Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 09/06/2009: In the middle, the statue of the Lok Ta Dambang Dek spirit (the spirit with the iron stick), who represents justice and before whom witnesses such as Mam Nay, chief interrogator in S-21, took oath at the ECCC. Behind, fire engines hide from sight the entrance of the prison of the five defendants©John Vink/ Magnum
Ka-set
http://cambodia.ka-set.info
By Stéphanie Gée
09-06-2009
In this day of hearing at Duch’s trial on Tuesday June 9th, there was again a feeling of deja heard and sometimes of ramblings in relation to the issue at stake: the implementation of the policy of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) at S-21. Clearer than ever were the nearly non-existent conduct of debates by the court president and the strategy of an accused who resists going where he does not want to, except to recognise tangible evidence presented to him. The day’s debates proved the minor place of the accused in the Khmer Rouge hierarchy. When the issue of the armed conflict with Vietnam was raised in the afternoon, judge Cartwright attempted, in vain, to make Duch state that he was aware of the armed conflict prior to late 1977, as the accused is also charged with war crimes.
Pol Pot and Mao, different theories
Interrogated by Kim Mengkhy, co-lawyer for civil party group 3, on the genesis of the CPK policy, as to whether it was an integral creation of the Khmer Rouge or a model inspired by experiences in other countries, Duch stated again that the “polpotist theory” did not follow the policy of Mao Tse Tung. “Pol Pot applied the policy of the Gang of Four in China, but in his own way. Are you maybe not familiar with the Gang of Four? They were the ones who led the great cultural revolution. Their names are known all over the world,” he retorted with a hint of irony. He added he had suggested his superior, Son Sen, to organise a system of counter-intelligence based on the French model.
Returning to the various social classes recognised in the Cambodian society, Duch reported that Pol Pot identified four in 1974, in addition to two special ones – the police and soldiers, and the Buddhist monks –, and then only two in 1975: peasants and workers. In contrast, Duch continued, Mao saw four classes: workers, peasants, little bourgeois and capitalists. Moreover, he claimed that the four classes were symbolised by the four stars in the Chinese flag – the biggest one being the working class – while the three towers of Angkor Way on the flag of Democratic Kampuchea represented the two classes officially recognised by the Khmer Rouge and the Party, symbolised by the central tower. The accused concluded that the theories of Pol Pot and Mao were thereby distinct the one from the other, but reminded that the ultimate goal of communism was to reach the existence of only one class in society.
Noting that practice often strayed from theory, Duch – after stressing that Pol Pot only trusted Ta Mok’s group, comprising of peasants – again evoked his state of shock when the first mass purges in the Northern zone, targeted at revolutionaries, took place in early 1977.
Duch, a simple mid-level cadre
When Elizabeth Rabesandratana, co-lawyer for civil party group 3, asked the accused if he considered that the CPK policy was a good policy, Duch acted as if outraged: “How can you say that? It was a criminal policy worse than that of the Gang of Four.” He recognised that his current knowledge on the regime had led him to hold the opinion he has today. He explained later that the only documents he ever had access to under Democratic Kampuchea were mainly the CPK Statute and the propaganda journal The Revolutionary Flag. He then started to detail the four-level composition of the CPK Central Committee: at the bottom, “assistant members”, such as Sou Meth, authorised to attend the training sessions, but deprived of any right to express their opinions; above them, “candidate members” who had the right to make comments; above them, “full members” who enjoyed the right to vote and decision-making power on the party’s policy, such as Ke Pauk; and, heading those levels, the Standing Committee. Which level did Duch belong to? He was a “mid-level cadre,” he explained. “I was not a member of the party centre.”
Duch: no release in S-21, no exoneration…
Responding to questions by Hong Kim Suon, co-lawyer of civil party group 4, Duch again clarified that no law provided for the release of anyone. “I am not going to conceal my criminal behaviour. You cannot hide an elephant in the market. I am not going to say that S-21 had the right to release detainees.”
Time for the defence. Kar Savuth, Duch’s Cambodian co-lawyer, took up the elements of the report of previously-heard expert Craig Etcheson that were recognised by his client. There was a short review of the “principle of democratic centralism” and vertical communication between zones, following the chain of command, in order to foil any attempt of penetration by the enemies. As for the releases he allegedly ordered in S-21, as claimed by the U.S. expert in his report, Duch maintained he did not release anyone. “I have not fabricated a list of individuals to be released in order to escape my crimes. There is no exonerating evidence to be found here.”
“I was the one who had most studied and best understood the party line”
His international colleague, Marie-Paule Canizares, standing in for François Roux in his absence, cited an extract from the statement made by Craig Etcheson during a hearing on May 29th, on obedience and discipline set as priorities by the CPK and the implementation of the party line by cadres to the extent they were able to understand it or its content. Duch’s comment: “Within the internal ranks of the CPK, at each level, each cadre constantly bore in mind loyalty and respect and trusted the leaders. Nobody dared to contravene any rule.” “Can one say that you had a good knowledge and understanding of the party line and its general principles?”, she asked. “[In S-21], I was the one who had most studied and best understood the party line.” Even better than Nath, his predecessor at the head of the centre, he added. Thanks to his knowledge, he implemented the instructions of his superiors in the most faithful possible way, and thereby survived. “First, I did what I was asked to do, no more, no less. Secondly, I never concealed anything. So, my honesty and the fact I did things correctly are the main reasons for my survival.”
The accused not shifting the blame on his superiors or his subordinates
His lawyer then quoted the statement he had insisted on making – during the move to S-21 where a reconstruction was organised on February 27th 2008 – to the co-Investigating Judges, former victims and some of his former subordinates: “I am angry with myself. I had given in to the ideas of the others and had therefore blindly obeyed their criminal orders. I sincerely regret having given in to the ideas of the others and accepting the criminal tasks I was assigned.” The door was thus opened for Duch to discourse again about his remorse, his suffering and his promise not to let his regrets vanish. “I always say that a bad decision results in feeling this remorse for a whole life. I have therefore bowed in this trial so that it can take place before this Chamber, and the issue here is that I be prosecuted for the crimes I have committed. So, I will not place the blame on my superiors or my subordinates. This means I will not shy away from my responsibilities. Although they come under the responsibility of my superiors, these crimes also come under my authority. In S-21, I am responsible for all the crimes. I will not pass the buck to anyone at all. As for the crimes perpetrated across the entire country, as I said in my statement during the opening of the trial in this Chamber, I am responsible ideologically and psychologically. That was the result suffered by the whole Cambodian population. I would like to share this…”
He was interrupted by Silke Studzinsky, co-lawyer for civil party group 2, who observed that Duch’s statement was off the topic at stake, the implementation of the CPK policy at S-21. The objection was overruled by the Chamber. Duch resumed, but he had lost some impetus. “[…] I am to blame partly because I played a role also as a party member. I will not evade my responsibility and the faults I committed regarding the implementation of the CPK policy at S-21. It was an extremely criminal policy […].”
Broadcast of video clips postponed
Later, Marie-Paule Canizares requested the court to watch two clips from the video recording of the reconstruction in Tuol Sleng, in which Duch talked. The judges wondered about the relevance of broadcasting such videos after already hearing in court the accused explain the implementation of the CPK policy at S-21. After discussions, judge Cartwright observed that the clips show witnesses, including civil parties, whose identity is still protected. The lawyer recognised she had not thought about that. It was therefore decided to postpone the broadcast to a later date.
Duch was not aware of the existence of an armed conflict with Vietnam
Debates moved on to the armed conflict between Democratic Kampuchea and Vietnam. The Trial Chamber already heard on this topic journalist Nayan Chanda, author of Brother Enemy: The War After the War (1986), on May 25th and 26th. It was the turn of the accused to be interrogated on the issue. Duch repeated that prior to early 1978, he knew nothing about the severance of the relations between the two countries. Judge Cartwright questioned him. In a first time, Duch seemed not to challenge the facts and recognised that the CPK and the Vietnamese Communist Party had been in conflict “for a long time.” However, it appeared very quickly that the conflict he was referring to before late 1977 was an ideological conflict, not an armed one. He had no knowledge about the armed conflict during the first years of the regime because, he argued, it was kept a secret by both regimes. Moreover, he was not concerned with what was happening outside S-21, where he had too much to do.
By stating he had no information about the existence of the conflict then, Duch made it more difficult to maintain the charges of war crimes for the entire period from April 1975 to January 1979. It remains to be known whether there are documents, for instance, proving that the number of Vietnamese prisoners sent to S-21 was significant since S-21 started being operational in order to try and consolidate Nayan Chanda’s opinion that the state of war existed since April 1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment