wait. You had a trial that was
quite fair and it was quite detailed. The evidence is pretty clear that was
gathered about this man and his own testimony was very revealing. So, it was
leaning toward a verdict that seems to me—given that the International Court
very seldom gives people more than 35 years—that delivered a sort of maximum
verdict with some time off for the time he spent in jail already.
I think the verdict was OK. As for the whole tribunal, thus far it’s been a
limited success. Now, what’s going to happen next I can’t predict, but I’m
not as optimistic about the remaining trials as I was about the Duch trial
once it got going.
Duch was given a commuted sentence of 19 years, sparking a mixed reaction in
the public and among victims. Prime Minister Hun Sen welcomed the verdict.
What is your view of the trial and the verdict?
I think it was pretty fairly done. I think it took a long time to get
everything lined up. The procedures are very complicated. There’s a lot of
foot-dragging on the part of the government and some obstruction on the part
of the UN, which moves very slowly. There were charges of corruption
involved, but I don’t think they were very important. Once the trial got
going, I think Duch was treated really quite fairly. A lot of people,
including victims and survivors, got a chance to voice their views. I think
the prosecution was clear without being vindictive. I think and the defense
did as good a job—not the Cambodian lawyer but the French lawyer –as good a
job as he could, to get some of those verdicts that were gotten by taking
time off for his cooperation and so on, which you’re not going to get for
the next defendants. There’s not going to be any cooperation from the next
defendants. They have never said they want to cooperate at all.
You returned to Cambodia two years after the fall of the Khmer Rouge. You've
said Cambodians “seemed stunned, remote, and haunted” and that you were
“unready as a scholar to confront the enormity of recent Cambodian history.”
Given that, how do you view the disappointment of victims in the Duch
verdict?
I think for one thing, the judges were operating inside the parameters of
the national court. They weren’t actually offering the kind of justice that
the victims wanted. And some of the victims of course wanted him to be
killed, and there’s no death penalty in Cambodia. I think letting him out at
the age of 87, which he may not ever reach, I think is fairly good,
considering he’s admitted his responsibilities. I think, well, certainly the
life imprisonment was not an option because the international courts have
never given anybody life imprisonment in any of the trials that they’ve had
over the years in these various places.
So they’re operating inside UN rules. Now this is something that had to be
explained to people. This was not a Cambodian court that could do more
extensive punishment. I can understand their feelings, that this is what
they felt, the victims felt more should have been done. The people who I
sympathize with most are the people in civil parties who had direct
connections to S-21.
I think people who suffered under the Khmer Rouge cannot blame Duch for
their sufferings, but the people who had relatives at S-21 certainly can.
But I think the next trial, the civil parties, are going to be perhaps
almost too extensive where people are going to be blaming Ieng Sary for
killing their grandfather and stuff and this is going to make it very, very
difficult for that trial to go forward. People want to have some sort of
person to blame.
I think there is a whole regime to blame, and the whole regime can’t go on
trial; only a few people can. I can see why these people say the sentence
seems to them short. But on the other hand, the ordinary people, the victims
of the Khmer Rouge, waited for years to say anything about this. They waited
until the whole opportunity arose from outside the country to make justice.
As long as the [Cambodian] government was opposed to anything, people didn’t
say anything.
Cambodians never gave any money to the tribunal. The government never wanted
this tribunal to take place. So the international people come in and have
one, and then people say, “Well, that’s not kind of thing we wanted.” But we
never knew what they wanted, in a way. I don’t want to be too harsh on them.
It’s a difficult situation. I see their point, but the verdict can’t be
fixed. And I’m quite uncertain that there’s going to be a verdict on these
next defendants. This may be all these people are going to get.
But I think there’s been a raising of consciousness, national consciousness,
which is very important. That’s very painful for the victims but it’s also
very important for the people who don’t know about the people, about just
how terrible they were, and what terrible things they did. I think it’s very
important for the next generation of Cambodians to become aware of that. In
that sense, the tribunal has been a success for them.
Given the value of the Duch case, what do you expect from the second case,
for leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith?
I can’t really predict what Case 002 is going to be. But I think it’s
momentum among the people who want to have something to happen in 002. I’m
not sure they are going to satisfied. Now what they’re going to do when they
are dissatisfied, I’m not sure. They’re not going to demonstrate or take to
the streets or shoot anybody. I mean, Hun Sen says there’s going to be a
civil war, but you have to ask who’s going to have the guns. People don’t
have any guns.
There may be some discontent and some unhappiness about the way that trial
is going to proceed because I think these people are going to be very
evasive and very delaying and very tactical. And they’re actually more
guilty than Duch, in the sense that these aren’t people who received orders,
these are people who gave orders. Duch didn’t use the so-called Eichmann
defense that, “I was only just obeying orders.” He said “I was, but I wanted
to obey the orders;” he said that, and “I’m sorry I did.” But these other
people gave orders, although they deny that.
I think the tribunal is just a part of a whole consciousness-raising
exercise, including the DC-Cam textbooks, opening up TV daily broadcast and
bringing in 30,000 people in to watch the trial. Some of those were
journalists and Westerners, so let’s say 20,000 were Cambodians: they are
going to go back where they came from with stories with about what they saw.
Some of those stories will be helpful and interesting, and some of them
would be foolish, but that’s the way people are. But you’re going to get a
lot more consciousness about how this Khmer Rouge era is getting brought
back as an era in Cambodian history.
I don’t think it should be officially forgotten about. So I think it does
have value. I think one of the big challenges is of course going to be
funding. I’m not sure they’re going to have enough money to pay for this
much complicated case, having already spent a lot of money on the quite
comparatively simple one. That’s going be genuine challenge. I’m not sure
the money is going to be forthcoming. None is going to come from the
Cambodian government. That’s for sure.
It can come from foreign donors, but I think there might be a certain amount
of wariness in the global financial situation to forking out more money for
a trial that might not come to anything. So that’s a genuine challenge to my
mind. Another will be how to handle the civil parties. They've got 4,000
people already registered as civil parties. A third will be how to pin these
people down without documentary evidence of the sort that you have on Duch.
I know people are working very hard to surmount these challenges and to make
the trial come off, and I certainly wish them well. But I can’t really, so
far, be terribly optimistic on what might happen.
Blame for the Khmer Rouge has in part fallen on Chinese assistance and the
US bombardment of Cambodia. And criticism has been put on both for their
subsequent support of the Khmer Rouge in the UN. As a former diplomat, how
do you think the tribunal with affect Cambodia's relationships with these
two countries?
I think the American bombing of Cambodia was a disaster, but I think it did
postpone the Khmer Rouge victory, which is what the Americans had in mind.
The Khmer Rouge might easily have won and taken Phnom Penh in 1973 if it had
not been for the American bombing, which was a disaster and inexcusable.
The UN thing is even more, or just as, inexcusable, and I think this traces
back to a kind of animosity that the Americans felt toward the Vietnamese
after the Vietnam war and did not want to support the Vietnamese-supported
regime in Phnom Penh. So that was another bad period. I think this has
produced a lot of resentment on Hun Sen’s part because he was, among with
other people, working quite hard during the [People’s Republic of Kampuchea]
period to put Cambodia back on its feet without the aid that he could have
used from UN and from other countries.
But I mean China of course has denied all; they said they weren’t even
friendly with the Khmer Rouge, which is a complete lie because the evidence,
the documentary evidence, is very high on that, that they were pretty strong
supporters of it from the very beginning. The Chinese fooled Pol Pot and his
colleagues into thinking that their aid was going to go on forever and that
he could beat the Vietnamese.
There has been talk of putting the Americans on trial instead of the Khmer
Rouge leaders. But the Khmer Rouge leaders wanted to put that government of
theirs in place with or without American behavior. They won the war. The
Americans didn’t win it for them. They won their own war. I just don’t think
you can blame foreigners for the Khmer Rouge regime. You can blame them for
a lot, and I think we’re culpable of a lot, but not for the victory of the
Khmer Rouge.
China has maintained a close friendship with Cambodia no matter the regimes
or practices. Why is Cambodia important to China? And why would Cambodia
continue to see China as important?
I think by and large they think China is a friend of theirs now because they’re
giving them large sums of money with no strings attached. I think Cambodia’s
importance to China, I don’t think it is terribly important. It’s just part
of their policy, back thousands of years, to having friendly nations along
its borders and being able to exploit these nations economically. The dams
on the Mekong and so on in Laos are an example of that.
To have friendly relations with countries that will be able to provide them
certain raw materials and investment opportunities. I think that they were
connected with the Khmer Rouge, it’s just not remembered or paid attention
to by the Cambodian government. So I think China is a very welcome ally of
the Cambodian government because they’re coming in with no accusations; they
don’t ever accuse the Cambodian government of corruption; they say they
never were friendly with the Khmer Rouge. It’s quite obvious that they’ve
been opposed to the trial all along, but there’s no paper trail for that. So
it’s an ongoing relationship, I think, that will probably be for the
Cambodian government’s advantage.
[Concerning the Khmer Rouge] I think there were elements of the Chinese
foreign policy in those days that supported world revolution, and this is in
a very radical phase of Chinese history. Also China had a long term policy
of friendship with Cambodia, friendship with Sihanouk, friendship with the
Khmer Rouge, now friendship with Hun Sen. That has always been part of their
five principles.
Now, the point is, it seems to me, that if you give these large amounts of
aid, that is not interfering in domestic political affairs in Cambodia. But
I think it’s pretty obvious that they expect a certain amount of respect for
those gifts. They don’t want to have some of their policies exposed or
opposed and this would be policies such as their expansion into Southeast
Asia generally or their collaboration with the Khmer Rouge. They don’t want
that brought out into the open.
So in a way they are interfering with their policies, but they can say, “No,
no. We’re just giving gifts for the development of the country,” which of
course is what it looks like. So, there’re two sides to their policy. One is
the way they’ve always operated, in terms of not interfering as much as,
say, the Americans have interfered in the internal politics of lots of
countries. The other is that the generosity of gifts comes along with a kind
of unspoken expectation that the Cambodians will serve Chinese interests
when Chinese interests are threatened.
What role will Duch play in the next trial?
I think he is not that important. I mean if Son Sen were on trial—and of
course Son Sen was assassinated by Pol Pot—if he were on trial, he was No. 3
in the regime, right after Nuon Chea, [then] Duch would be a terrific
witness. I mean, they could nail Son Sen to real responsibility for the
whole operation of S-21. I don’t think the operation of S-21 was of interest
to other people, except when the top people were being interrogated, and
then they went up to Nuon Chea to look at some of the top communists being
tried. So Duch can only be somewhat helpful. I mean he was not in the
circle. He did not go to those cabinet meetings. I don’t know how much he’s
going to give; I don’t know exactly where he stands at the moment. But he’s
certainly going to be asked to give more testimony about these top leaders,
and I think people might think there are things he knows that he hasn’t
mentioned, but I doubt that is true. I think he is going to be some help,
but not a lot of help.
What we didn’t mention is Duch’s admission of guilt, which a lot people said
was insincere. Well, how can you tell? I mean, if he’s done this, he puts
himself on the line, right? If he’s lying, what difference does it make? See
what I mean? He said, “Sorry, I did what I did, and I am sorry.”
I mean, it seems to me, saying he was insincere doesn’t get you anywhere.
But that was quite a dangerous thing for him to do. I think that sped up the
trial considerably and it justified the verdict. And in that sense, to some
extent, he was a more courageous person than the other witnesses are going
to be. They are not going to stand on evidence and say that they did
anything. They are going to avoid evidence and say they didn’t do anything.
So, I think there’s a contrast there between what people had expected and
what they saw and what had really happened under the Khmer Rouge. This is
very ironic.
They saw a person who had been in charge of all these murders at that
prison, and he admitted it. Now people who are worse in my mind were the
people who gave him those orders or who approved of that prison, and they’re
not going to say they knew anything about it. So the Cambodian people are
not going to be satisfied with the next bunch of defendants because they are
not going to see the kind of admissions and evidence that they saw before.
These guys are going to even look innocent.
There’s still some people who think Khieu Samphan was innocent because of
his past when he was a decent representative in the National Assembly years
and years ago and because he was never corrupt. But, I mean, he was right in
there at all those situations. He was much closer to the top than Duch ever
was and stayed with Pol Pot until Pol Pot died. Duch at least left the
movement.
I think the next trial is going to be very disappointing compared to the
trial of Duch. I think people should brace themselves: they are not going to
be able to say, “Well, this isn’t fair,” because they’re not going to get
any evidence. They’re just going to get a bunch of smoke out of those
people.
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Photo: AP
David Chandler, a researcher and author who writes a book about Khmer Rouge
history, seen in a screen at the court press center of the U.N.-backed
tribunal in Phnom Penh, in 2009.
[Editor's note: The Khmer Rouge tribunal is expected to benefit Cambodia by
bringing justice to senior-most leaders of the regime, creating
reconciliation for its victims and offering a model to the national courts.
But the measure of its success has been varied. VOA Khmer spoke with David
Chandler, a Cambodian scholar and author and former diplomat posted in Phnom
Penh.]
You have been following Cambodian politics and history closely for decades.
As a diplomat in the early 1960s, did you foresee the tragedy that would
befall the country? How did this happen?
When I was there in 1960, I certainly had no idea that this was going to
happen. We didn’t even know the Vietnam War was going to happen. That was
what catalyzed the Cambodian civil war, followed by the Khmer Rouge victory.
That had barely started when I was there. The fighting had barely begun. I
certainly couldn’t imagine Cambodia changing itself rapidly. But of course
the changes that happened in the late 1960s, when I wasn’t there, were quite
extensive in the society and in the growth of the communist resistance and
in the Vietnam War and in the gradual loss of confidence that people felt in
[then-prince Norodom] Sihanouk. When I was there Sihanouk was immensely
popular, except among a few members of the elite. But by the time he was
thrown out, I think he was quite unpopular, certainly in Phnom Penh. So that
was a big change that I wasn’t able to predict, but it did happen when I was
not there. I was not in the position to foresee anything when I was in
Cambodia in 1960-62. It seemed to me a quite wonderful country to be posted
to and to study.
You taught Southeast Asian history and wrote a considerable number of books,
including “A History of Cambodia,” “Brother Number One,” “Facing the
Cambodian Past,” and “The Tragedy of Cambodian History.” Given your
knowledge, what are your expectations for the Khmer Rouge tribunal? How will
the tribunal contribute to history?
I don’t think it contributes an awful lot to the world at large but it does
add momentum to the International Court of Justice. I think this is one of
its successes, by being able to bring at least Duch [the former head of Tuol
Sleng prison] to trial and bring him safely to a verdict. That was quite the
best that could be expected. In the '90s, I never expected the Khmer Rouge
leaders to come to a tribunal. I think the Cambodian government resisted
this possibility for a long time, and of course Americans in the 1980s were
not interested in doing this.
So there are a lot of people to blame for the delays. But once it got going,
I still wasn’t too optimistic until the Duch trial actually started, and
then it seemed to me that it was worth the wait. You had a trial that was
quite fair and it was quite detailed. The evidence is pretty clear that was
gathered about this man and his own testimony was very revealing. So, it was
leaning toward a verdict that seems to me—given that the International Court
very seldom gives people more than 35 years—that delivered a sort of maximum
verdict with some time off for the time he spent in jail already.
I think the verdict was OK. As for the whole tribunal, thus far it’s been a
limited success. Now, what’s going to happen next I can’t predict, but I’m
not as optimistic about the remaining trials as I was about the Duch trial
once it got going.
Duch was given a commuted sentence of 19 years, sparking a mixed reaction in
the public and among victims. Prime Minister Hun Sen welcomed the verdict.
What is your view of the trial and the verdict?
I think it was pretty fairly done. I think it took a long time to get
everything lined up. The procedures are very complicated. There’s a lot of
foot-dragging on the part of the government and some obstruction on the part
of the UN, which moves very slowly. There were charges of corruption
involved, but I don’t think they were very important. Once the trial got
going, I think Duch was treated really quite fairly. A lot of people,
including victims and survivors, got a chance to voice their views. I think
the prosecution was clear without being vindictive. I think and the defense
did as good a job—not the Cambodian lawyer but the French lawyer –as good a
job as he could, to get some of those verdicts that were gotten by taking
time off for his cooperation and so on, which you’re not going to get for
the next defendants. There’s not going to be any cooperation from the next
defendants. They have never said they want to cooperate at all.
You returned to Cambodia two years after the fall of the Khmer Rouge. You've
said Cambodians “seemed stunned, remote, and haunted” and that you were
“unready as a scholar to confront the enormity of recent Cambodian history.”
Given that, how do you view the disappointment of victims in the Duch
verdict?
I think for one thing, the judges were operating inside the parameters of
the national court. They weren’t actually offering the kind of justice that
the victims wanted. And some of the victims of course wanted him to be
killed, and there’s no death penalty in Cambodia. I think letting him out at
the age of 87, which he may not ever reach, I think is fairly good,
considering he’s admitted his responsibilities. I think, well, certainly the
life imprisonment was not an option because the international courts have
never given anybody life imprisonment in any of the trials that they’ve had
over the years in these various places.
So they’re operating inside UN rules. Now this is something that had to be
explained to people. This was not a Cambodian court that could do more
extensive punishment. I can understand their feelings, that this is what
they felt, the victims felt more should have been done. The people who I
sympathize with most are the people in civil parties who had direct
connections to S-21.
I think people who suffered under the Khmer Rouge cannot blame Duch for
their sufferings, but the people who had relatives at S-21 certainly can.
But I think the next trial, the civil parties, are going to be perhaps
almost too extensive where people are going to be blaming Ieng Sary for
killing their grandfather and stuff and this is going to make it very, very
difficult for that trial to go forward. People want to have some sort of
person to blame.
I think there is a whole regime to blame, and the whole regime can’t go on
trial; only a few people can. I can see why these people say the sentence
seems to them short. But on the other hand, the ordinary people, the victims
of the Khmer Rouge, waited for years to say anything about this. They waited
until the whole opportunity arose from outside the country to make justice.
As long as the [Cambodian] government was opposed to anything, people didn’t
say anything.
Cambodians never gave any money to the tribunal. The government never wanted
this tribunal to take place. So the international people come in and have
one, and then people say, “Well, that’s not kind of thing we wanted.” But we
never knew what they wanted, in a way. I don’t want to be too harsh on them.
It’s a difficult situation. I see their point, but the verdict can’t be
fixed. And I’m quite uncertain that there’s going to be a verdict on these
next defendants. This may be all these people are going to get.
But I think there’s been a raising of consciousness, national consciousness,
which is very important. That’s very painful for the victims but it’s also
very important for the people who don’t know about the people, about just
how terrible they were, and what terrible things they did. I think it’s very
important for the next generation of Cambodians to become aware of that. In
that sense, the tribunal has been a success for them.
Given the value of the Duch case, what do you expect from the second case,
for leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith?
I can’t really predict what Case 002 is going to be. But I think it’s
momentum among the people who want to have something to happen in 002. I’m
not sure they are going to satisfied. Now what they’re going to do when they
are dissatisfied, I’m not sure. They’re not going to demonstrate or take to
the streets or shoot anybody. I mean, Hun Sen says there’s going to be a
civil war, but you have to ask who’s going to have the guns. People don’t
have any guns.
There may be some discontent and some unhappiness about the way that trial
is going to proceed because I think these people are going to be very
evasive and very delaying and very tactical. And they’re actually more
guilty than Duch, in the sense that these aren’t people who received orders,
these are people who gave orders. Duch didn’t use the so-called Eichmann
defense that, “I was only just obeying orders.” He said “I was, but I wanted
to obey the orders;” he said that, and “I’m sorry I did.” But these other
people gave orders, although they deny that.
I think the tribunal is just a part of a whole consciousness-raising
exercise, including the DC-Cam textbooks, opening up TV daily broadcast and
bringing in 30,000 people in to watch the trial. Some of those were
journalists and Westerners, so let’s say 20,000 were Cambodians: they are
going to go back where they came from with stories with about what they saw.
Some of those stories will be helpful and interesting, and some of them
would be foolish, but that’s the way people are. But you’re going to get a
lot more consciousness about how this Khmer Rouge era is getting brought
back as an era in Cambodian history.
I don’t think it should be officially forgotten about. So I think it does
have value. I think one of the big challenges is of course going to be
funding. I’m not sure they’re going to have enough money to pay for this
much complicated case, having already spent a lot of money on the quite
comparatively simple one. That’s going be genuine challenge. I’m not sure
the money is going to be forthcoming. None is going to come from the
Cambodian government. That’s for sure.
It can come from foreign donors, but I think there might be a certain amount
of wariness in the global financial situation to forking out more money for
a trial that might not come to anything. So that’s a genuine challenge to my
mind. Another will be how to handle the civil parties. They've got 4,000
people already registered as civil parties. A third will be how to pin these
people down without documentary evidence of the sort that you have on Duch.
I know people are working very hard to surmount these challenges and to make
the trial come off, and I certainly wish them well. But I can’t really, so
far, be terribly optimistic on what might happen.
Blame for the Khmer Rouge has in part fallen on Chinese assistance and the
US bombardment of Cambodia. And criticism has been put on both for their
subsequent support of the Khmer Rouge in the UN. As a former diplomat, how
do you think the tribunal with affect Cambodia's relationships with these
two countries?
I think the American bombing of Cambodia was a disaster, but I think it did
postpone the Khmer Rouge victory, which is what the Americans had in mind.
The Khmer Rouge might easily have won and taken Phnom Penh in 1973 if it had
not been for the American bombing, which was a disaster and inexcusable.
The UN thing is even more, or just as, inexcusable, and I think this traces
back to a kind of animosity that the Americans felt toward the Vietnamese
after the Vietnam war and did not want to support the Vietnamese-supported
regime in Phnom Penh. So that was another bad period. I think this has
produced a lot of resentment on Hun Sen’s part because he was, among with
other people, working quite hard during the [People’s Republic of Kampuchea]
period to put Cambodia back on its feet without the aid that he could have
used from UN and from other countries.
But I mean China of course has denied all; they said they weren’t even
friendly with the Khmer Rouge, which is a complete lie because the evidence,
the documentary evidence, is very high on that, that they were pretty strong
supporters of it from the very beginning. The Chinese fooled Pol Pot and his
colleagues into thinking that their aid was going to go on forever and that
he could beat the Vietnamese.
There has been talk of putting the Americans on trial instead of the Khmer
Rouge leaders. But the Khmer Rouge leaders wanted to put that government of
theirs in place with or without American behavior. They won the war. The
Americans didn’t win it for them. They won their own war. I just don’t think
you can blame foreigners for the Khmer Rouge regime. You can blame them for
a lot, and I think we’re culpable of a lot, but not for the victory of the
Khmer Rouge.
China has maintained a close friendship with Cambodia no matter the regimes
or practices. Why is Cambodia important to China? And why would Cambodia
continue to see China as important?
I think by and large they think China is a friend of theirs now because they’re
giving them large sums of money with no strings attached. I think Cambodia’s
importance to China, I don’t think it is terribly important. It’s just part
of their policy, back thousands of years, to having friendly nations along
its borders and being able to exploit these nations economically. The dams
on the Mekong and so on in Laos are an example of that.
To have friendly relations with countries that will be able to provide them
certain raw materials and investment opportunities. I think that they were
connected with the Khmer Rouge, it’s just not remembered or paid attention
to by the Cambodian government. So I think China is a very welcome ally of
the Cambodian government because they’re coming in with no accusations; they
don’t ever accuse the Cambodian government of corruption; they say they
never were friendly with the Khmer Rouge. It’s quite obvious that they’ve
been opposed to the trial all along, but there’s no paper trail for that. So
it’s an ongoing relationship, I think, that will probably be for the
Cambodian government’s advantage.
[Concerning the Khmer Rouge] I think there were elements of the Chinese
foreign policy in those days that supported world revolution, and this is in
a very radical phase of Chinese history. Also China had a long term policy
of friendship with Cambodia, friendship with Sihanouk, friendship with the
Khmer Rouge, now friendship with Hun Sen. That has always been part of their
five principles.
Now, the point is, it seems to me, that if you give these large amounts of
aid, that is not interfering in domestic political affairs in Cambodia. But
I think it’s pretty obvious that they expect a certain amount of respect for
those gifts. They don’t want to have some of their policies exposed or
opposed and this would be policies such as their expansion into Southeast
Asia generally or their collaboration with the Khmer Rouge. They don’t want
that brought out into the open.
So in a way they are interfering with their policies, but they can say, “No,
no. We’re just giving gifts for the development of the country,” which of
course is what it looks like. So, there’re two sides to their policy. One is
the way they’ve always operated, in terms of not interfering as much as,
say, the Americans have interfered in the internal politics of lots of
countries. The other is that the generosity of gifts comes along with a kind
of unspoken expectation that the Cambodians will serve Chinese interests
when Chinese interests are threatened.
What role will Duch play in the next trial?
I think he is not that important. I mean if Son Sen were on trial—and of
course Son Sen was assassinated by Pol Pot—if he were on trial, he was No. 3
in the regime, right after Nuon Chea, [then] Duch would be a terrific
witness. I mean, they could nail Son Sen to real responsibility for the
whole operation of S-21. I don’t think the operation of S-21 was of interest
to other people, except when the top people were being interrogated, and
then they went up to Nuon Chea to look at some of the top communists being
tried. So Duch can only be somewhat helpful. I mean he was not in the
circle. He did not go to those cabinet meetings. I don’t know how much he’s
going to give; I don’t know exactly where he stands at the moment. But he’s
certainly going to be asked to give more testimony about these top leaders,
and I think people might think there are things he knows that he hasn’t
mentioned, but I doubt that is true. I think he is going to be some help,
but not a lot of help.
What we didn’t mention is Duch’s admission of guilt, which a lot people said
was insincere. Well, how can you tell? I mean, if he’s done this, he puts
himself on the line, right? If he’s lying, what difference does it make? See
what I mean? He said, “Sorry, I did what I did, and I am sorry.”
I mean, it seems to me, saying he was insincere doesn’t get you anywhere.
But that was quite a dangerous thing for him to do. I think that sped up the
trial considerably and it justified the verdict. And in that sense, to some
extent, he was a more courageous person than the other witnesses are going
to be. They are not going to stand on evidence and say that they did
anything. They are going to avoid evidence and say they didn’t do anything.
So, I think there’s a contrast there between what people had expected and
what they saw and what had really happened under the Khmer Rouge. This is
very ironic.
They saw a person who had been in charge of all these murders at that
prison, and he admitted it. Now people who are worse in my mind were the
people who gave him those orders or who approved of that prison, and they’re
not going to say they knew anything about it. So the Cambodian people are
not going to be satisfied with the next bunch of defendants because they are
not going to see the kind of admissions and evidence that they saw before.
These guys are going to even look innocent.
There’s still some people who think Khieu Samphan was innocent because of
his past when he was a decent representative in the National Assembly years
and years ago and because he was never corrupt. But, I mean, he was right in
there at all those situations. He was much closer to the top than Duch ever
was and stayed with Pol Pot until Pol Pot died. Duch at least left the
movement.
I think the next trial is going to be very disappointing compared to the
trial of Duch. I think people should brace themselves: they are not going to
be able to say, “Well, this isn’t fair,” because they’re not going to get
any evidence. They’re just going to get a bunch of smoke out of those
people.
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Groups Urge Adding Sexual Violence to Tribunal Charges
Kong Sothanarith, VOA Khmer | Phnom Penh Wednesday, 03 November 2010
Photo: AP
The film, called "The Khmer Rouge rice fields, the story of rape survivor Tang Kim" produced by Youk Chhang of DC-Cam, shows the nun, Tang Kim, in search of internal healing after witnessing the murder of her first husband by the Khmer Rouge and then being gang-raped by the perpetrators.
“According to the investigating judges, rape was not a part of the [Communist Party of Kampuchea] policy.”
Local rights groups and lawyers want the Khmer Rouge tribunal to include sexual violence among the “serious crimes” under its purview as the UN-backed court prepares to try four regime leaders.
By including such crimes, including rape, the court can ensure equal justice to victims, tribunal experts said at the opening of a two-day international conference on gender and justice.
The conference included participants from Cambodia, France, the US, Japan, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, India, Indonesia and others.
Sexual violence must be comprehensively addressed at the tribunal to ensure “the fight against impunity,” said Silke Studzinsky, a German lawyer who represents victims at the court.
The tribunal has so far failed to seriously investigate sexual violence and to set up an effective investigative team that included women, she said.
In the tribunal’s first case, against torture chief Duch, “the court failed to address cases of sexual violence,” she said. “The co-investigating judges failed to indict the defendants in Case 002 with rape and others acts of sexual violence outside of forced marriage.”
Japanese researcher Nakawa Kasumi, who is a professor at the University of Cambodia, said Khmer Rouge sexual violence included gang rape, forced sex after marriage and other acts. At least 200,000 forced marriages occurred under the regime, she said.
Tribunal spokesman Lars Olsen said Wednesday that rape and forced marriage had both been included in the original prosecution indictments for Case 002, which will try Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith for atrocity crimes.
However, “according to the investigating judges, rape was not a part of the [Communist Party of Kampuchea] policy,” Olsen said. “They said that rape occurred, but it was not a part of CPK policy, because CPK policy appeared to punish those who actually committed rape.”
---
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Photo: AP
The film, called "The Khmer Rouge rice fields, the story of rape survivor Tang Kim" produced by Youk Chhang of DC-Cam, shows the nun, Tang Kim, in search of internal healing after witnessing the murder of her first husband by the Khmer Rouge and then being gang-raped by the perpetrators.
“According to the investigating judges, rape was not a part of the [Communist Party of Kampuchea] policy.”
Local rights groups and lawyers want the Khmer Rouge tribunal to include sexual violence among the “serious crimes” under its purview as the UN-backed court prepares to try four regime leaders.
By including such crimes, including rape, the court can ensure equal justice to victims, tribunal experts said at the opening of a two-day international conference on gender and justice.
The conference included participants from Cambodia, France, the US, Japan, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, India, Indonesia and others.
Sexual violence must be comprehensively addressed at the tribunal to ensure “the fight against impunity,” said Silke Studzinsky, a German lawyer who represents victims at the court.
The tribunal has so far failed to seriously investigate sexual violence and to set up an effective investigative team that included women, she said.
In the tribunal’s first case, against torture chief Duch, “the court failed to address cases of sexual violence,” she said. “The co-investigating judges failed to indict the defendants in Case 002 with rape and others acts of sexual violence outside of forced marriage.”
Japanese researcher Nakawa Kasumi, who is a professor at the University of Cambodia, said Khmer Rouge sexual violence included gang rape, forced sex after marriage and other acts. At least 200,000 forced marriages occurred under the regime, she said.
Tribunal spokesman Lars Olsen said Wednesday that rape and forced marriage had both been included in the original prosecution indictments for Case 002, which will try Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith for atrocity crimes.
However, “according to the investigating judges, rape was not a part of the [Communist Party of Kampuchea] policy,” Olsen said. “They said that rape occurred, but it was not a part of CPK policy, because CPK policy appeared to punish those who actually committed rape.”
---
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
REPORT – CONFERENCE WITH MINORITY GROUPS
Understanding Genocide: Truth, Memory, and Justice
Conference Hall, Institute of Technology of Cambodia
Phnom Penh, October 25, 2010
Report by Megan Karsh, Access to Justice Asia
Edited by Anne Heindel
I. INTRODUCTION
In September 2010, four senior Khmer Rouge leaders were formally indicted by the Extraordinary Chambers of the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) for genocide, crimes against humanity, international war crimes, and violations of domestic law (comprising Case 002). The charge of genocide in particular has garnered much attention. Though Cambodians have long used the term (ampeu pralai pouch sas in Khmer) to describe the killings by the Khmer Rouge, they are not necessarily in consensus about what the term means, nor do they possess a clear understanding of the term’s legal and historical definitions.
Recognizing the potential for confusion about the ECCC’s genocide charges, Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam) is hosting two informational conferences for minority groups. The first held on 25 October 2010 at the Institute of Technology, introduced participants to the term’s use and history in international and domestic legal settings, as well as in Cambodian literature and social science. The informational segments of the conference were interspersed with activities intended to honor participant victims and foster dialogue around the issues.
In addition to clarifying the term and engaging minority groups in the work of the tribunal, the conference was intended to build a more complete history of Democratic Kampuchea by collecting participants’ oral histories and to promote further discussion on Democratic Kampuchea and participation in the truth-seeking process.
II. THE PARTICIPANTS
In attendance at the 25 October 2010 conference were approximately 200 members of various minority groups affected by the Khmer Rouge regime. These included: groups of Cham Muslim men, women and religious leaders; members of the Khmer Kampuchea Krom minority, members of the Vietnamese minority, Buddhist Monks, priests, and hill tribe community members.
These minority groups suffered greatly under the regime. Between 100,000-400,000 Cham Muslims and approximately 300,000 Vietnamese died as a result of Khmer Rouge policies. Many Khmer Kampuchea Krom people were accused of having “Vietnamese brains” and were relocated, tortured or killed as a result. Buddhist monks were defrocked and forced to work in the agriculture fields.
Because there were also regional aspects to the way in which groups were treated under the regime, DC-Cam sought to bring together minority group representatives from widespread locales. It required substantial preplanning and coordination, but DC-Cam managed to transport, house and feed individuals from the following provinces: Pursat, Kampot, Kampong Cham, Kep, Ratanak kiri, Pre Veng, Mondul kiri, Battambang, Preah Sihanouk and the municipality of Phnom Penh.
III. MORNING SESSION: GENOCIDE IN LEGAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Once the participants, speakers, journalists and observers had gathered in the large conference hall at 8:00 on the morning of the 25th, Ms. Farina So of DC-Cam opened the conference with welcoming remarks and an overview of the day’s activities. She then requested that the participants complete a survey probing their understanding of and perspective on genocide to date. The forms asked questions including how many family members the participants lost during the regime; when participants first heard the word “genocide;” and what they believe to the be the reason for the ECCC not charging the accused with genocide of the Khmer Kampuchea Krom, Buddhist monks, or other minorities.
Once the forms were distributed, a quiet settled over the room as participants carefully considered their answers. The only audible sound was the murmering of DC-Cam employees assisting participants who do not know how to write. After some time, Ms. So interrupted the audience to tell people that there would be opportunities throughout the day to share their personal narratives with DC-Cam staff in order to include it in the larger history. She then asked the audience to submit their evaluation forms and turn their attention to the first speaker, Mr. Andrew Cayley, International Co-Prosecutor at the ECCC.
A. Legal Definition by International Co-Prosecutor, Andrew Cayley, and Representative from the Office of the National Co-Prosecutor
Mr. Cayley commenced his speech by acknowledging that genocide is a very difficult word to define, and that lawyers regularly struggle to find an appropriate understanding of the concept under law. Before delving into the evolution of the definition, however, he took time to discuss the charges against the four senior leaders. He essentially advised the crowd to not overemphasize the genocide charges when considering the overall charges against the four senior Khmer Rouge leaders. While genocide is a very serious crime in international law, there are many other very serious crimes under international and Cambodian law with which the four were also charged.
The overall arc of Mr. Cayley’s speech went from describing the events that gave birth to genocide legislation and jurisprudence, to discussing the current legal framework, to applying the law to the facts in Case 002 to again advising the crowd to not focus more heavily than is appropriate on the genocide charges against the leaders.
The crowd was largely attentive throughout and especially when Mr. Cayley addressed Case 002. He essentially previewed the case that his office would be putting forth, from showing that the Khmer Rouge defrocked and murdered Buddhist monks, a clear crime against humanity, to proving they dispersed and murdered Cham Muslims, a crime against humanity and genocide. In respect to the Khmer Kampuchea Krom, Mr. Cayley stated that evidence of their deportations from the Eastern, Central and Southwestern zones would be used to prove the charges of genocide against the Vietnamese. The audience remained rapt and calm, seemingly accepting how the evidence was characterized by the prosecution.
Mr. Cayley ended his speech and turned over the floor to the National deputy Co-Prosecutor Chea Chan Dar aRaksmey. Cayley’s counterpart thanked him for his clear definition the term and then proceeded to ground it more deeply into Cambodian history. He noted that the Khmer Rouge “destroyed” populations in many ways and for years after the regime collapsed by disabling the country’s infrastructure and immeasurably delaying development. There were several murmers of assent from the crowd and robust applause at the conclusion of his speech.
Ms. So announced that there would be an opportunity to ask questions of the prosecutors, but first acknowledged that the legal concepts were quite complex and that participants should use the opportunity to ask about whatever they did not understand. Several people asked questions, including a gentleman wanting to know about the maximum possible sentence for those convicted and another man asking why nations that contributed to the conflict were not tried. To the last questions, Mr. Cayley responded that the ECCC had jurisdiction only to try individuals, not nations, an answer that seemed to disappoint several in the crowd.
B. Memorializing the Minority Groups
Taking a break from the more academic side of the program, DC-Cam Director Youk Chhang and Andrew Cayley presented memorials to representatives of the five minority groups in attendance. It was a solemn and meaningful affair that was well received by the audience.
Message inscribed in the plaque for the five groups:
® For the Cham: “This commemorates the suffering and death of the Cham people of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. It also expresses the solemn hope and resolve that justice will be done and that these events will never happen again - anywhere. To the young who read this in future years, whoever you are, never forget what happened to the Cham people. Do your utmost every single day of your lives to respect and love one another. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For the Hill Tribes:
“This plate recalls with love and compassion those members of the Highland people of Cambodia who suffered torment and death between 1975 and 1979. And remember that whatever the differences are between us humanity’s most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal."
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For the Priests:
“Recalling the lives and faith of those priests who perished and endured hardship from 1975 to 1979. Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For Buddhist monks:
“In loving memory of those Buddhist monks who died and suffered for their beliefs in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. Overcome anger by love; overcome wrong by good; overcome the mean hearted by a generous spirit and the liar by truth. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For the Vietnamese:
“For the Vietnamese who were murdered and persecuted by the Khmer Rouge. May justice be done for those who suffered and died and may the souls of those departed rest in perfect peace. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
Once the last plaque, both in Khmer and English scripts, had been distributed, Mr. Chhang held a photograph of Ms. Khon Savin, a member of the Khmer Kampuchea Krom minority from Pursat province. Mr. Cayley addressed Ms. Khon, asking if she recalled meeting him at the Rumlech Forum earlier in the summer. He said that she had told him a story of her father sacrificing his life to save hers that had so moved Cayley he remembers it clearly to this day. When he saw a photograph of the moment captured by photographer, Rothany Srun, of Access to Justice Asia, he knew that he wanted to inscribe it and present it to her. While Ms. Khon stood by, Mr. Cayley read the inscription, taken from the Quran and Old Testament: “Whoever saves a life, it is considered as though you saved the whole world.” Mr. Cayley then presented the large framed photograph to Ms. Khon, who was clearly touched by the gesture.
C. Genocide in a cultural context
The conference continued with a panel of three gentlemen speaking about genocide’s definition in non-legal contexts. First, Professor Chuor Keary, head of department of Khmerization, Lexicography and Translation at the Royal Academy of Cambodia, discussed the definition of genocide in the context of Khmer literature and culture. He explained that the Khmer word from genocide actually has three distinct components which translate roughly into “destruction,” “basis of life” or “life itself,” and “culture of humans.” He summarized the terms by saying that genocide is the act of destroying any particular group whether they have the same or different culture
The second panelist, Siv Thuon, national teacher of DC-Cam’s Genocide Education, discussed two terms commonly used by the Khmer Rouge: “extermination,” and “root.” He stated that the Khmer Rouge believed that they had to destroy particular groups or organisms at the root. He stated that the Khmer Rouge was not highly selective in terms of what they considered a group that needed to be destroyed; they sought to destroy entire families, races and also groups that had made themselves easily identifiable by how they live and the culture they embrace.
The third to speak was Deputy Director of DC-Cam, Eng Khok-Thay. He stated that he agreed with the definition of genocide found in Khmer literature and wanted to link that definition to social science. Using as a base an article by famed human rights professor, William Schabas, Mr. Eng gave an excellent overview of the links between the conceptualization of genocide in philosophy, law and sociology.
When the three panelists had finished speaking, Ms. So again opened up the floor for questions. A woman from Mondul kiri inquired about the process of reparations set forth by the court. Her questions prompted another from a Cham Muslim man from Preah Sihanouk province. The participants were curious about the funding of reparations and the relationship between reparations and the sentences meted out by the court.
IV: PARTICIPANT LUNCH
The conference was then suspended so that the participants could have lunch and the Cham Muslims could take afternoon prayer.
Again requiring substantial preplanning by DC-Cam, the participants had the opportunity to sit and eat a traditional meal together. There was a fair amount of mixing, with international guests of DC-Cam dining with Cham Muslim women from Pursat Province and Khmer Kampuchea Krom individuals dining with individuals from hill tribes.
V: AFTERNOON SESSION: LOST LOVES, ORAL HISTORY, DC-CAM DIRECTOR’S SPEECH
A. Film Conversation and Oral History Dialogue
Upon reconvening, the participants were treated to a film by Chhay Bora entitled, “Lost Loves,” introduced by the filmmaker himself. Having his own harrowing tale of surviving the regime but losing family, Mr. Chhay’s film chronicles his mother-in-law’s terrible experience under the Khmer Rouge.
From the first moment, the film captured the complete attention of the audience. Men and women alike leaned forward in their chairs, careful not to miss a single word or action. They responded audibly and visibly to every development, some things resonating on a profound level. Especially in scenes involving the death or separation of children from parents, many in the audience wept openly as DC-Cam members circled the room to provide needed support.
When the last scenes faded off the screen, Ms. So addressed the crowd. Acknowledging that the film had portrayed many difficult experiences, she suggested that the audience take a much-needed break.
Though clearly difficult and emotional, the film served several important purposes. First, it brought the academic conversations of the morning back into the context of individual narratives, making the ideas of genocide and crimes against humanity less abstract and more grounded in people’s experiences. It also provided an obvious catharsis for many of the participants. Finally, it created opportunities for the participants to connect, with many patting the hands of those next to them when they cried or sharing sympathetic or knowing looks.
Reactions and Comments from people about the film and overall conference are as follow:
1) Lach Kry:
I am Lach Kry, Lach Ny’s brother, living in Po Chin Dam village, Po Chin Dam commune, Svay Antor district, Prey Veng province.
I agree with the documentary film because it resonates with my experience under the Khmer Rouge. In the film, the main actress lost almost all of her family members. Only she and her two children could return to Phnom Penh. But for me, I lost 17 family members and relatives to the KR. Thank you.
2) Math Ly:
I’d like to pay my respect to all the attendees and Mr. Chhay Bora. My deep thanks to all respective donors who support this event. I am Math Him from Trapeang Ropov village, Trapeang Ropov commune, Kampong Bay district, Kampot province. I appreciate the film very much because it reminds us of the KR regime, which seems current. It is also away to prevent the crimes from happening. As Bora reiterates, he cannot include everything in this film because of limited budget and time.
I’d like to raise two questions. First, where is the water fall location in the film? Second, although I have learnt from Mr. Co-Prosecutors and Khmer experts in the morning session about genocide, I am still wondering. Actually, genocide occurred between 1933-1945, and the genocide convention was adopted in 1948. I was wondering if Cambodia became a signatory of the convention at that time. And if yes, why the UN could not prevent genocide in Cambodia?
Bora:
Thank you for your questions. I’d like to address your first question. The water fall location in the film is in Thmar Roung, Koh Kong province. We had a difficulty filming the site because it was sold out to a private company. However, we tried our best to have a best shot out of it.
3) Rim Mousa:
My name is Rim Mousa from Prek Sangke village, Prek Tuol commune, Prey Nup district, Preah Sihanouk province. I came to the conference with my mother [who was weeping during the film screening]. Let me call you bang (brother) to make it more friendly. Once you made the film, it seems that you had cooperated with me [laugh]. The most closely resemblance is when my mother beat me with seven yam branches while mekang (chief of my children’s unit) called me back to work. I acknowledge that the film is not completely the same as our own story, owing to the edits. But it triggered our memory. It is about the truth.
My appreciation goes to bang Bora for your effort in producing this film. If you, Bora, happen to produce another film, I volunteer to play a character in the film in order to show different kinds of emotions (hand claps) and how Cham Muslim family struggled to survive, with regard to religion, culture, food, and so forth. May brother, DC-Cam director, and colleagues have good health, succeed in your work at all wishes.
Bora:
Thank you, Mousa. I wish to inform you all right now that I have planned to make another film about Cambodian refugees along Cambodia-Thai border during and after the regime to capture one killing field to another. As I have watched a film made by a New Zealander about a Cambodian family along the border, it struck me. The family wished to seek help from the UN, but instead they experienced a harsh condition. The gentleman, head of the family, was told that he was sent to the third country, but when he reached the border, he only was in dark scenery. The fate of the family ended with bitter experience.
This film is not to encourage revenge on or impose negative perception on other neighboring country, because there are many good people out there.
Like my case, when the journalists asked me if I got angry with Ieng Sary. I replied “Yes” but I did not want to take revenge as the episode occurred 30 years ago.
I think it is enough for Khmers to break the cycle of revenge/killings.
4) Peou Sinoun:
I come from Pralay Rumdeng village, Rumlech commune, Bakan district, Pursat province. I was excited and emotional to see the film. I, like others, appreciate your effort in making the film. I haven’t seen such a complete and long film about daily life under the Khmer Rouge since the fall of the KR, except some clips.
I’d like to request that DC-Cam find way to broadcast it on TV twice a year to remind and educate younger generation about the painful experience in order for them to help develop Cambodian country. Last, I’d like to bless all attendees and organizers for good in all work.
5) Lach Sitha:
I come from Pou Leh village, Dadam commune, Orang district, Mondul Kiri province. Please apologize to me if I have any mistake. I am interested in the film. It is real.
We lacked many basic necessities from slipper to food. When we told next generation about our suffering, they do not believe. They even question that, “if it is such difficult, why did not you run away?” This film is to remind and educate them about our suffering
Bora:
I’ll try my best to fill out your requests. [To tell you the truth], I also experienced the same thing. I even more suffered when they [my students and next generation] do not believe our suffering. One unanimous official raised his concern to me that my film would not attract younger generation because they are more interested in other type of film such as Ghost story or love story. However, if we surrender at this time, we will fail. We should continue to educate them. As brother Youk said forgetting your own history meant that you kill your national identity. Like in Germany, people have been encouraged to talk about the Holocaust to find larger truth of what happened and to raise next generation’s awareness of genocide, in order not to repeat. Nobody knows if next generation, when they take power, will repeat the same mistakes as they do not know the consequences.
Like Youk Chhang said, we have to overcome any challenges. Telling about the past experience is not only to serve history of genocide but also to help future generations have empathy for their parents, family, and old generation as a whole. I am sorry I have talked a lot. If you have more questions or comments, please ask.
6) Ly Sary:
I come from Prey Khmum commune, Kampot district, Kampot province.
There have been a lot of questions about the film; it is about the truth. This is enough. If the film is more painful than this, I might not be able to stand with the film. It will definitely trouble those who have heart problems.
I’d like to engage in the discussion. [As I know] the United Nations signed genocide convention since 1948, but UN did not believe or wasn’t interested in the issue, so how can we expect next generation to believe? It is hard to believe [the KR regime]. I have observed that, however, after the UN knew the UN is more interested in the issue than us and moving further.
Speaking of genocide definition, we have been learning the explanation of the term from Co-prosecutors and Khmer experts this morning. The term, as I understand, is a combination of “Parlay+Pouch+Sas”, meaning to eliminate all races (pouch) without any consideration. Please continue your effort to make people believe, Bora. I do appreciate it.
Bora: I’d like to thank you very much for your presence and comments on my film. I never think that all people are not different or different from me, Muslims, Khmers, and other races. I am very happy. This is the first time to stand in front of you all, Muslims. The past made us suffer indeed. Everybody has your own business to make your living, but do not feel depressed. Continue our effort.
Upon reconvening, Ms. So gave an overview of her Cham Oral History Project, encouraging attendees to get involved and share their experiences. She then opened the floor for questions about the oral history project, the film, or to allow people to share their stories. Two Cham Muslims questioned the role of UN in preventing, or failing to prevent, the Cambodian genocide in 1978-79. DC-Cam Director Youk Chhang fielded their questions, but encouraged them to ask Secretary General of the UN, Ban Kim-Moon, who was due to visit Cambodia on 28 October 2010.
VI. EVALUATION AND OUTCOMES
Prior to departing, the participants were asked to complete an evaluation of the program. A remarkable 97% stated that they were very satisfied with and 3% were fairly satisfied with the conference and DC-Cam’s organization and hospitality. Many suggested that DC-Cam repeat the conference, even potentially making it an annual educational program. Some Cham Muslim representatives handed us photos of their respective mosques and village statistics for the DC-Cam Cham website.
DC-Cam consulted the evaluations, in addition to notes from interviews and discussions held throughout the program, to determine how well the conference met the organization’s goals. Based on the evidence, the conference successfully enhanced people’s understanding of genocide in a legal sense, as well as its place in Cambodian literature and culture. This conference also benefited all DC-Cam staff. DC-Cam was also successful in recording participants’ personal narratives and anecdotes, shared in response to what they heard and learned in the formal conference sessions. Finally, in terms of its goal of reaching an audience wider than just those attending, DC-Cam was pleased to note that the following media outlets were represented. Phnom Penh Post, Cambodia Daily, Raksmei Kampuchea, the Catholic New-Agency, the online magazine and the daily newspaper Neues Deutschland, among others. DC-Cam contributed a hundred and fifty dollars to the Al-Mukhalifah mosque construction in O-Samath village, Sangkat 3, Preah Sihanouk province, upon Imam Khet’s request.
Despite a few challenges, based on the above outcomes, DC-Cam considers the first of two conferences for minority groups on genocide in context a success. Accordingly, the organization will move forward as planned with the second conference on November 24, 2010.
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Conference Hall, Institute of Technology of Cambodia
Phnom Penh, October 25, 2010
Report by Megan Karsh, Access to Justice Asia
Edited by Anne Heindel
I. INTRODUCTION
In September 2010, four senior Khmer Rouge leaders were formally indicted by the Extraordinary Chambers of the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) for genocide, crimes against humanity, international war crimes, and violations of domestic law (comprising Case 002). The charge of genocide in particular has garnered much attention. Though Cambodians have long used the term (ampeu pralai pouch sas in Khmer) to describe the killings by the Khmer Rouge, they are not necessarily in consensus about what the term means, nor do they possess a clear understanding of the term’s legal and historical definitions.
Recognizing the potential for confusion about the ECCC’s genocide charges, Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam) is hosting two informational conferences for minority groups. The first held on 25 October 2010 at the Institute of Technology, introduced participants to the term’s use and history in international and domestic legal settings, as well as in Cambodian literature and social science. The informational segments of the conference were interspersed with activities intended to honor participant victims and foster dialogue around the issues.
In addition to clarifying the term and engaging minority groups in the work of the tribunal, the conference was intended to build a more complete history of Democratic Kampuchea by collecting participants’ oral histories and to promote further discussion on Democratic Kampuchea and participation in the truth-seeking process.
II. THE PARTICIPANTS
In attendance at the 25 October 2010 conference were approximately 200 members of various minority groups affected by the Khmer Rouge regime. These included: groups of Cham Muslim men, women and religious leaders; members of the Khmer Kampuchea Krom minority, members of the Vietnamese minority, Buddhist Monks, priests, and hill tribe community members.
These minority groups suffered greatly under the regime. Between 100,000-400,000 Cham Muslims and approximately 300,000 Vietnamese died as a result of Khmer Rouge policies. Many Khmer Kampuchea Krom people were accused of having “Vietnamese brains” and were relocated, tortured or killed as a result. Buddhist monks were defrocked and forced to work in the agriculture fields.
Because there were also regional aspects to the way in which groups were treated under the regime, DC-Cam sought to bring together minority group representatives from widespread locales. It required substantial preplanning and coordination, but DC-Cam managed to transport, house and feed individuals from the following provinces: Pursat, Kampot, Kampong Cham, Kep, Ratanak kiri, Pre Veng, Mondul kiri, Battambang, Preah Sihanouk and the municipality of Phnom Penh.
III. MORNING SESSION: GENOCIDE IN LEGAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Once the participants, speakers, journalists and observers had gathered in the large conference hall at 8:00 on the morning of the 25th, Ms. Farina So of DC-Cam opened the conference with welcoming remarks and an overview of the day’s activities. She then requested that the participants complete a survey probing their understanding of and perspective on genocide to date. The forms asked questions including how many family members the participants lost during the regime; when participants first heard the word “genocide;” and what they believe to the be the reason for the ECCC not charging the accused with genocide of the Khmer Kampuchea Krom, Buddhist monks, or other minorities.
Once the forms were distributed, a quiet settled over the room as participants carefully considered their answers. The only audible sound was the murmering of DC-Cam employees assisting participants who do not know how to write. After some time, Ms. So interrupted the audience to tell people that there would be opportunities throughout the day to share their personal narratives with DC-Cam staff in order to include it in the larger history. She then asked the audience to submit their evaluation forms and turn their attention to the first speaker, Mr. Andrew Cayley, International Co-Prosecutor at the ECCC.
A. Legal Definition by International Co-Prosecutor, Andrew Cayley, and Representative from the Office of the National Co-Prosecutor
Mr. Cayley commenced his speech by acknowledging that genocide is a very difficult word to define, and that lawyers regularly struggle to find an appropriate understanding of the concept under law. Before delving into the evolution of the definition, however, he took time to discuss the charges against the four senior leaders. He essentially advised the crowd to not overemphasize the genocide charges when considering the overall charges against the four senior Khmer Rouge leaders. While genocide is a very serious crime in international law, there are many other very serious crimes under international and Cambodian law with which the four were also charged.
The overall arc of Mr. Cayley’s speech went from describing the events that gave birth to genocide legislation and jurisprudence, to discussing the current legal framework, to applying the law to the facts in Case 002 to again advising the crowd to not focus more heavily than is appropriate on the genocide charges against the leaders.
The crowd was largely attentive throughout and especially when Mr. Cayley addressed Case 002. He essentially previewed the case that his office would be putting forth, from showing that the Khmer Rouge defrocked and murdered Buddhist monks, a clear crime against humanity, to proving they dispersed and murdered Cham Muslims, a crime against humanity and genocide. In respect to the Khmer Kampuchea Krom, Mr. Cayley stated that evidence of their deportations from the Eastern, Central and Southwestern zones would be used to prove the charges of genocide against the Vietnamese. The audience remained rapt and calm, seemingly accepting how the evidence was characterized by the prosecution.
Mr. Cayley ended his speech and turned over the floor to the National deputy Co-Prosecutor Chea Chan Dar aRaksmey. Cayley’s counterpart thanked him for his clear definition the term and then proceeded to ground it more deeply into Cambodian history. He noted that the Khmer Rouge “destroyed” populations in many ways and for years after the regime collapsed by disabling the country’s infrastructure and immeasurably delaying development. There were several murmers of assent from the crowd and robust applause at the conclusion of his speech.
Ms. So announced that there would be an opportunity to ask questions of the prosecutors, but first acknowledged that the legal concepts were quite complex and that participants should use the opportunity to ask about whatever they did not understand. Several people asked questions, including a gentleman wanting to know about the maximum possible sentence for those convicted and another man asking why nations that contributed to the conflict were not tried. To the last questions, Mr. Cayley responded that the ECCC had jurisdiction only to try individuals, not nations, an answer that seemed to disappoint several in the crowd.
B. Memorializing the Minority Groups
Taking a break from the more academic side of the program, DC-Cam Director Youk Chhang and Andrew Cayley presented memorials to representatives of the five minority groups in attendance. It was a solemn and meaningful affair that was well received by the audience.
Message inscribed in the plaque for the five groups:
® For the Cham: “This commemorates the suffering and death of the Cham people of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. It also expresses the solemn hope and resolve that justice will be done and that these events will never happen again - anywhere. To the young who read this in future years, whoever you are, never forget what happened to the Cham people. Do your utmost every single day of your lives to respect and love one another. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For the Hill Tribes:
“This plate recalls with love and compassion those members of the Highland people of Cambodia who suffered torment and death between 1975 and 1979. And remember that whatever the differences are between us humanity’s most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal."
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For the Priests:
“Recalling the lives and faith of those priests who perished and endured hardship from 1975 to 1979. Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For Buddhist monks:
“In loving memory of those Buddhist monks who died and suffered for their beliefs in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. Overcome anger by love; overcome wrong by good; overcome the mean hearted by a generous spirit and the liar by truth. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
® For the Vietnamese:
“For the Vietnamese who were murdered and persecuted by the Khmer Rouge. May justice be done for those who suffered and died and may the souls of those departed rest in perfect peace. "
Genocide, Truth Memory and Justice. Phnom Penh, 25 October 2010.”
Andrew T. Cayley, ECCC International Co-Prosecutor
Once the last plaque, both in Khmer and English scripts, had been distributed, Mr. Chhang held a photograph of Ms. Khon Savin, a member of the Khmer Kampuchea Krom minority from Pursat province. Mr. Cayley addressed Ms. Khon, asking if she recalled meeting him at the Rumlech Forum earlier in the summer. He said that she had told him a story of her father sacrificing his life to save hers that had so moved Cayley he remembers it clearly to this day. When he saw a photograph of the moment captured by photographer, Rothany Srun, of Access to Justice Asia, he knew that he wanted to inscribe it and present it to her. While Ms. Khon stood by, Mr. Cayley read the inscription, taken from the Quran and Old Testament: “Whoever saves a life, it is considered as though you saved the whole world.” Mr. Cayley then presented the large framed photograph to Ms. Khon, who was clearly touched by the gesture.
C. Genocide in a cultural context
The conference continued with a panel of three gentlemen speaking about genocide’s definition in non-legal contexts. First, Professor Chuor Keary, head of department of Khmerization, Lexicography and Translation at the Royal Academy of Cambodia, discussed the definition of genocide in the context of Khmer literature and culture. He explained that the Khmer word from genocide actually has three distinct components which translate roughly into “destruction,” “basis of life” or “life itself,” and “culture of humans.” He summarized the terms by saying that genocide is the act of destroying any particular group whether they have the same or different culture
The second panelist, Siv Thuon, national teacher of DC-Cam’s Genocide Education, discussed two terms commonly used by the Khmer Rouge: “extermination,” and “root.” He stated that the Khmer Rouge believed that they had to destroy particular groups or organisms at the root. He stated that the Khmer Rouge was not highly selective in terms of what they considered a group that needed to be destroyed; they sought to destroy entire families, races and also groups that had made themselves easily identifiable by how they live and the culture they embrace.
The third to speak was Deputy Director of DC-Cam, Eng Khok-Thay. He stated that he agreed with the definition of genocide found in Khmer literature and wanted to link that definition to social science. Using as a base an article by famed human rights professor, William Schabas, Mr. Eng gave an excellent overview of the links between the conceptualization of genocide in philosophy, law and sociology.
When the three panelists had finished speaking, Ms. So again opened up the floor for questions. A woman from Mondul kiri inquired about the process of reparations set forth by the court. Her questions prompted another from a Cham Muslim man from Preah Sihanouk province. The participants were curious about the funding of reparations and the relationship between reparations and the sentences meted out by the court.
IV: PARTICIPANT LUNCH
The conference was then suspended so that the participants could have lunch and the Cham Muslims could take afternoon prayer.
Again requiring substantial preplanning by DC-Cam, the participants had the opportunity to sit and eat a traditional meal together. There was a fair amount of mixing, with international guests of DC-Cam dining with Cham Muslim women from Pursat Province and Khmer Kampuchea Krom individuals dining with individuals from hill tribes.
V: AFTERNOON SESSION: LOST LOVES, ORAL HISTORY, DC-CAM DIRECTOR’S SPEECH
A. Film Conversation and Oral History Dialogue
Upon reconvening, the participants were treated to a film by Chhay Bora entitled, “Lost Loves,” introduced by the filmmaker himself. Having his own harrowing tale of surviving the regime but losing family, Mr. Chhay’s film chronicles his mother-in-law’s terrible experience under the Khmer Rouge.
From the first moment, the film captured the complete attention of the audience. Men and women alike leaned forward in their chairs, careful not to miss a single word or action. They responded audibly and visibly to every development, some things resonating on a profound level. Especially in scenes involving the death or separation of children from parents, many in the audience wept openly as DC-Cam members circled the room to provide needed support.
When the last scenes faded off the screen, Ms. So addressed the crowd. Acknowledging that the film had portrayed many difficult experiences, she suggested that the audience take a much-needed break.
Though clearly difficult and emotional, the film served several important purposes. First, it brought the academic conversations of the morning back into the context of individual narratives, making the ideas of genocide and crimes against humanity less abstract and more grounded in people’s experiences. It also provided an obvious catharsis for many of the participants. Finally, it created opportunities for the participants to connect, with many patting the hands of those next to them when they cried or sharing sympathetic or knowing looks.
Reactions and Comments from people about the film and overall conference are as follow:
1) Lach Kry:
I am Lach Kry, Lach Ny’s brother, living in Po Chin Dam village, Po Chin Dam commune, Svay Antor district, Prey Veng province.
I agree with the documentary film because it resonates with my experience under the Khmer Rouge. In the film, the main actress lost almost all of her family members. Only she and her two children could return to Phnom Penh. But for me, I lost 17 family members and relatives to the KR. Thank you.
2) Math Ly:
I’d like to pay my respect to all the attendees and Mr. Chhay Bora. My deep thanks to all respective donors who support this event. I am Math Him from Trapeang Ropov village, Trapeang Ropov commune, Kampong Bay district, Kampot province. I appreciate the film very much because it reminds us of the KR regime, which seems current. It is also away to prevent the crimes from happening. As Bora reiterates, he cannot include everything in this film because of limited budget and time.
I’d like to raise two questions. First, where is the water fall location in the film? Second, although I have learnt from Mr. Co-Prosecutors and Khmer experts in the morning session about genocide, I am still wondering. Actually, genocide occurred between 1933-1945, and the genocide convention was adopted in 1948. I was wondering if Cambodia became a signatory of the convention at that time. And if yes, why the UN could not prevent genocide in Cambodia?
Bora:
Thank you for your questions. I’d like to address your first question. The water fall location in the film is in Thmar Roung, Koh Kong province. We had a difficulty filming the site because it was sold out to a private company. However, we tried our best to have a best shot out of it.
3) Rim Mousa:
My name is Rim Mousa from Prek Sangke village, Prek Tuol commune, Prey Nup district, Preah Sihanouk province. I came to the conference with my mother [who was weeping during the film screening]. Let me call you bang (brother) to make it more friendly. Once you made the film, it seems that you had cooperated with me [laugh]. The most closely resemblance is when my mother beat me with seven yam branches while mekang (chief of my children’s unit) called me back to work. I acknowledge that the film is not completely the same as our own story, owing to the edits. But it triggered our memory. It is about the truth.
