Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Shortcomings of Khmer Rouge Tribunal

CONTRIBUTOR
The Shortcomings of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal

By POKPONG LAWANSIRIFriday, July 23, 2010

The UN-Cambodia hybrid Khmer Rouge Tribunal, known formally as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), will deliver its first verdict in the trial of Kaing Guek Eav (or “Duch”) on July 26.

Duch was the torturer-in-chief of the S-21 prison during the rule of the Khmer Rouge regime, which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. An estimated 1.7 million Cambodians were believed to have been killed or died from hard labor and starvation during this period.

I recall from a visit to the prison-turned-genocide museum the nerve-racking effects of the mug shot photos of the thousand of victims—men, women, and children—taken before they were tortured, interrogated and murdered. Of the 12,380 people who were imprisoned at S-21, only seven survived.

The ECCC is also in the process of investigating four senior former Khmer Rouge members who are charged with crimes against humanity. They are Nuon Chea (second-in-command after Pol Pot), Ieng Sary (Khmer Rouge deputy prime minister for foreign affairs), Ieng Thirith (minister of social affairs and education), and Khieu Samphan (head-of-state).

Has the progress of the ECCC trial since it began in March 2009 been up to the expectation of the political observers? Here are some criticisms and concerns...

First, the ECCC is believed to have been suffering from political interference from Phnom Penh. Early this month, the New York-based Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) issued a report highlighting the impediment facing the ECCC after the UN prosecutor wanted to extend the investigation to include five more suspects, apart from the existing five that are being investigated by the ECCC.

Prime Minister Hun Sen’s response was: “If the court wants to charge more senior Khmer Rouge cadres, the court must show the reasons to Prime Minister Hun Sen…Hun Sen only protects the peace of the nation”.

The UN-Cambodia agreement establishing the ECCC underlines the responsibility of Phnom Penh to give it full assistance.

In 2009, the court attempted to summons six-high ranking government officials to give facts in the case of Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Khieu Samphan. However, the court did not receiving much cooperation from the government after the officials did not show up to give evidence.

According to OSJI, a government spokesperson stated that: “except for individuals who volunteer to go, the government’s position is ‘no’ to this” and that foreign officials involved in the tribunal “can pack up their clothes and return home” if they are not satisfied.

With the recent decision by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a UN Special Expert on the ECCC, we shall see whether the issue of political interference will be thoroughly addressed.

Second, the mandate of the ECCC has been much politicized and is limited to trying the atrocities committed during the Khmer Rouge period of April 1975 to January 1979.

In his interview with the Phnom Penh Post, Noam Chomsky, emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that “the leading US political establishment like Henry Kissinger, a member of the late president Richard Nixon’s administration…should also be held accountable for creating the conditions that paved the way for the rise of the [Khmer Rouge]”.

While acknowledging the mass atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge regime, we should never forget the level of atrocities committed during the US secretive bombing of Cambodia from 1968-1973. A declassified telephone discussion between Henry Kissinger and General Alexander Haig, Nixon's deputy assistant for national security affairs, recorded that Nixon had ordered a “massive bombing campaign in Cambodia [to use] anything that flys [sic] on anything that moves”.

The map of US bombing targets released by Yale University’s Cambodian Genocide Program shows that more than half of the country was affected by the indiscriminate bombings. Professor Ben Kierman, director of the program, puts the casualties figure from the bombing at 150,000 deaths, while Edward Herman, a professor of Wharton School, and Noam Chomsky put the toll at 600,000 using figures provided by a Finnish Commission of Inquiry.

Based on this, we can never naively claim that US bombing led to the mass executions by the Khmer Rouge or refuted the regime's mass atrocities. But, to certain extent, the blanket bombing, which directly led to the destruction of livestock and agricultural land, could have definitely played a role in the mass starvation.

From new data released during the Clinton administration, Taylor Owen, a doctoral student at Oxford University, and Professor Kierman noted that 2,756,941 tons of bombs were dropped on Cambodia.

To put the figure into perspective, just over 2 million tons of bombs were dropped by the allies during all of World War II. The bombs dropped in Cambodia represented about 184 Hiroshima atomic bombs combined, making Cambodia the most bombed nation in the world. Based on the new data, Professor Kierman also stressed that the casualties might be much higher than his earlier predicted 150,000.

Based on this, the bombing contributed to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The number of Khmer Rouge cadres rose from a group that had an insignificant prospect ousting the US-backed Lon Nol’s regime, roughly from 1,000 in 1969 to 220,000 in 1973.

Professor Kierman observed that the Khmer Rouge “profited greatly from the US bombing [and] used the widespread devastation and massacre of civilians…for recruitment purposes”.

As the ECCC’s trials are being conducted, very little attention has been given by Southeast Asia governments to the lessons to be derived from this. The understanding of this period of history in Cambodia remains a mystery and is kept out of the school textbooks.

Many scholars argue that the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [Asean] do not want to talk much about the ECCC, fearing their own roles could be exposed.

“Asean has been largely silent on the issue of the Khmer Rouge,” said Dr. Lee Jones, a Southeast Asia expert at the Department of Politics of Queen Mary University of London. “[It] also reflects the often-ignored fact that Asean also backed the [Khmer Rouge], materially and diplomatically, once they had been overthrown by Vietnam.

“They sheltered, re-armed and helped rebuild the [Khmer Rouge], and helped them retain Cambodia's seat at the UN, so they could form a buffer against Vietnam, fueling a decade-long civil war. Just like China and the US…regional governments would prefer their grisly collaboration with the [Khmer Rouge] to be quietly forgotten rather than exposed to scrutiny."

