via CAAI News Media
Cambodia’s Rights Defenders Under Fire, Donors Should Speak Up to Protect Civil Society
Friday, 22 January 2010 10:42 DAP-NEWS/ Ek Madra
PHNOM PENH, Jan. 22, 2010- Cambodia's respect for basic rights dramatically deteriorated last year as the government misused the judiciary to silence government critics, attacked human rights defenders, tightened restrictions on press freedom and abandoned its international obligations to protect refugees, the New York-based Human Rights Watch said on Friday in its new World Report 2010.
But a government’s spokesman denied the reports as “groundless”.
“It is not a quality report. They just represent their own voices and concerns which do not represent the facts,” Phay Siphan told DAP by phone.
“This is a baseless and not scientific report,” said Siphan.
However, the 612-page World Report 2010, the organization’s 20th annual review of human rights practices around the globe—summarizes major human rights trends in more than 90 nations and territories worldwide including Cambodia—said “Cambodian human rights defenders were threatened, arbitrarily arrested, and physically attacked,” it said of the last year’s situation.
“Victims included staff and volunteers of human rights organizations, as well as community-based activists working on land rights, natural resource exploitation, and forced evictions.”
“Cambodians who speak out to defend their homes, their jobs, and their rights face threats, jail, and physical attacks,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
“The only way that the Cambodian government will end its assault on civil society is if influential governments and donors demand real change and put the pressure on.”
Violations often occurred during mass evictions when police and soldiers frequently used unnecessary or excessive force, said Human Rights Watch.
The group provided few prime examples about the government used “heavily armed soldiers firing teargas and water cannons as they forcibly evicted hundreds of families from the Dey Krahom community last year.
Also, in March, police opened fire on unarmed farmers protesting confiscation of their land in Siem Reap province, seriously wounding four villagers.
More than 60 community activists were imprisoned or awaited trial during 2009—often on spurious charges—for helping to organize and represent fellow community members facing eviction or illegal confiscation of their land.
Urban poor evicted from their homes were often dumped in squalid relocation sites far from the city that lack water, social services and access to jobs.
At least 10 government critics—including four journalists and several opposition party members—were sued for criminal defamation and disinformation by government and military officials, the report says.
“As the political space shrinks for human rights and advocacy groups to defend themselves, there are valid concerns that a pending law to increase restrictions on non-governmental organizations will be used to shut down groups critical of the government,” Adams said in the release.
The report details other key issues including political violence, the lack of accountability by government officials involved in abuses, arbitrary detention and abuse of sex workers, and substandard prison conditions.
Over 2,000 people who use drugs were arbitrarily detained in 11 government-run drug detention centers, where arduous physical exercises and forced labor are the mainstays of their “treatment,” and torture is common. Even if an assessment concludes that an individual is not dependent on drugs, the centers continue to hold some detainees arbitrarily.
One of the year’s low points was the government’s forcible deportation of 20 Uighur asylum seekers from Cambodia to China on December 19, without an examination of their refugee claims.
“This action was a clear violation of Cambodia’s obligations” as a state that has ratified 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, it said.
“Cambodia’s deportation of the Uighurs was a glaring example of the government's failure to respect human rights,” Adams said. “The Cambodian government showed its profound disregard for minimum standards of due process, refugee protection, and international cooperation.”
Khmer Krom (ethnic Khmer from southern Vietnam) asylum seekers and migrants faced obstacles to obtaining safe places to live and full citizenship rights in Cambodia, despite pronouncements by the Cambodian government that it considers Khmer Krom who move to Cambodia to be Cambodian citizens.
Thirty years after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, justice for the crimes of that era remained as elusive as ever, Human Rights Watch said.
The US$100 million Khmer Rouge tribunal continued to face political interference and made little headway in addressing credible reports of corruption that have plagued the court and undermined its credibility.
Human Rights Watch expressed concerns about the training and material support donors are providing for Cambodian military, police, and counterterrorism units with track records of serious human rights violations.
Donors should conduct more thorough vetting of individuals and their units participating in such programs to ensure that none have been involved in rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
“While donors may have policy reasons to work with the Cambodian security forces on issues such as terrorism and peacekeeping, they should work just as hard on holding abusers accountable and ending the culture of impunity that exists for high-ranking members of the security forces and those close to Prime Minister Hun Sen,” Adams said.
Phay Siphan said donors have been working with Cambodia as partnership not as a whipping-boy.
“We can not get things done overnight and no one can oblige us to do this or that,” said Siphan.
Letter of U.S Statement on the Possible U.S. Statement on Territorial Integrity of Cambodia
Friday, 22 January 2010 10:19 DAP-NEWS
For over a year the United States has confronted the issue of whether to make a declaration affirming U.S. respect and/or recognition for the territorial integrity of Cambodia within itspresent borders. During most of this period the issue has been considered in the context of a
possible resumption of diplomatic relations. In the last week the issue has come up in the additional context of the Bowles mission. Ambassador Bowles himself has asked what flexibility he might have on a statement if this became a significant element in his discussions. At the first meeting in Phnom Penh on January 9, Prime Minister Son Sann made a general reference to the matter in saying "A primary consideration of Cambodia's foreign policy concerns the recognition of Cambodian borders." In a subsequent meeting, he or Prince Sihanouk might bring the border question directly into the conversation and ask what kind of declaration the United States would be prepared to make as part of whatever arrangement we might work out concerning ICC operations and VC/NVA use of Cambodian territory. We should be in a position to respond promptly if this occurs. Ambassador Bowles' initial instructions were understandably reserved on the issue of a border statement, but we believe the United States enjoys considerable flexibility about this whenever it may become useful to engage in discussion of the subject with Cambodia. In essence, a U.S. declaration would state that the United States respects the sovereignty, independence, neutrality and territorial integrity of Cambodia within its present frontiers and recognizes the inviolability of these frontiers. Such a statement says two things. First, it says that we respect the territorial integrity of Cambodia within its present frontiers--without defining what those frontiers are or committing ourselves to the precise borders claimed by Cambodia. A declaration in the form outlined above would not commit the United States to any position on the precise location of boundary lines where those lines may be subject to dispute. It would commit the United States to oppose any large-scale irredentist claims. Some claims of this nature were advanced by the Diem regime a number of years ago and were reciprocated by equally flimsy claims on the part of Cambodia.
Second, such a declaration would say that we recognize Cambodia's lawful frontiers, whatever
they may be, to be inviolable. This would certainly be construed as an undertaking not to change Cambodia's frontiers by force. This is the sense in which Sihanouk and declaring governments have used the term "inviolable". Recognition of inviolability of frontiers could also be asserted to mean that incursions across these frontiers into Cambodian territory would not be made unless there was a legitimate basis for doing so under the United Nations Charter. One such basis, recognized by Article 51 of the Charter, is the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense.
Prince Sihanouk's recent statements regarding possible U.S. incursions into Cambodia
to pursue NVN/VC forces operating illegally there seem to recognize this self-defense exception to the inviolability of Cambodia's borders. In making any statement that included the concept of inviolability, we would want it made clear to all--Sihanouk included--that inviolability does not, of course, imply an obligation not to cross a border temporarily when there is a legitimate reason--such as self-defense--for doing so. In summary, a declaration respecting Cambodia's territorial integrity and recognizing the inviolability of its frontiers would commit us to no more than is already in the United Nations Charter.
Some arguments have been advanced against a U.S. declaration on Cambodia's territorial integrity. First, that Australia's experience with such a declaration was unsatisfactory. If Sihanouk should try to interpret a U.S. declaration as supporting his claims as to the precise location of boundaries, we could, of course, do what Australia did and make it plain that we support the territorial integrity of all countries in the area. Indeed, if any U.S. declaration were to
grow out of the Bowles mission, we could let the Cambodians know very clearly what our interpretation of the statement was. We might wish to preface the declaration with an explanatory clause designed to show that it constituted one particular application of a general principle. For example, we could include in our declaration the statement that it was being made "in accordance with the Principles of the United Nations set forth in Article 2 of the Charter".
The suggestion has also been made that a U.S. declaration would offend Thai and South Vietnamese sensitivities on the issue of borders. In the case of Thailand, this seems particularly
unlikely. Foreign Minister Thanat has said that Thailand has no border disputes with Cambodia-apart from the question of the Temple of Preah Vihear, as to which he made a reservation to the 1962 decision of the International Court of Justice that has no effect. In the case of South Viet Nam, it may be noted that there has been no reaction from Saigon to the various statements made by other governments concerning Cambodia's territorial integrity. Such statements have been made by France, Singapore, Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Japanese have now told us that they will probably make such a statement within the next few days. Moreover, there might be the following disadvantage in refusing to make a statement on Cambodia's territorial integrity if the issue should be pressed by the Cambodians: our refusal could be taken as implying that the statements made by a number of other countries do endorse Cambodia's claims as to the precise location of its boundaries in areas where there are disputes--
principally the boundary with South Viet Nam.