My appreciation goes to bang Bora for your effort in producing this film. If you, Bora, happen to produce another film, I volunteer to play a character in the film in order to show different kinds of emotions (hand claps) and how Cham Muslim family struggled to survive, with regard to religion, culture, food, and so forth. May brother, DC-Cam director, and colleagues have good health, succeed in your work at all wishes.
Bora:
Thank you, Mousa. I wish to inform you all right now that I have planned to make another film about Cambodian refugees along Cambodia-Thai border during and after the regime to capture one killing field to another. As I have watched a film made by a New Zealander about a Cambodian family along the border, it struck me. The family wished to seek help from the UN, but instead they experienced a harsh condition. The gentleman, head of the family, was told that he was sent to the third country, but when he reached the border, he only was in dark scenery. The fate of the family ended with bitter experience.
This film is not to encourage revenge on or impose negative perception on other neighboring country, because there are many good people out there.
Like my case, when the journalists asked me if I got angry with Ieng Sary. I replied “Yes” but I did not want to take revenge as the episode occurred 30 years ago.
I think it is enough for Khmers to break the cycle of revenge/killings.
4) Peou Sinoun:
I come from Pralay Rumdeng village, Rumlech commune, Bakan district, Pursat province. I was excited and emotional to see the film. I, like others, appreciate your effort in making the film. I haven’t seen such a complete and long film about daily life under the Khmer Rouge since the fall of the KR, except some clips.
I’d like to request that DC-Cam find way to broadcast it on TV twice a year to remind and educate younger generation about the painful experience in order for them to help develop Cambodian country. Last, I’d like to bless all attendees and organizers for good in all work.
5) Lach Sitha:
I come from Pou Leh village, Dadam commune, Orang district, Mondul Kiri province. Please apologize to me if I have any mistake. I am interested in the film. It is real.
We lacked many basic necessities from slipper to food. When we told next generation about our suffering, they do not believe. They even question that, “if it is such difficult, why did not you run away?” This film is to remind and educate them about our suffering
Bora:
I’ll try my best to fill out your requests. [To tell you the truth], I also experienced the same thing. I even more suffered when they [my students and next generation] do not believe our suffering. One unanimous official raised his concern to me that my film would not attract younger generation because they are more interested in other type of film such as Ghost story or love story. However, if we surrender at this time, we will fail. We should continue to educate them. As brother Youk said forgetting your own history meant that you kill your national identity. Like in Germany, people have been encouraged to talk about the Holocaust to find larger truth of what happened and to raise next generation’s awareness of genocide, in order not to repeat. Nobody knows if next generation, when they take power, will repeat the same mistakes as they do not know the consequences.
Like Youk Chhang said, we have to overcome any challenges. Telling about the past experience is not only to serve history of genocide but also to help future generations have empathy for their parents, family, and old generation as a whole. I am sorry I have talked a lot. If you have more questions or comments, please ask.
6) Ly Sary:
I come from Prey Khmum commune, Kampot district, Kampot province.
There have been a lot of questions about the film; it is about the truth. This is enough. If the film is more painful than this, I might not be able to stand with the film. It will definitely trouble those who have heart problems.
I’d like to engage in the discussion. [As I know] the United Nations signed genocide convention since 1948, but UN did not believe or wasn’t interested in the issue, so how can we expect next generation to believe? It is hard to believe [the KR regime]. I have observed that, however, after the UN knew the UN is more interested in the issue than us and moving further.
Speaking of genocide definition, we have been learning the explanation of the term from Co-prosecutors and Khmer experts this morning. The term, as I understand, is a combination of “Parlay+Pouch+Sas”, meaning to eliminate all races (pouch) without any consideration. Please continue your effort to make people believe, Bora. I do appreciate it.
Bora: I’d like to thank you very much for your presence and comments on my film. I never think that all people are not different or different from me, Muslims, Khmers, and other races. I am very happy. This is the first time to stand in front of you all, Muslims. The past made us suffer indeed. Everybody has your own business to make your living, but do not feel depressed. Continue our effort.
Upon reconvening, Ms. So gave an overview of her Cham Oral History Project, encouraging attendees to get involved and share their experiences. She then opened the floor for questions about the oral history project, the film, or to allow people to share their stories. Two Cham Muslims questioned the role of UN in preventing, or failing to prevent, the Cambodian genocide in 1978-79. DC-Cam Director Youk Chhang fielded their questions, but encouraged them to ask Secretary General of the UN, Ban Kim-Moon, who was due to visit Cambodia on 28 October 2010.
VI. EVALUATION AND OUTCOMES
Prior to departing, the participants were asked to complete an evaluation of the program. A remarkable 97% stated that they were very satisfied with and 3% were fairly satisfied with the conference and DC-Cam’s organization and hospitality. Many suggested that DC-Cam repeat the conference, even potentially making it an annual educational program. Some Cham Muslim representatives handed us photos of their respective mosques and village statistics for the DC-Cam Cham website.
DC-Cam consulted the evaluations, in addition to notes from interviews and discussions held throughout the program, to determine how well the conference met the organization’s goals. Based on the evidence, the conference successfully enhanced people’s understanding of genocide in a legal sense, as well as its place in Cambodian literature and culture. This conference also benefited all DC-Cam staff. DC-Cam was also successful in recording participants’ personal narratives and anecdotes, shared in response to what they heard and learned in the formal conference sessions. Finally, in terms of its goal of reaching an audience wider than just those attending, DC-Cam was pleased to note that the following media outlets were represented. Phnom Penh Post, Cambodia Daily, Raksmei Kampuchea, the Catholic New-Agency, the online magazine and the daily newspaper Neues Deutschland, among others. DC-Cam contributed a hundred and fifty dollars to the Al-Mukhalifah mosque construction in O-Samath village, Sangkat 3, Preah Sihanouk province, upon Imam Khet’s request.
Despite a few challenges, based on the above outcomes, DC-Cam considers the first of two conferences for minority groups on genocide in context a success. Accordingly, the organization will move forward as planned with the second conference on November 24, 2010.
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Remarks With Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hor Namhong
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of StateMinistry of Foreign Affairs
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
November 1, 2010
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER HOR: (In Cambodian.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to spend this time with you discussing these matters of great importance to both of our countries. This is my sixth trip to Asia as Secretary of State but my first to Cambodia, and it represents the commitment that President Obama and I have made to restoring America to a high level of engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and in particular to work with the government and the peoples of countries such as Cambodia.
Our two countries recently marked the 60th anniversary of our diplomatic ties, so even as we celebrate old milestones we are firmly fixed on the future to broaden and deepen our partnership. And we had very productive talks this afternoon and I look forward to meeting with the prime minister shortly, and I greatly appreciated the honor of meeting with His Majesty the King earlier today. And then finally, I will meet with leaders of the political opposition.
My discussions have left me convinced that we can work even more closely together to help meet the challenges facing Cambodia and all of Southeast Asia. With help from the United States Government, Cambodia is doing more than ever before to improve its health systems. And in – particularly, we applaud the Government of Cambodia for its commitment to prevent the spread of HIV and deliver life-saving treatment to people living with AIDS.
Our Peace Corps volunteers are now teaching English. And from what I saw earlier in my town hall with these very impressive young people, they are certainly connected to the global economy, and English is one of the keys for doing that.
Through our whole-of-government Feed the Future Initiative, we will be helping the people of Cambodia mount a comprehensive fight against hunger by raising agricultural productivity and making nutritious foods more widely available.
I especially appreciate the commitment of the Cambodian Government to the Lower Mekong Initiative. The deputy prime minister and foreign minister have been deeply involved in this work. It’s a promising new mechanism for the United States, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand to address the challenges in education, health, and the environment that affects all of the people of the Lower Mekong Basin, most especially to address the impact of climate change.
We had our third ministerial in Hanoi two days ago and we look forward to following up on the excellent ideas that Cambodia presented. I also want to acknowledge, as His Excellency did, that Cambodia is making progress in countering corruption. With strong implementation, the new anticorruption law can be a powerful tool to prevent, detect, and punish corruption. This will reassure foreign investors. But more importantly, it will serve the needs of the Cambodian people. It is inspiring to see this country creating such a promising future after a generation of conflict and suffering.
I had a very emotional tour of the Tuol Sleng Museum and I looked at the faces of the young Cambodians, both those who were killed at that terrible place of suffering and those who did the killing. And what is most important is that Cambodians themselves are educating the young generation about a painful chapter in this country’s past and honoring the memory of those who died by working hard to bring accountability and justice while seeking to stabilize and reconcile as well.
Today Cambodia is not only preserving its own peace, it is sending Cambodians overseas to serve as UN peacekeepers in Chad and the Central African Republic and assisting in demining missions in Lebanon and Sudan. So Cambodia is actually using the lessons of its own painful past to help save lives and help other countries who are grappling with conflict and war.
We recently contributed $5 million to Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge Tribunal. And as I told His Excellency, we are committed to helping Cambodia hold accountable those senior Khmer Rouge leaders most responsible for atrocities. I salute the tribunal’s ongoing efforts to bring justice to the victims that promote the rule of law. And I will do what I can to work with the Cambodian Government, with the United Nations, and the international community to ensure that we have the resources needed to proceed with Case 002.
I am very optimistic about Cambodia’s future. The last years have been transformative for this country. And I hope that the United States can be a good partner and a friend as the Government and people of Cambodia make the necessary steps to improve your democratic institutions, to improve the economy, to provide the kind of opportunities that the young people I met with earlier today deserve to have. This visit, Your Excellency, has left me encouraged that our partnership can deepen and grow to serve both our peoples in the years to come. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thanks, Excellency. Due to the time constraint, the floor is open for only four questions – two questions from Cambodian press and the other two questions from American press. Please raise your hands to get the floor.
QUESTION: (In Cambodian.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: I discussed the debt issue with the deputy prime minister and foreign minister, and if any of you were at the town hall earlier, you know that two of the young questioners, they also asked me about the debt issue. We have agreed that the United States will send a team of experts as soon as possible to resume discussions over ways to settle this debt. The discussions, as you know, ended in 2006. We very much want to see this matter resolved, and as His Excellency said, in accordance with Paris Club principles and in service of Cambodia’s development.
MODERATOR: Second question, please. Gentleman, have the floor. (Inaudible) mike. (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Hello. This is a question for both Madam Secretary and the foreign minister. Madam Secretary, you said that the U.S., of course, (inaudible) tribunal. Are you looking to see the Cambodian Government do what the foreign minister said that they did not want to do, which is to expand the scope of the trials? Is there enough support? Is the government giving the tribunal enough support? And then secondly on human rights, last week and again today, the foreign minister seemed to indicate that there were already too many groups here promoting human rights. Last week, there was a suggestion that the UN human rights office here should be closed down. I’m wondering what you think about that idea.
And Mr. Minister, I’m wondering if that is indeed what the government’s position is, is that there are already enough human rights groups here that you don’t need the UN office. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Matt, as to your first question, we are in full agreement with the Government of Cambodia that Case 002 should be brought to trial as soon as possible. That is our first and most pressing piece of business. There is not yet the funding available to do that trial. The estimate is somewhere between $46 and $50 million that will be needed to conduct that trial, funding that would go to the United Nations for the international aspects of the trial and funding that would go to the Cambodian Government. So my highest priority right now is to make sure that we have that money in place so that trial can begin. It is scheduled to begin in the first half of 2011; the sooner the better is my view.
Now there is, as I think you heard His Excellency, concern on the part of the Cambodian Government about going beyond that. That is something that we in the international community should consult closely with the Cambodian Government on. But the first piece of business is getting 002 to trial, and I want to see that happen as soon as possible. So I will be personally reaching out to help raise the money that is needed to get that done.
Secondly, I did not hear the deputy prime minister and the foreign minister say that there were too many NGOs. I think he was making the point, as he did with me in my private meeting with him that there are more than a thousand NGOs in Cambodia, more than a hundred that are committed to human rights. I personally believe that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is a valuable resource. It provides technical assistance to the government. It also works with these NGOs that are in Cambodia – both Cambodian NGOs and international NGOs on a variety of concerns, including human rights, trafficking in persons, and the rule of law. So the High Commissioner’s Office is active in ways that we think are very complementary to what the Cambodian Government is committed to doing, and we think the work is important and we would like to see it continue.
MODERATOR: Second question, please. Gentleman, have the floor.
QUESTION: Thanks for question. I’m (inaudible) from Cambodia Daily Newspaper. Madam Secretary (inaudible). I would like to hear about the U.S. position on the Cambodian Government, which has announced (inaudible) want to close the UN Human Rights Office in Cambodia and (inaudible) be chief of the human rights office in government. And also the second question, if I may –
MODERATOR: Only one question.
QUESTION: Sorry. Please.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I believe that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is a valuable resource and I would hope that it would continue its work, which is important. It works with NGOs; it works with the Government of Cambodia. I think the Government of Cambodia is making significant progress on human rights, and I would like to see that progress continue. I would like to see the cooperation between the United Nations and the Cambodian Government be such that it assists in promoting human rights, ending the trafficking in persons and upholding the rule of law. So from our perspective, we would like to see the work by the UN here on human rights continue.
MODERATOR: Thank you. The last question goes to American –
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think His Excellency might wish to say something.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER HOR: (In Cambodian.)
MODERATOR: The last question, please, to American press. Lady, you have the floor.
QUESTION: Hi, Madam Secretary. I wanted to pick up with a question about what you said earlier, that you’d be willing to send a team of experts to explore new approaches. Can you give us a little detail about what those approaches might entail?
And Mr. Foreign Minister, the Secretary earlier today was saying that Cambodia should pursue alliances beyond – broad alliances beyond those with China.
MODERATOR: Speak louder, please.
QUESTION: The Secretary was suggesting earlier today that Cambodia should pursue alliances broadly, regionally, beyond just China. Could you give us your response to that, please?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are very, very interested in pursuing a settlement on the debt that was incurred by Cambodia during the Lon Nol regime. There have been no discussions since 2006 at all, and we think it’s time for our experts to meet and explore a broad range of potential areas for settling of this debt.
At this point, I don’t have any preconceived notion of how that will happen because there are a number of different approaches that can be pursued. And we have learned a lot about how to do this during the last decade, so I think the first thing we should start with is a very open discussion between our respective expert teams about options that would be available. But it is my intention to move this up the ladder of priorities, because I think it is something that needs to be given immediate attention. It is a concern that it has not been even addressed, and I would like to see us make it a priority. And His Excellency has agreed, so we will begin to work on that together.
MODERATOR: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the joint press availability is now concluded. Thank you very much for your participation.
# # #
BANGKOK POST:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/204245/clinton-visits-cambodian-genocide-museum
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Secretary of StateMinistry of Foreign Affairs
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
November 1, 2010
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER HOR: (In Cambodian.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to spend this time with you discussing these matters of great importance to both of our countries. This is my sixth trip to Asia as Secretary of State but my first to Cambodia, and it represents the commitment that President Obama and I have made to restoring America to a high level of engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and in particular to work with the government and the peoples of countries such as Cambodia.
Our two countries recently marked the 60th anniversary of our diplomatic ties, so even as we celebrate old milestones we are firmly fixed on the future to broaden and deepen our partnership. And we had very productive talks this afternoon and I look forward to meeting with the prime minister shortly, and I greatly appreciated the honor of meeting with His Majesty the King earlier today. And then finally, I will meet with leaders of the political opposition.
My discussions have left me convinced that we can work even more closely together to help meet the challenges facing Cambodia and all of Southeast Asia. With help from the United States Government, Cambodia is doing more than ever before to improve its health systems. And in – particularly, we applaud the Government of Cambodia for its commitment to prevent the spread of HIV and deliver life-saving treatment to people living with AIDS.
Our Peace Corps volunteers are now teaching English. And from what I saw earlier in my town hall with these very impressive young people, they are certainly connected to the global economy, and English is one of the keys for doing that.
Through our whole-of-government Feed the Future Initiative, we will be helping the people of Cambodia mount a comprehensive fight against hunger by raising agricultural productivity and making nutritious foods more widely available.
I especially appreciate the commitment of the Cambodian Government to the Lower Mekong Initiative. The deputy prime minister and foreign minister have been deeply involved in this work. It’s a promising new mechanism for the United States, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand to address the challenges in education, health, and the environment that affects all of the people of the Lower Mekong Basin, most especially to address the impact of climate change.
We had our third ministerial in Hanoi two days ago and we look forward to following up on the excellent ideas that Cambodia presented. I also want to acknowledge, as His Excellency did, that Cambodia is making progress in countering corruption. With strong implementation, the new anticorruption law can be a powerful tool to prevent, detect, and punish corruption. This will reassure foreign investors. But more importantly, it will serve the needs of the Cambodian people. It is inspiring to see this country creating such a promising future after a generation of conflict and suffering.
I had a very emotional tour of the Tuol Sleng Museum and I looked at the faces of the young Cambodians, both those who were killed at that terrible place of suffering and those who did the killing. And what is most important is that Cambodians themselves are educating the young generation about a painful chapter in this country’s past and honoring the memory of those who died by working hard to bring accountability and justice while seeking to stabilize and reconcile as well.
Today Cambodia is not only preserving its own peace, it is sending Cambodians overseas to serve as UN peacekeepers in Chad and the Central African Republic and assisting in demining missions in Lebanon and Sudan. So Cambodia is actually using the lessons of its own painful past to help save lives and help other countries who are grappling with conflict and war.
We recently contributed $5 million to Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge Tribunal. And as I told His Excellency, we are committed to helping Cambodia hold accountable those senior Khmer Rouge leaders most responsible for atrocities. I salute the tribunal’s ongoing efforts to bring justice to the victims that promote the rule of law. And I will do what I can to work with the Cambodian Government, with the United Nations, and the international community to ensure that we have the resources needed to proceed with Case 002.
I am very optimistic about Cambodia’s future. The last years have been transformative for this country. And I hope that the United States can be a good partner and a friend as the Government and people of Cambodia make the necessary steps to improve your democratic institutions, to improve the economy, to provide the kind of opportunities that the young people I met with earlier today deserve to have. This visit, Your Excellency, has left me encouraged that our partnership can deepen and grow to serve both our peoples in the years to come. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thanks, Excellency. Due to the time constraint, the floor is open for only four questions – two questions from Cambodian press and the other two questions from American press. Please raise your hands to get the floor.
QUESTION: (In Cambodian.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: I discussed the debt issue with the deputy prime minister and foreign minister, and if any of you were at the town hall earlier, you know that two of the young questioners, they also asked me about the debt issue. We have agreed that the United States will send a team of experts as soon as possible to resume discussions over ways to settle this debt. The discussions, as you know, ended in 2006. We very much want to see this matter resolved, and as His Excellency said, in accordance with Paris Club principles and in service of Cambodia’s development.
MODERATOR: Second question, please. Gentleman, have the floor. (Inaudible) mike. (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Hello. This is a question for both Madam Secretary and the foreign minister. Madam Secretary, you said that the U.S., of course, (inaudible) tribunal. Are you looking to see the Cambodian Government do what the foreign minister said that they did not want to do, which is to expand the scope of the trials? Is there enough support? Is the government giving the tribunal enough support? And then secondly on human rights, last week and again today, the foreign minister seemed to indicate that there were already too many groups here promoting human rights. Last week, there was a suggestion that the UN human rights office here should be closed down. I’m wondering what you think about that idea.
And Mr. Minister, I’m wondering if that is indeed what the government’s position is, is that there are already enough human rights groups here that you don’t need the UN office. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Matt, as to your first question, we are in full agreement with the Government of Cambodia that Case 002 should be brought to trial as soon as possible. That is our first and most pressing piece of business. There is not yet the funding available to do that trial. The estimate is somewhere between $46 and $50 million that will be needed to conduct that trial, funding that would go to the United Nations for the international aspects of the trial and funding that would go to the Cambodian Government. So my highest priority right now is to make sure that we have that money in place so that trial can begin. It is scheduled to begin in the first half of 2011; the sooner the better is my view.
Now there is, as I think you heard His Excellency, concern on the part of the Cambodian Government about going beyond that. That is something that we in the international community should consult closely with the Cambodian Government on. But the first piece of business is getting 002 to trial, and I want to see that happen as soon as possible. So I will be personally reaching out to help raise the money that is needed to get that done.
Secondly, I did not hear the deputy prime minister and the foreign minister say that there were too many NGOs. I think he was making the point, as he did with me in my private meeting with him that there are more than a thousand NGOs in Cambodia, more than a hundred that are committed to human rights. I personally believe that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is a valuable resource. It provides technical assistance to the government. It also works with these NGOs that are in Cambodia – both Cambodian NGOs and international NGOs on a variety of concerns, including human rights, trafficking in persons, and the rule of law. So the High Commissioner’s Office is active in ways that we think are very complementary to what the Cambodian Government is committed to doing, and we think the work is important and we would like to see it continue.
MODERATOR: Second question, please. Gentleman, have the floor.
QUESTION: Thanks for question. I’m (inaudible) from Cambodia Daily Newspaper. Madam Secretary (inaudible). I would like to hear about the U.S. position on the Cambodian Government, which has announced (inaudible) want to close the UN Human Rights Office in Cambodia and (inaudible) be chief of the human rights office in government. And also the second question, if I may –
MODERATOR: Only one question.
QUESTION: Sorry. Please.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I believe that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is a valuable resource and I would hope that it would continue its work, which is important. It works with NGOs; it works with the Government of Cambodia. I think the Government of Cambodia is making significant progress on human rights, and I would like to see that progress continue. I would like to see the cooperation between the United Nations and the Cambodian Government be such that it assists in promoting human rights, ending the trafficking in persons and upholding the rule of law. So from our perspective, we would like to see the work by the UN here on human rights continue.
MODERATOR: Thank you. The last question goes to American –
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think His Excellency might wish to say something.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER HOR: (In Cambodian.)
MODERATOR: The last question, please, to American press. Lady, you have the floor.
QUESTION: Hi, Madam Secretary. I wanted to pick up with a question about what you said earlier, that you’d be willing to send a team of experts to explore new approaches. Can you give us a little detail about what those approaches might entail?
And Mr. Foreign Minister, the Secretary earlier today was saying that Cambodia should pursue alliances beyond – broad alliances beyond those with China.
MODERATOR: Speak louder, please.
QUESTION: The Secretary was suggesting earlier today that Cambodia should pursue alliances broadly, regionally, beyond just China. Could you give us your response to that, please?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are very, very interested in pursuing a settlement on the debt that was incurred by Cambodia during the Lon Nol regime. There have been no discussions since 2006 at all, and we think it’s time for our experts to meet and explore a broad range of potential areas for settling of this debt.
At this point, I don’t have any preconceived notion of how that will happen because there are a number of different approaches that can be pursued. And we have learned a lot about how to do this during the last decade, so I think the first thing we should start with is a very open discussion between our respective expert teams about options that would be available. But it is my intention to move this up the ladder of priorities, because I think it is something that needs to be given immediate attention. It is a concern that it has not been even addressed, and I would like to see us make it a priority. And His Excellency has agreed, so we will begin to work on that together.
MODERATOR: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the joint press availability is now concluded. Thank you very much for your participation.
# # #
BANGKOK POST:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/204245/clinton-visits-cambodian-genocide-museum
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Clinton urges rights progress in Cambodia
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday urged Cambodia to confront its troubled past by ensuring the Khmer Rouge are brought to justice for crimes against humanity in the 1970s and improve its current human rights record.
In the capital of Phnom Penh, she visited a former school that served as the main Khmer Rouge prison and torture center and appealed for the Cambodian people and government to overcome a legacy of impunity for abuses. The government has refused to allow a U.N.-backed court trying top Khmer Rouge leaders to prosecute lower-ranking members.
In addition, Clinton said she was prepared to work with Cambodia to resolve another historical hangover: an outstanding debt of about $445 million in Vietnam War-era debt that it owes to the United States. The U.S. has balked at requests to forgive the debt from the Cambodian government, which says it cannot afford to pay.
Clinton toured the infamous S-21 prison where as many as 16,000 people were tortured by the Khmer Rouge before being executed for alleged coutnterrevolutionary behavior. The ultra-leftist regime is blamed for the deaths of some 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution during its 1975-79 reign.
"It's a very disturbing experience and the pictures — both the pictures of the young Cambodians who were killed and the young Cambodians who were doing the killing — were so painful," she told students after the tour. "But I also came away very impressed because a country that is able to confront its past is a country that can overcome it."
"Countries that are held prisoner to their past can never break those chains and build the kind of future that their children deserve," Clinton said. "Although I am well aware the work of the tribunal is painful, it is necessary to ensure a lasting peace."
The Khmer Rouge tribunal closed its first case in July when it convicted the regime's chief jailer and head of S-21, Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch. He was sentenced to 19 years in prison on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. A second trial is expected to start next year for the four top surviving Khmer Rouge leaders.
But Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has said the trials will stop there, despite U.N. wishes to bring lower-ranking officers to justice for murder, torture and other crimes. The U.N. says progress has been blocked by political interference from Cambodian officials who oppose more prosecutions.
Critics accuse the Cambodian leader of trying to limit the tribunal's scope to prevent his political allies from being indicted. Hun Sen once served as a Khmer Rouge officer and many of his main allies are also former members of the group.
In talks with Hun Sen later Monday after meeting the students, Clinton is expected to say that the U.S. wants to see the next trial proceed quickly and judiciously, according to U.S. officials.
Clinton also plans to tell Hun Sen that his government, which has been harshly criticized for cracking down on opposition groups, must do more to protect human rights. She will meet with opposition leaders before departing for Malaysia on the next leg of a two-week, seven-nation tour of the Asia-Pacific.
Last week, Hun Sen told visiting U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon that he must close down the U.N. human rights office in Cambodia, which he accuses of interfering in the country's internal affairs.
"We hope that democratic institutions become stronger in Cambodia and that the space for political expression is big and that people have the right to be critical of the government," Clinton told the students.
On repaying the outstanding loans, Clinton told the students she was ready to explore creative ways the country could make good on the arrears, possibly by agreeing to preserve key environmental areas or investing in education.
"There are things that the Cambodian government can do to demonstrate some level of accountability," she said. "It is hanging out there and it needs to be addressed."
PHOTOS: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//101101/481/urn_publicid_ap_org6a804e9dc45d46099f02d8744f03d6ac/#photoViewer=/101101/ids_photos_wl/r4047326306.jpg
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
In the capital of Phnom Penh, she visited a former school that served as the main Khmer Rouge prison and torture center and appealed for the Cambodian people and government to overcome a legacy of impunity for abuses. The government has refused to allow a U.N.-backed court trying top Khmer Rouge leaders to prosecute lower-ranking members.
In addition, Clinton said she was prepared to work with Cambodia to resolve another historical hangover: an outstanding debt of about $445 million in Vietnam War-era debt that it owes to the United States. The U.S. has balked at requests to forgive the debt from the Cambodian government, which says it cannot afford to pay.
Clinton toured the infamous S-21 prison where as many as 16,000 people were tortured by the Khmer Rouge before being executed for alleged coutnterrevolutionary behavior. The ultra-leftist regime is blamed for the deaths of some 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution during its 1975-79 reign.
"It's a very disturbing experience and the pictures — both the pictures of the young Cambodians who were killed and the young Cambodians who were doing the killing — were so painful," she told students after the tour. "But I also came away very impressed because a country that is able to confront its past is a country that can overcome it."
"Countries that are held prisoner to their past can never break those chains and build the kind of future that their children deserve," Clinton said. "Although I am well aware the work of the tribunal is painful, it is necessary to ensure a lasting peace."
The Khmer Rouge tribunal closed its first case in July when it convicted the regime's chief jailer and head of S-21, Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch. He was sentenced to 19 years in prison on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. A second trial is expected to start next year for the four top surviving Khmer Rouge leaders.
But Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has said the trials will stop there, despite U.N. wishes to bring lower-ranking officers to justice for murder, torture and other crimes. The U.N. says progress has been blocked by political interference from Cambodian officials who oppose more prosecutions.
Critics accuse the Cambodian leader of trying to limit the tribunal's scope to prevent his political allies from being indicted. Hun Sen once served as a Khmer Rouge officer and many of his main allies are also former members of the group.
In talks with Hun Sen later Monday after meeting the students, Clinton is expected to say that the U.S. wants to see the next trial proceed quickly and judiciously, according to U.S. officials.
Clinton also plans to tell Hun Sen that his government, which has been harshly criticized for cracking down on opposition groups, must do more to protect human rights. She will meet with opposition leaders before departing for Malaysia on the next leg of a two-week, seven-nation tour of the Asia-Pacific.
Last week, Hun Sen told visiting U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon that he must close down the U.N. human rights office in Cambodia, which he accuses of interfering in the country's internal affairs.
"We hope that democratic institutions become stronger in Cambodia and that the space for political expression is big and that people have the right to be critical of the government," Clinton told the students.
On repaying the outstanding loans, Clinton told the students she was ready to explore creative ways the country could make good on the arrears, possibly by agreeing to preserve key environmental areas or investing in education.
"There are things that the Cambodian government can do to demonstrate some level of accountability," she said. "It is hanging out there and it needs to be addressed."
PHOTOS: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//101101/481/urn_publicid_ap_org6a804e9dc45d46099f02d8744f03d6ac/#photoViewer=/101101/ids_photos_wl/r4047326306.jpg
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
UN secretary-general flies out of Cambodian storm
Updated October 29, 2010 12:28:38
The U-N Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has flown out of Cambodia after meeting resistance from the government of Hun Sen to the continuation of the Khmer Rouge tribunal.
Cambodia told the UN chief, who was on an official two-day visit, that the tribunal would only be allowed to prosecute four Khmer Rouge leaders currently in custody. Prime Minister Hun Sen said the the UN-backed court would not be allowed to try another five suspects currently under investigation. He also told Ban Ki-moon that he wants the UN to close its local human rights office.
Presenter: Robert Carmichael
Speakers: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; Cambodia's Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith; Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung-wha Kang
CARMICHAEL: Cambodia describes itself to foreign tourists as The Kingdom of Wonder. And over the last two days the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon might well have wondered why he came.
The UN of course has long had an interest in Cambodia, and numerous UN agencies operate here including the UN human rights office, which we will turn to shortly.
But the outfit with the highest profile is the Khmer Rouge tribunal, a hybrid UN-Cambodian court tasked with trying the movement's senior surviving leaders and those the court considers most responsible for crimes committed during their rule between 1975 and 1979.
The tribunal has battled on through a number of crises over the years, from well-substantiated allegations of corruption; to allegations of political interference; and an ongoing shortage of cash.
Despite its problems, Mr Ban was probably not expecting the conversation Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen had with him at their meeting on Wednesday morning.
There Hun Sen bluntly told Mr Ban that the tribunal's second case - against four senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge - would be its last.
He said the court would not be allowed to prosecute another five people it has been investigating.
It is of course up to the court, and not Hun Sen, to decide whom it should prosecute, and his words predictably raised the spectre of political interference, all of which damages the tribunal.
But later on Wednesday the Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith said Hun Sen would simply prefer that those cases were scrapped.
KHIEU KANHARITH: We don't say forbidden, because you cannot dictate, you cannot impose your will on the court.
CARMICHAEL: So the Prime Minister is just saying he would far prefer if cases three and four did not go ahead.
KHIEU KANHARITH: This is right, yes this is right. Because it would be a failure.
CARMICHAEL: I asked Ban Ki-moon on Thursday during a very brief press conference before he left the country what he thought Hun Sen had meant to say.
BAN KI-MOON: I had a good discussion on this matter twice with the Prime Minister Hun Sen, and also deputy prime minister this morning, and I can tell you that the government of Cambodia is committed to completion of the process. The United Nations will discuss this matter with the international community members, particularly donors. That's what I can tell you at this stage.
CARMICHAEL: The entire sentence hinges on the phrase "committed to completion of the process". Late on Thursday Mr Ban's spokesman said by email that meant:
"Completion of the judicial process and of the court's mandate. As to specific cases, he has said that's a matter for the court to decide independently."
Time will tell how that plays out in practice.
The other bombshell Hun Sen delivered was his demand that the UN shut its Cambodian human rights office and sack Christophe Peschoux, the UN's human rights head here.
Since the presence of a human rights office is a matter of agreement between the UN and a member state, the government will likely eventually get its way with closing the office.
The UN's Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Kyung-wha Kang, is travelling with Mr Ban.
She told me on Wednesday evening that the discussion with Hun Sen revolved around an array of issues, one of them human rights.
KYUNG-WHA KANG: And the prime minister made his reply, which was a little bit of a surprise, I should say the tone, but it opens up the door for further discussions, and again on the issue of a person, we do not wish to go into the details. And yet obviously the government has a different view to the High Commissioner on her representative here, but I am sure we will find a way to discuss this issue of the representative and also the issue of the office here on more constructive terms.
CARMICHAEL: Possibly. But not if Khieu Kanharith is to be believed. The minister says the days of the UN human rights office here are numbered since it only accuses the government of wrongdoing and acts as a mouthpiece for the opposition.
All in all then, this trip to Cambodia was probably not the success Ban Ki-moon had hoped for.
ABC InternationalRadio Australia© 2010 ABC
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
The U-N Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has flown out of Cambodia after meeting resistance from the government of Hun Sen to the continuation of the Khmer Rouge tribunal.
Cambodia told the UN chief, who was on an official two-day visit, that the tribunal would only be allowed to prosecute four Khmer Rouge leaders currently in custody. Prime Minister Hun Sen said the the UN-backed court would not be allowed to try another five suspects currently under investigation. He also told Ban Ki-moon that he wants the UN to close its local human rights office.
Presenter: Robert Carmichael
Speakers: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; Cambodia's Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith; Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung-wha Kang
CARMICHAEL: Cambodia describes itself to foreign tourists as The Kingdom of Wonder. And over the last two days the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon might well have wondered why he came.
The UN of course has long had an interest in Cambodia, and numerous UN agencies operate here including the UN human rights office, which we will turn to shortly.
But the outfit with the highest profile is the Khmer Rouge tribunal, a hybrid UN-Cambodian court tasked with trying the movement's senior surviving leaders and those the court considers most responsible for crimes committed during their rule between 1975 and 1979.
The tribunal has battled on through a number of crises over the years, from well-substantiated allegations of corruption; to allegations of political interference; and an ongoing shortage of cash.
Despite its problems, Mr Ban was probably not expecting the conversation Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen had with him at their meeting on Wednesday morning.
There Hun Sen bluntly told Mr Ban that the tribunal's second case - against four senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge - would be its last.
He said the court would not be allowed to prosecute another five people it has been investigating.
It is of course up to the court, and not Hun Sen, to decide whom it should prosecute, and his words predictably raised the spectre of political interference, all of which damages the tribunal.
But later on Wednesday the Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith said Hun Sen would simply prefer that those cases were scrapped.
KHIEU KANHARITH: We don't say forbidden, because you cannot dictate, you cannot impose your will on the court.
CARMICHAEL: So the Prime Minister is just saying he would far prefer if cases three and four did not go ahead.
KHIEU KANHARITH: This is right, yes this is right. Because it would be a failure.
CARMICHAEL: I asked Ban Ki-moon on Thursday during a very brief press conference before he left the country what he thought Hun Sen had meant to say.
BAN KI-MOON: I had a good discussion on this matter twice with the Prime Minister Hun Sen, and also deputy prime minister this morning, and I can tell you that the government of Cambodia is committed to completion of the process. The United Nations will discuss this matter with the international community members, particularly donors. That's what I can tell you at this stage.
CARMICHAEL: The entire sentence hinges on the phrase "committed to completion of the process". Late on Thursday Mr Ban's spokesman said by email that meant:
"Completion of the judicial process and of the court's mandate. As to specific cases, he has said that's a matter for the court to decide independently."
Time will tell how that plays out in practice.
The other bombshell Hun Sen delivered was his demand that the UN shut its Cambodian human rights office and sack Christophe Peschoux, the UN's human rights head here.
Since the presence of a human rights office is a matter of agreement between the UN and a member state, the government will likely eventually get its way with closing the office.
The UN's Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Kyung-wha Kang, is travelling with Mr Ban.
She told me on Wednesday evening that the discussion with Hun Sen revolved around an array of issues, one of them human rights.
KYUNG-WHA KANG: And the prime minister made his reply, which was a little bit of a surprise, I should say the tone, but it opens up the door for further discussions, and again on the issue of a person, we do not wish to go into the details. And yet obviously the government has a different view to the High Commissioner on her representative here, but I am sure we will find a way to discuss this issue of the representative and also the issue of the office here on more constructive terms.
CARMICHAEL: Possibly. But not if Khieu Kanharith is to be believed. The minister says the days of the UN human rights office here are numbered since it only accuses the government of wrongdoing and acts as a mouthpiece for the opposition.
All in all then, this trip to Cambodia was probably not the success Ban Ki-moon had hoped for.
ABC InternationalRadio Australia© 2010 ABC
Searching for the Truth.
MEMORY & JUSTICE
“...a society cannot know itself if it does not have an accurate memory of its own history.”
Youk Chhang, Director
Documentation Center of Cambodia
66 Sihanouk Blvd.,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Duong Dara
- Dara Duong was born in 1971 in Battambang province, Cambodia. His life changed forever at age four, when the Khmer Rouge took over the country in 1975. During the regime that controlled Cambodia from 1975-1979, Dara’s father, grandparents, uncle and aunt were executed, along with almost 3 million other Cambodians. Dara’s mother managed to keep him and his brothers and sisters together and survive the years of the Khmer Rouge regime. However, when the Vietnamese liberated Cambodia, she did not want to live under Communist rule. She fled with her family to a refugee camp on the Cambodian-Thai border, where they lived for more than ten years. Since arriving in the United States, Dara’s goal has been to educate people about the rich Cambodian culture that the Khmer Rouge tried to destroy and about the genocide, so that the world will not stand by and allow such atrocities to occur again. Toward that end, he has created the Cambodian Cultural Museum and Killing Fields Memorial, which began in his garage and is now in White Center, Washington. Dara’s story is one of survival against enormous odds, one of perseverance, one of courage and hope.