October 7, 2009
(Post by CAAI News Media)
Modern-day Cambodia is a land of haves and have-nots. There is prosperity among the first group, but those in the second group suffer deprivation and oppression.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Those who could be counted among the "haves" demonstrate some level of allegiance to Big Brother Hun Sen and are rewarded with employment. He controls the primary employment center in the country, the Cambodian People's Party Inc. Those who are less privileged, the "have-nots," are victimized by uniformed authorities who come to evict them from their property, which is awarded to a favored individual or business entity for development.
The haphazard installations of modern infrastructure, tall buildings and expensive villas stand in stark contrast to the scavengers who roam the city's dumps looking for food and the many who live in the open air in rickety shacks with tin roofs. A third of the population lives below the poverty line.
Human Rights Watch describes the situation this way: "The gap has widened between wealthy city dwellers and impoverished farmers in the countryside, exacerbated by large-scale forced evictions of tens of thousands of urban poor, illegal confiscation of farmers' land, and pillaging of the natural resources on which people in the countryside depend for their livelihood."
Most of the country's wealth is generated from trade with countries willing to do business with Hun Sen's government -- the legitimacy of which is very much in question -- to acquire Cambodia's natural resources. Cambodians who don't benefit from these international arrangements rely on NGOs and human rights groups to advocate for them domestically and internationally.
A day before the Sept. 10 public hearing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission by the U.S. Congress on the violations of human rights and the rule of law in Cambodia, the royal embassy of Cambodia in Washington circulated a statement declaring Cambodia's "democracy and human rights are fully guaranteed by its 1993 Constitution (which) recognizes the freedom of expression and other fundamental rights."
At the hearing, Cambodian lawmaker Mu Sochua told the Commission she was "stripped of my parliamentary immunity and given a criminal conviction for openly criticizing Prime Minister Hun Sen." Sochua affirmed, "My situation is not unique," and warned, democracy in Cambodia "is experiencing an alarming freefall."
But the Embassy noted the existence in Cambodia of 600 newspapers, journals and magazines, 40 radio stations and seven TV stations, and "thousands of civil society organizations, as well as free press and trade unions" -- what more does anyone need to prove Cambodia's commitment to freedom?
A testimony by Human Rights Watch provided to the Lantos Commission: "The U.S. has provided training, material assistance and even awards to military, police, counter-terror units or related individuals with track records of serious human rights abuses."
Eight congressmen wrote a letter on Sept. 18 to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, requesting a response to charges of "serious abuses by members of the Prime Minister's Bodyguard Unit, Brigade 70, Special Airborne Brigade 911 and Brigade 31 of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces."
Three days later, Gates met at the Pentagon with Sen's defense minister, Gen. Tea Banh, who was on a four-day visit "to strengthen cooperation" between the two militaries.
Banh brushed off accusations of rights violations and told reporters of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America that the congressmens' letter to Gates has "false" information. Yet Banh slipped, saying, "Truthfully, right now, there are a number of (Cambodian army) officers who are refused entry to the U.S."
The Sept. 24 Phnom Penh Post reported Banh as saying that Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg "addressed concerns about human rights issues in Cambodia," but that Banh "clarified that while some concerns are valid, each country has its own law."
Does Cambodia's law differ from the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights?
University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner's "Think Again: International Law" in the Sept. 17 Foreign Policy Online states: "Governments respect international law only when it suits their national interests. Don't expect that to change any time soon."
Posner writes: "Academic research suggests that international human rights treaties have had little or no impact on the actual practices of states. States that already respect human rights join human rights treaties because doing so is costless for them. States that do not respect human rights simply ignore their treaty obligations."
On Sept. 23, the Voice of America broadcast opposition leader Sam Rainsy's told the Bangkok press club: "Grassroots activists, politicians and village leaders have been killed, jailed, and forced into hiding for disagreeing with the ruling party."
Sen's Council of Ministers' fired back and said Rainsy has no "dignity as a politician." The hundreds of press media and thousands of NGOs working "freely in the kingdom" are in contrast to "accusations by a group of immoral people."
Abraham Lincoln's words are worth recalling: "You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."
A Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment