Global Voices » Geoffrey Cain

Cambodia: Blogging on Genocide

Geoffrey Cain — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:21:37 +0000

Elena Lesley, a Phnom Penh Post reporter and Fulbright scholar, jots her ideas on The Tribunal Report.

After graduating from Brown University in 2004, the articulate, cunning Elena Lesley was awarded a Henry Luce Scholarship to Cambodia to write for The Phnom Penh Post. With a long-time interest in Asia, it seemed like a good match. But knee-deep in a society scourged by years of civil war and gut-wrenching poverty, the experience quickly proved eye-opening.

She vowed to return.

Elena then spent three years in the U.S. reporting for St. Petersburg Times in Florida, but found herself frustrated at the lack of news coverage of Cambodia outside the country. Hearing that Cambodia's genocide tribunal was underway, she returned to Phnom Penh on the ultra-prestigious Fulbright grant to blog for the Post.

Now, she speaks with Global Voices author Geoffrey Cain about her blog, the tribunal, and the challenges it faces.

From your personal observations as a journalist-blogger, what challenges does the Khmer Rouge Tribunal face in bringing the perpetrators to justice?

Of course, there’s the issue everyone keeps raising: age. Since most of the defendants are in their 70s and 80s and not in particularly good health, there is a great deal of concern that some could die before trials begin. This is probably what worries most of the Cambodians I have discussed the tribunal with. While a trial for torture chief “Comrade Duch” could begin as early as September, any predictions for the other defendants are somewhat uncertain at this point.

Part of the ambiguity stems from the relatively complicated nature of the cases against the four other defendants. I’m certainly no expert on the minutiae of each case, but Duch’s is apparently more straightforward – after all, he has cooperated with the court to a certain extent.

There is another issue at play in “bringing perpetrators to justice,” and it involves the scope of the prosecutions. When the United Nations and Cambodian government were negotiating the tribunal’s creation, Prime Minister Hun Sen (himself a former member of the Khmer Rouge) insisted that only a handful of the most senior leaders be tried. Critics of the Prime Minister have claimed that he intentionally narrowed the scope of prosecutions so as not to implicate any former Khmers Rouge who now hold high positions in his government.

When you think about all the people who were involved in planning and implementing Khmer Rouge policies, five defendants seems like a very small number.

Is the tribunal addressing these challenges effectively, or is complete justice a lost cause 28 years after the atrocities concluded?

Well, what do you mean by “complete justice?” Or even “justice” for that matter? I don’t think the tribunal is a lost cause, but I do believe it is somewhat symbolic and abstract.

If you look at it for what it is, literally, the tribunal is a punitive process for a very small group of people. However, there are many organizations that are using these legal proceedings as a jumping off point for discussion and education, both of which are sorely needed in Cambodia.

Supporters of the tribunal often argue that it can set a new standard for the Cambodian judiciary and help end the country’s “culture of impunity.” Both are very ambitious goals, and while I hope the tribunal helps move Cambodia toward a more just and accountable society, it’s impossible to predict how much impact it will have in these areas.

Which is why I believe educational and outreach efforts related to the tribunal are of primary importance. Many Cambodians have never truly come to terms with their experiences under the Khmer Rouge. At the same time, around 60 percent of Cambodians were born after the Pol Pot era and have little knowledge about the period. While younger generations may not realize it, the legacy of that disastrous social experiment is still very much alive in their country.

The court, along with various other organizations, has been coordinating outreach efforts, but it’s a tall order. Accessibility, both practically and theoretically, is problematic. The location of the court itself is hugely inconvenient. At least a 40-minute drive from central Phnom Penh, the judicial complex’s remote location is no doubt a deterrent for many who would otherwise attend proceedings. In terms of the substance of the court’s work, concepts and arguments are highly abstract and during this phase, the “investigative” portion, little information is made available to the public. Trying to engage a largely agrarian population – many of whom are just struggling to survive – under these conditions is, to say the least, difficult. Which is why, in my opinion, more resources should be devoted to such efforts.