Letter of U.S Statement on the Possible U.S. Statement on Territorial Integrity of Cambodia Friday, 22 January 2010 10:19 DAP-NEWS .For over a year the United States has confronted the issue of whether to make a declaration affirming U.S. respect and/or recognition for the territorial integrity of Cambodia within its present borders. During most of this period the issue has been considered in the context of a possible resumption of diplomatic relations. In the last week the issue has come up in the additional context of the Bowles mission. Ambassador Bowles himself has asked what flexibility he might have on a statement if this became a significant element in his discussions. At the first meeting in Phnom Penh on January 9, Prime Minister Son Sann made a general reference to the matter in saying "A primary consideration of Cambodia's foreign policy concerns the recognition of Cambodian borders." In a subsequent meeting, he or Prince Sihanouk might bring the border question directly into the conversation and ask what kind of declaration the United States would be prepared to make as part of whatever arrangement we might work out concerning ICC operations and VC/NVA use of Cambodian territory. We should be in a position to respond promptly if this occurs. Ambassador Bowles' initial instructions were understandably reserved on the issue of a border statement, but we believe the United States enjoys considerable flexibility about this whenever it may become useful to engage in discussion of the subject with Cambodia.
In essence, a U.S. declaration would state that the United States respects the sovereignty, independence, neutrality and territorial integrity of Cambodia within its present frontiers and recognizes the inviolability of these frontiers. Such a statement says two things.
First, it says that we respect the territorial integrity of Cambodia within its present frontiers--without defining what those frontiers are or committing ourselves to the precise borders claimed by Cambodia. A declaration in the form outlined above would not commit the United States to any position on the precise location of boundary lines where those lines may be subject to dispute. It would commit the United States to oppose any large-scale irredentist claims. Some claims of this nature were advanced by the Diem regime a number of years ago and were reciprocated by equally flimsy claims on the part of Cambodia.
Second, such a declaration would say that we recognize Cambodia's lawful frontiers, whatever
they may be, to be inviolable. This would certainly be construed as an undertaking not to change Cambodia's frontiers by force. This is the sense in which Sihanouk and declaring governments have used the term "inviolable". Recognition of inviolability of frontiers could also be asserted to mean that incursions across these frontiers into Cambodian territory would not be made unless there was a legitimate basis for doing so under the United Nations Charter. One such basis, recognized by Article 51 of the Charter, is the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense.
Prince Sihanouk's recent statements regarding possible U.S. incursions into Cambodia to pursue NVN/VC forces operating illegally there seem to recognize this self-defense exception to the inviolability of Cambodia's borders. In making any statement that included the concept of inviolability, we would want it made clear to all--Sihanouk included--that inviolability does not, of course, imply an obligation not to cross a border temporarily when there is a legitimate reason--such as self-defense--for doing so. In summary, a declaration respecting Cambodia's territorial integrity and recognizing the inviolability of its frontiers would commit us to no more than is already in the United Nations Charter.
Some arguments have been advanced against a U.S. declaration on Cambodia's territorial integrity. First, that Australia's experience with such a declaration was unsatisfactory. If Sihanouk should try to interpret a U.S. declaration as supporting his claims as to the precise location of boundaries, we could, of course, do what Australia did and make it plain that we support the territorial integrity of all countries in the area. Indeed, if any U.S. declaration were to grow out of the Bowles mission, we could let the Cambodians know very clearly what our interpretation of the statement was. We might wish to preface the declaration with an explanatory clause designed to show that it constituted one particular application of a general principle. For example, we could include in our declaration the statement that it was being made "in accordance with the Principles of the United Nations set forth in Article 2 of the Charter".
The suggestion has also been made that a U.S. declaration would offend Thai and South Vietnamese sensitivities on the issue of borders. In the case of Thailand, this seems particularly unlikely. Foreign Minister Thanat has said that Thailand has no border disputes with Cambodia apart from the question of the Temple of Preah Vihear, as to which he made a reservation to the 1962 decision of the International Court of Justice that has no effect. In the case of South Viet Nam, it may be noted that there has been no reaction from Saigon to the various statements made by other governments concerning Cambodia's territorial integrity. Such statements have been made by France, Singapore, Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Japanese have now told us that they will probably make such a statement within the next few days.
Moreover, there might be the following disadvantage in refusing to make a statement on Cambodia's territorial integrity if the issue should be pressed by the Cambodians: our refusal could be taken as implying that the statements made by a number of other countries do endorseCambodia's claims as to the precise location of its boundaries in areas where there are disputes-- principally the boundary with South Viet Nam.
Nigerian Swin- Dler Nabbed
Friday, 22 January 2010 05:49 DAP-NEWS
A Nigerian swindler has been arrested by Phnom Penh military police, according to a local source on Thursday.
The Nigerian was staying in a rented house in Stung Meanchey commune, in the Mean Chey district of Phnom Penh.
Police found business cards, documents, ink, two packages of narcotics and other items.
Michael Okeke Obumneneme involved in internet scams, the police source added.
Michael told a local victim, Bopha, that he would transfer money to her, but she must first send him US$1,500.
The defendant has been sent to court or trial.