With all these issues and concerns in mind, we shall await and see if the ECCC can improve and develop into a tribunal offering to Cambodians a genuine justice that is not based on selectivity and discrimination. And whether it can shed light on the true roles of different actors in a conflict that is still affecting one of the poorest countries in the world.

Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org

Thai Fact-finding Committee Falls Short

CONTRIBUTOR
Thai Fact-finding Committee Falls Short
By POKPONG LAWANSIRIMonday, June 28, 2010

The appointment of Kanit na Nakorn, a former attorney general as the head of the independent fact-finding committee tasked by the government to investigate the two-month long violence in Bangkok, could be seen by most political observers as a good step forward towards bringing out truth surrounding the worst violence that the country has witnessed in three decades.

However, since his appointment serious questions concerning the committee's independence and its stated mission have been raised, and many independent observers have called the investigative process flawed and insincere on the part of the Democrat-led government.

The crisis in April-May 2010 led to the death of 89 people, a majority of whom were civilians, and at least 2,000 people were injured. Late last month, the Mirror Foundation, which documented cases of disappearances, reported that 39 people have gone missing after the crackdown.

Technically speaking, the work of the Khanit committee should have been conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), an agency tasked by the constitution to look into human rights violations committed by the government and non-state actors.

The NHRCT has faced much criticism for its lack of expertise in human rights and impartiality. Five members of the sub-committee that have been set up to investigate the violence surrounding the events on April 10, 2010, which resulted in the deaths of 25 people, recently resigned.

Sombat Boonngam-anong, a social activist who heads the Mirror Foundation and was one of the five former members of the sub-committee, told the writer early this month that the response so far from the NHRCT is unacceptable as it fails to criticize the use of force by the government.

“I feel that by having my name in the subcommittee which so far has just organized one meeting and has not been doing anything else will be a waste of my time. I do not want to associate myself with this agency. The NHRCT has become irrelevant. The ordinary people cannot rely on it anymore as they have to protect our own rights,” Sombat said.

For Khanit’s committee, the key question that was raised is to what extent the committee can genuinely be independent and impartial. Also, does it have a mandate to conduct its work in a professional manner akin to international standards, which includes the power to submit the findings to the court to persecute the wrongdoers.

The mandate of Khanit’s committee is unclear and arbitrary. This is not to mention that the statement by Khanit earlier this month that the committee will not seek to find out who was right or wrong, but will seek to promote forgiveness is already problematic.

The UN, under the tenure of Kofi Annan, had highlighted many times that the success in national reconciliation and post-conflict reconstruction is accompanied with truth and justice. Truth alone with impunity for the wrongdoers, in this case whether they are government officials or militant Redshirts, will not serve the country well in the long-term. Arbitrary arrest and detention of the Redshirt protesters in a non-transparent manner, as the government did, will not bring the country forward, but will create more hatred and anger against the government.

During the 14th UN Human Rights Council (HRC) session in Geneva, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom and Spain (on behalf of Spain), had pressed Thailand to establish a committee which will be vested with human rights expertise to investigate whether there had been human rights violations committed by the government and the Redshirts during the two-month long seige violence. Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, the Thai ambassador to the UN, referred to the Khanit commission during his address to the council.

However, when we look at the Khanit’s committee, it seems as if it is not vested with a rights-based approach. Khanit, a career lawyer, is not a human rights expert.

The independence of this committee has already been jeopardized given that Khanit did not come from a transparent selection process involving academics, human rights groups and the broader civil society, but was appointed by PM Abhisit Vejajiva, who is also seen as one of the key perpetrators in this conflict.

What is a good model for a successful committee?

Dr.Sriprapha Petchamesree, the representative of Thailand to the Asean Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, in May “requested [Thailand] to allow the fact finding team composed of regional or international members to investigate and constitute the facts and human rights violations during the violence on April 10 and May repression.” Sriprapha also highlighted that any committee “appointed by the government shall not enjoy any credibility.”

As a member of the UNHRC, Thailand could show its transparency by requesting the visits of the UN independent experts known as the “special procedures” to investigate the alleged human rights violations during the past two months. The UN has requested for nine special procedures to visit the country.

If Thailand is sincere about its commitments, it could accept the requests and allow a fact-finding mission to be conducted by a team of experts, for instance a combination of the mandate holders on rights to freedom of expression, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, and arbitrary detention. It could also seek the assistance of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on this matter.

There are also critical conditions that continue to be imposed in Thailand that could jeopardize the functioning of such a fact finding mission. Dr. Tyrell Haberkorn of the School of International, Political and Strategic Studies at Australian National University, has highlighted that “the persistence of media censorship and intimidation of those deemed dissident [is a major concern]. How can there be an independent investigation in a climate in which citizens cannot freely express their views? How can there be an independent investigation while the Emergency Decree is still in force and citizens can be arbitrarily detained without the presentation of evidence?”

Abhisit’s government, if it is sincere to solve the current crisis, must effectively and efficiently addressed these concerns.

Any committee that is partisan and vested with no power will jeopardize its efforts in addressing justice for all. If the government does not want to change the trends of its methods, which have been largely criticized as being insincere, and allow a truly independent fact finding committee that is acceptable to all sides, it must know that this process of national reconciliation will be labeled a failure and could lead to more mass protests.

More importantly, if justice is not provided to the dead, Thailand will surely await a larger crisis than in April-May.

Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org