In addition to what the tribunal can do for Cambodia, there’s also the issue of setting a precedent for the international community. As one Khmer Rouge survivor told me: “It is very, very important to put these people on trial as an example to other dictators. You cannot abuse people this way and get away with it – even 30 years later.”

How do you tread the line so tactfully between blogging and journalism? Do you blog about the tribunal differently than, say, writing for a traditional newspaper?

Writing for the blog is definitely different from writing for a newspaper. The tone can be a lot more casual and each entry doesn’t require a traditional “news hook,” as an article might. So there’s much more flexibility and posts can range from pretty standard news updates to anything international-justice related that I find interesting.

Of course, in the blog I’m also able to inject some of my own thoughts and opinions. To be honest though, I try to keep this to a minimum. My main goal is to convey tribunal developments and issues surrounding the court to an international audience – not necessarily to weigh in on all of them.

Some say professional journalists and bloggers operate in separate worlds. Do you think journalists should embrace blogs more enthusiastically for reporting? Can blogging enhance traditional journalism?

Definitely. It’s silly to say professional journalists and bloggers operate in separate worlds because, really, a blog can be whatever you want it to be. It’s just a question of format. Many people seem to be under the impression that blogging is somehow inherently different from mainstream journalism and that blogs are synonymous with personal musings and ranting.

They can be used for these purposes, and that’s totally legitimate. However, they can also be used simply to report news or to supplement what appears in a publication’s print version.

Do you think blogging has potential as a “new face” of interactive journalism, in our age of Web 2.0, interactivity, and social networking websites?

I certainly think blogs are a convenient format for conveying news and ideas. Whether they will serve as spaces for valuable online interactivity and analysis, I’m not sure. We’ll have to wait and see how much substantive discussion they can foster.

Elena's musings can be read at The Tribunal Report.

Cambodia: Net commentators react to Kem Sokha's new Human Rights Party

Geoffrey Cain — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:45:20 +0000

Cambodian activist Kem Sokha kicked off his new Human Rights Party (HRP) last week with its first annual convention, promising a series of reforms for underrepresented and impoverished Cambodians. Over 10,000 supporters—driven in from all over the countryside—rallied behind the famed activist at the event. And, clad in yellow party t-shirts and waving their flags in allegiance to Sokha, the fan turnout exceeded the capacity of Phnom Penh’s colossal Olympic Stadium—a pleasant surprise in the Party’s expectations.

The convention, nonetheless, was quite a hit. In the following days, Sokha began calling the shots in The Cambodia Daily when he demanded political opposition leader Sam Rainsy prescribe to a new set of party standards. Most prominent on this list was a two-term limit for the Sam Rainsy Party’s (SRP’s) president, a flagship safeguard already institutionalized at the HRP and mimicking the U.S. system of presidency.

The demands have not gone without controversy, however, but have sparked a passionate debate between human rights guru Sokha and seasoned reform advocate Rainsy. While Sokha cited the convention’s vast turnout to establish leverage, Rainsy noted that he could easily topple such an event with his grassroots backing. And while Nguon Nhel of the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) boasted his lack of concern over the HRP, Sokha and Rainsy—perhaps the splintered opposition—continued their sparring match without regard to the CPP’s established dominance.

Sokha gained international recognition when he was arrested for defaming the Hun Sen regime at a protest in 2005. Shortly thereafter, he was released following a wave of condemnation from the international community. In 2007, he announced his intentions to reenter politics while president of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), an organization he founded.

Despite his platform of curtailing corruption and establishing better human rights standards, Sokha has been a controversial figure throughout the Cambodian blogosphere (which is, quite possibly, dominated by the SRP‘s educated urban demographic, whereas the HRP holds a stake in poorer rural areas). Popular Cambodian cartoonist Sacrava criticized Kem Sokha for supposedly helping Hun Sen at Cambodian Discussion (CAMDISC).

I’m sorry to say that Lauk Kem Sokha is just another new prop for Hun Sen’s background of its fake democracy. Drop your ego and your illution dream [sic] to win the election by your own team.

Sacrava’s statement mirrors the general sentiments of Cambodia’s small wired population, that Kem Sokha’s third party may divide the opposition even more and thus legitimize the CPP incumbency. Internet commentator James Sok soon replied to Sacrava, expanding this criticism to Cambodia’s general lineup of opposition forerunners.

Current Khmer politicians do not believe in national priority. They cannot win the election because: selfish leadership, narrow vision, poor organization, lacking real ideology, no trained membership, no supporting grassroots, lacking diplomatic support.

Less than two weeks after this exchange of commentary, Sokha and Rainsy fell into their beleaguered struggle. But one commentator on KI Media observed an earlier sibling-like relationship between Sokha and Rainsy and urged the two parties to stop fighting.

I was lucky to be invited by a friend to join a dinner with Sokha. I am the outsider and less interested in politics. However, I wanted to see Sokha in person. So I went. During the dinner Sokha got a phone call. Guess who? Rainsy called Sokha. They talked like brothers.

Now I don’t understand. They both exchanged words. And also you all here at KI comment exchanged words too. Please you all, both sides, get to know your boss a little more and you may find out something. I think they both play some kind of game here.

Blogging newcomer Scott from Scott in Cambodia notes some worry about the upcoming 2008 elections and the current political situation. While there is always bickering between parties like the HRP and SRP, he notes, Cambodians have historically resorted to violence in furthering their political agendas. And, regardless of the continuous political rhetoric pervading Cambodia, a country with such a tumultuous history has little chance of creating change through ballots thanks to the institutionalized corruption of Cambodian politics.

Most everything looks and seems okay. There are political parties - the CPP is the ruling party with Hun Sen as the Prime Minister, and Funcinpec is its main rival. Than at a distance there is the Sam Rainsy Party and the new Human Rights Party. There is usual and typical bickering between parties like live shells tossed back and forth. But this is a country whose political strife has usually been settled with violence.

The coming 2008 elections may be a turning point as to whether the HRP will help to further cement the CPP’s power or challenge it.

Cambodia: Blogs sharply criticize donor meetings

Geoffrey Cain — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:01:52 +0000

The international media, carefully following the recent meeting between Prime Minister Hun Sen and foreign donors, exploded in disdain this week over an “annual ritual” repeated yet again: Hun Sen promised to purge his government of corrupt officials, pleaded for more aid, and was granted his wish, without question, by the international donor community. The decision comes directly after a slew of charges against the Cambodian government, which includes evidence of illegal logging and severe human rights violations.

Dissident blog KI Media, citing a recent article in The Economist, noted Hun Sen’s insistence that he can receive aid from donor behemoth China, regardless of what other governments request.

Mr Hun Sen reminds Western donors that if they get too demanding, he can always rely on China to provide soft loans without strings. The big oil revenues that Cambodia will start earning in the next few years will also reduce foreign donors' leverage, laments Mr Illes.

Time Magazine ran a similar piece critical of both the Cambodian government and its donors. It, too, was cited on KI Media. And, similarly, oil was a key concern.

Further diluting international influence is the potential of oil and gas revenues to transform Cambodia's still largely agrarian economy. Two years ago, Chevron announced the discovery of offshore oil reserves in Cambodia. If natural-resources dollars do start flowing in 2010, as some expect, the country may for the first time enjoy a major revenue source that could help it stand on its own feet. Yet, in countries like Nigeria, oil money has only served to enrich a tiny minority while leaving the rest of the country impoverished. And the alternate source of income may only make it more difficult for Western efforts to tie aid to improved Cambodian governance.

Details are Sketchy cited the same article, but emphasized donors’ tendency to “save face” and stroke their egos when delegating funds. International aid to Cambodia has little to do with helping people, the blogger protests, but rather with big politics.

The spring of this cruel fate, it seems, is as simple as it is cynical: ego. Rich countries like to make themselves feel good by giving money to poor countries. Whether that money actually makes it into the hands of people who need it, or just gets pocketed by corrupt politicians and their corporate cronies, appears to make little difference. It’s the thought that counts.

The Cambodian blogosphere, strangely silent on politics, did not have much else to say recently. KI Media and Details are Sketchy—two of Cambodia’s most heavily charged political blogs—continued to follow suit this week with their sharp commentary.

Cambodia: Bloggers still skeptical of Khmer Rouge tribunal after agreement

Geoffrey Cain — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:29:23 +0000

After continuous delays in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia's (ECCC's) tribunal proceedings, the United Nations and the Cambodian Bar Association reached an agreement last week on how much the CBA can charge volunteer tribunal attorneys. Although this is a step forward in securing transitional justice for Cambodians, international bodies and the Cambodian government are still debating over when the actual trial will begin.

Cambodian bloggers, in response, are still skeptical over promises of reconciliation.

According to Details are Sketchy, the ECCC's endeavors will never be good enough to heal the trauma so engrained in Khmer society. The trial, likewise, should be considered purely a justice initiative, rather than a form of emotional therapy for victims.

Can a trial at this late stage ever hope to ease such venomous hatred? Probably not. For all the KRT hopes to contribute, it will never be able to completely slay the demons of Cambodia’s past. Only time can do that.

KI Media, citing Stanford Review writer Allison Rhines, notes that this agreement is merely a small step towards a grander agreement on the tribunal, and that more pressing issues sit on the table.

The registration fee dispute has been only one in a long string of many minor issues that have stalled progress toward an international trial for the last decade. Agreement on whether to organize a court to try the leaders of the Khmer Rouge was reached only in 2003, at the culmination of five years and eleven rounds of negotiations. Last summer, the UN officially allotted three years for the undertaking; almost a full year of that time has already been spent on bureaucratic hang-ups.

Rhines also observes a possible “foot-dragging” strategy on the part of the Cambodian government—perhaps a tactic for former Khmer Rouge officials currently in the government to avoid accountability for their crimes. She argues that the political rhetoric of “justice” is hindering any real push for reconciliation.

Since this latest milestone, all sides have publicly stated their commitment to justice; however, in the face of continued bureaucratic and political maneuvering, it is unclear just how genuine their commitments are.

The coming task is monumental: the ECCC's future meetings between international and local judges entail combing a list of over 100 laws, as tribunal blogger Stan Starygin notes in a recent Voice of America article. Cambodian judge You Bunleng assured the public that future talks are merely “technical discussions,” but bloggers are still questioning the extent of these discussions.

Similar meetings have failed to reach full agreement on the rules, which are imperative for the functioning of the courts. The latest round of talks only became possible after the Cambodian Bar Association relented on high fees for the participation of foreign lawyers, which had caused the UN-appointed international jurists to cancel a meeting at the end of May.

Political opposition leader Sam Rainsy also spoke out against the continued delays—perhaps a reflection of the current government’s affiliation with the Khmer Rouge regime—when he said that the Cambodian people require large-scale justice to move forward. According to Rainsy, Cambodia's genocidal shadow will not disappear as long as the CPP is in power.

…I have a little hope that our current Khmer leaders are willing to allow the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to proceed fairly. It means that only democrats and people who are not linked to the Khmer Rouge crimes and are not absorbed in Khmer Rouge ideologies can urge for the proceedings of the tribunal for the prosecution of the former Khmer Rouge leaders whose hands are stained with blood of Khmer citizens to move forward with transparency.

Time is running out for justice, Rainsy argues, because most older Khmer Rouge leaders will die soon.