ASEAN: Speak out against Brunei barbarism

April 10, 2019

Bangkok Post /Share:

ttps://www.khmertimeskh.com/50594315/asean-speak-out-against-barbarism/

Wikipedia

While the world is fixated on Brunei’s plan to fully implement Islamic Sharia law, which will see draconian punishments such as stoning to death for offences such as adultery and sodomy, as well as amputation for theft, ASEAN has remained silent on the matter. How disappointing.

The other nine Asean member states so far have not voiced any concerns about the enforcement of the law to its full extent, which blatantly violates human rights. Even the regional rights advocacy agency attached to the bloc – the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) – has yet to issue any statement on the harsh penalties. Its complete inaction can be interpreted as nothing but indifference.

Brunei is a tiny but rich Muslim-majority ASEAN state with a population of 430,000, which is ruled by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, Asia’s last absolute monarch who is also the country’s prime minister.

. .

Last Saturday, Bandar Seri Begawan shrugged off global concerns, saying it will go ahead with the enforcement of full Sharia law that it first announced plans for in 2014. The implementation has been divided into three stages, and the government is set to go ahead with the final phase tomorrow.

In an announcement issued last week, Brunei’s prime minister’s office stressed that Brunei – as a sovereign and fully independent nation – has the right to “its own rule of law”.

The Muslim-majority state, which has always claimed that it practises a dual legal system based on Sharia law and British Common Law, has said that the two systems will continue to run in parallel with one another.

Prior to 2014, Brunei generally used legal principles derived from Sharia law only for issues relating to family, marriage and inheritance, while British Common Law formed the basis of its laws that dealt with everything else.

Since the outcry over its plan began, non-Muslim Bruneians and members of the international community have come out to criticise the law, saying that some aspects of the punishments are overly harsh, if not outright primitive.

. .

Last week, Hollywood actor George Clooney called for a boycott of hotels around the world that are linked to the Sultan of Brunei. He urged the public to join him to take a stand against such a brutal law, which he sees as tantamount to the “murder of innocent citizens”. The hotels mentioned by Mr Clooney are located in the US, Britain, France and Italy.

Later, British pop legend Elton John joined forces with Mr. Clooney to support the boycott.

The failure to take a stance against Brunei’s new penal code by other ASEAN countries is understood to be based on the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of other states”, which is the core principle of the bloc. The AICHR may have been obliged to behave under the same principle, which means that the AICHR cannot act without the full agreement of all 10 ASEAN members.

But saying nothing about the matter sends the wrong signal that Asean endorses such barbarism. The AICHR’s silence in particular gives the impression that its existence is simply unnecessary.

 

Cambodia–On what basis will there be reconciliation?

April 1, 2019

by Thomas Fowler

https://www.khmertimeskh.com

A few days ago, former parliamentarians of the late CNRP launched a call for national reconciliation, mentioning in particular the very short episode of the culture of dialogue. We can only rejoice at this state of mind that seems to mimic the CPP’s opponents.

Above all, Cambodia needs a form of democracy that is based on a desire for dialogue and a spirit of conciliation. The democracy of confrontation, with its winners and losers, so dear to Westerners – even if it offers for the moment rather puzzling examples as in Europe – is absolutely not what Cambodia needs.

Although today a very large majority of its population did not experience the extreme horrors of the 70s, Cambodia still keeps track of the traumas suffered and a collective memory forever marked by this dramatic past. All specialists of mass crimes agree that the victims’ children are also not immune to the shocks suffered by their parents.

..

The Cambodian human and social fabric is still fragile. The extraordinary erasure of knowledge inflicted by the men of Pol Pot, but also the propaganda of his movement that lasted until 1998 are not without consequences. The Cambodian population is a fertile ground for those who conceive politics as a call to passions, lies and radical behaviors. The conditions are in place to allow the demagogues to prosper and sow the seeds of division.

This is what we have known since the day Sam Rainsy began to poison the political life of this country. The only candidate, in 1993, to be blamed by UNTAC for his calls for racial hatred, he built his entire political career on the most hateful form of demagoguery – the one that made the success of a Hitler or a Le Pen in Europe both of whom designated a popular scapegoat for all the problems of the country.

Using ignorance of historical realities, neglecting no opportunity to falsify the past as the present, resorting to opposition to power that create a climate of civil war, insulting, slandering, Sam Rainsy is rapidly hysterical when it comes to political debate.

Don’t BULLY US– We are a sovereign Nation

With the support of Westerners, at all times careless of Cambodian realities, he has had considerable financial means to prosper in his political adventure. After unsuccessfully igniting the streets of Phnom Penh in 2013, he deigned to accept the prime minister’s proposal to practice a culture of dialogue. He sabotaged it, once obtained a reform of the electoral law he wished.

Everyone knows what followed. Today, some of those who have supported Sam Rainsy’s hateful practices speak of national reconciliation and a culture of dialogue. Very well! If there is in the opposition, including the former CNRP, women and men of goodwill, all the better. We can only rejoice. But we must glean from a quarter of a century of lessons why the attempt to establish a peaceful democracy failed.

..

What has been lacking in the Cambodian people and their political class since 1993 is a national consensus on a number of fundamental issues. The lack of unity of views on these issues has allowed demagogy to flourish. Cambodia offers the spectacle of a country that is not reconciled with itself on essential issues. This is the lesson of the past 25 years: a democracy cannot work if there is no agreement among all political sensitivities on a common denominator.

The Kingdom needs a national consensus on its past, on the territorial configuration of the country before and after colonization, on the reality of the March 18, 1970 coup, on all the crimes committed by Pol Pot’s gang, on the role of Vietnam in the liberation of the country, and on the true pacification of the country.

To question the borders resulting from colonisation is to deny not only the historical facts (Cambodia lost Kampuchea Krom before the arrival of the French and Koh Trâl because of the French), but also the international law and its principle of uti possidetis, however successfully invoked when it comes to the border with Thailand. This is the first essential consensus: to accept the borders of November 9, 1953, and to take into account the consequences of 30 years of war that require modest and balanced adjustments.

This is a historical fact: it was the 1970 coup that plunged the country into a civil, regional and international war in the end of which Polpotism triumphed. To recognize and accept this fact must help to turn the painful page of divisions between Cambodians who survived these events. It is a second constituent element of a necessary national consensus.

The Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot was the one who systematically organized the physical elimination of more than two million Khmers. Evidence has been gathered of the responsibility of this regime and its leaders for the innumerable crimes against humanity and genocide perpetrated against the Cambodian people, between April 17, 1975 and January 7, 1979. To deny it, to attribute it to other than to the Pol potists, is to insult the victims and the survivors and to rewrite history. The third consensus that Cambodian democracy needs is to recognize that fanatical Khmer people blinded by a mortifying ideology have massacred their own people.

..

The Pol potists launched in 1975 a war of aggression against the Vietnamese neighbor. For reasons of national security of its own and to answer the call for help from tens of thousands of Cambodians who fled to Vietnam, after failed negotiations during two and an half years followed by the rupture of diplomatic relations and the intensification of fighting, it ended Pol Pot’s regime by entering Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979.

Even though people may have a different opinion about what followed, there is no doubt that January 7, 1979 symbolizes the end of a regime of terror and massacres. Recognizing this fact is the fourth component of a necessary national consensus.

What followed was probably, for those who lived it, still too present to agree on a common appreciation and should therefore be restrained in political debates. As a fifth element of the common ground, it should not be difficult to unite all to recognize that the real pacification of the country took place at the end of December 1998.

And finally, to secure the future, an endorsement and commitment by all to give up the anti-democratic practices used by Sam Rainsy should be the sixth element of the political agreement sealing reconciliation.

How can national reconciliation and peaceful democracy be envisioned if those who govern and those who do not want a dialogue respecting mutual values do not agree on these six elements which constitute the historical and political heritage of Cambodia? Will the whole Cambodian political class have the wisdom to conclude a pact that recognizes these six elements of a national consensus and thus open a new era, looking to the future?

Thomas Fowler is a Cambodia watcher based in Phnom Penh.

Hun Sen addresses ousting of Prince Norodom Sihanouk in 1970

March 23,2019

by Ben Sokhean.www.khmer times.com

Prime Minister Hun Sen yesterday said that it was Khmer Republic President Marshal Lon Nol and his allies that ousted Prince Norodom Sihanouk in 1970.

During the height of the US’ war in Vietnam, members of the National Assembly voted to remove Prince Sihanouk from power as he was in Moscow, forcing him to create a government in exile in Beijing. They then appointed Marshal Lon Nol as President of the Khmer Republic.

Mr Hun Sen yesterday during a graduation ceremony said the ousting of Prince Sihanouk was a result of Cambodian leaders colluding with foreigners, referring to the United States.

..

Prime Minister Hun Sen says Lon Nol conspired to oust Prince Sihanouk.

“Even though there was a push from foreigners in 1970, had Lon Nol, Sisowath Sirik Matak […] not conspired to push for war and a takeover, the coup would not have occurred,” he said. “Whether the coup would succeed or not depended on internal factors.”

Lon Rith, son of Marshal Nol, on Wednesday during a Cross-Talk discussion with Khmer Times said the removal of Prince Sihanouk was a National Assembly decision.

“It was not [my father’s] decision, it was the decision of the National Assembly and the Cambodian people,” Mr Rith said. “They were no longer confident in Prince Sihanouk.”

The US embassy in Phnom Penh has denied ever being involved in a coup in Cambodia and accused China of supporting Pol Pot’s brutal Khmer Rouge regime.

The Chinese embassy responded by accusing the CIA of being involved in the removal of Prince Sihanouk from power.

Paul Chambers, lecturer at Naresuan University’s College of Asean Community Studies, yesterday said the CIA was very much involved in the ousting of Prince Sihanouk.

“The National Assembly voted to depose Sihanouk, allowing Lon Nol to assume power, but this was a mere post-facto formality,” Mr Chambers said, adding that Marshal Nol worked with Prince Sirik Matak to arrest Prince Sihanouk’s in-law, Oum Mannorine, on “trumped up charges”.

“With Oum Mannorine arrested, Lon Nol and Sirik Matak could control the armed forces,” he said. “Ultimately, blame for the coup falls on the feet of the US Central Intelligence Agency which had been plotting for years the overthrow or assassination of Sihanouk. The CIA code name for the 1970 coup operation in Cambodia was ‘Operation Sunshine Park’.”

Ou Chanrath, a former opposition party lawmaker, yesterday said regardless of who was behind the ousting of the prince, the Kingdom has yet to form a national consensus on the matter.

“It is a historic issue, we cannot say who is right or who is wrong,” Mr Chanrath said. “We are not clear whether the US was really behind the coup, but they did strongly support Lon Nol’s government later.”

..

 

 

Cambodia’s Foreign Policy: Sovereignty, Self-reliance and Diversification

March 14, 2019

By Chheang Vannarith

https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50586127/cambodias-foreign-policy-sovereignty-self-reliance-and-diversification/

The annual conference at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation last week highlighted three key words in the formulation of Cambodia’s foreign policy in the new era: sovereignty, self-reliance, and diversification.

Sovereignty has been regarded as the core principle and interest of foreign policy, especially amidst mounting diplomatic and economic pressures from the European Union.

Sovereignty has been regarded as the core principle and interest of foreign policy, especially amidst mounting diplomatic and economic pressures from the European Union. Prime Minister Hun Sen has continually stressed that Cambodia will never compromise or surrender sovereignty for foreign assistance. Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn has also emphasised that sovereignty is a matter of survival for Cambodia.

The concept of sovereignty is increasingly critical to the formulation of Cambodia’s foreign policy strategy and approach. Sovereignty is generally understood in the Cambodian context as the absolute, legitimate right exercised by an independent state over its territory and people, without external coercion or interference. Notably, resistance against foreign intervention is unprecedentedly high since the establishment of the Second Kingdom of Cambodia in 1993.

Protecting sovereignty is becoming more challenging for small states like Cambodia. Major powers are not keen to see small states stay neutral as they are willing to force small states to take sides if necessary. In the 1960s, Cambodia was forced to take sides, against its own will and interest.

Now Cambodia has ASEAN to help protect its sovereignty. However, the future ability of ASEAN to provide continued protection of sovereignty to its members is uncertain due to increasing pressure from major powers. ASEAN centrality is at greater risk in the context of heightening geopolitical rivalry between major powers.

Self-reliance and diversification are the two key strategies to protect the Kingdom’s sovereignty. Reducing dependence on foreign aid could help build economic independence and national resilience. And leadership does matter in promoting self-reliance.

Dependency syndrome on external support has trapped Cambodia for many centuries due to internal weaknesses and a lack of national reconciliation and unity. Beginning after the collapse of the Khmer Empire in the 15th century, Khmer rulers of the past sought support from foreign countries to protect or gain power. Since the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991, Cambodia has heavily relied on foreign donors for socio-economic development. In the 1990s, some even called Cambodia an “NGO-driven economy”.

Now it is necessary for Cambodia to recalibrate its political doctrine based on the concept of self-reliance, which is very much influenced by the Buddhist philosophy of life. Cambodia should not expect other countries to protect its interests and sovereignty; it needs to rely on itself. Realistically, no country or person is more invested in the interests of Cambodia than Cambodians themselves. Cambodia will be unable to maintain its sovereignty unless it is economically independent and resilient.

Diversification is another key term being used by Cambodian policy makers and analysts alike. There are three layers of diversification at the international, national, and local levels. Internationally, Cambodia needs to build more economic and strategic partnerships, expand export markets, and make new friends. The leadership of the Ministry of Commerce has the responsibility to diversify export markets through bilateral and multilateral trade deals. Remarkably, Cambodia does not have any bilateral free trade agreement with any country yet.

Diversification is another key term being used by Cambodian policy makers and analysts alike. There are three layers of diversification at the international, national, and local levels. Internationally, Cambodia needs to value add,build more economic and strategic partnerships, expand export markets, and make new friends. The leadership of the Ministry of Commerce has the responsibility to diversify export markets through bilateral and multilateral trade deals. Remarkably, Cambodia does not have any bilateral free trade agreement with any country.

Domestic economic success defines Cambodia’s role and image abroad. The success of Cambodia’s foreign policy largely depends on institutional reforms at home. There is a need to build a new generation of career diplomats who are capable of promoting Cambodia’s political, economic and cultural relations with other countries. Currently, the government gives priority to economic and cultural diplomacy.

At the national level, Cambodia has implemented institutional reforms to diversify its sources of growth and increase its productivity. Moving from labour-intensive industries to skill-driven industries or a knowledge-based economy is a must. Cambodia is running out of time to catch up with other regional economies, especially in the context of the fast-evolving Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Early this year, a working group on digital economy was formed to conduct studies and propose policy guidelines and action plans to direct Cambodia’s future economy. Cambodia could leapfrog its economic structure if it has the right leadership and policy. It is high time for Cambodia to undergo “institutional surgery” to cut off bad, infectious parts of the governance body.

At the local level, Cambodia needs to do much more to diversify its sources of funding and development partners. Fiscal decentralisation is critical to rural development and poverty reduction. Leadership and institutional capacity building for local governments is also required. Merit-based appointment of local bureaucrats must be encouraged, at the provincial, district, and commune levels.

Chheang Vannarith is President of Asian Vision Institute (AVI), based in Phnom Penh

 

 

EU- Cambodia Relations–The EU should do the right Thing– Respect Cambodia’s sovereignty

March 8, 2019

EU- Cambodia Relations

The EU should do the right thing– Respect Cambodia’s sovereignty

By Kimkong Heng

The European Union’s coercive measures or scare tactics do not seem to yield intended results as the Cambodian government refuses to give in to the EU’s demands for improving core human rights and labour rights in the Kingdom. Xinhua

https://www.khmertimeskh.com

Though the European Union could succeed in withdrawing Cambodia’s EBA status, the EU also has to be prepared to accept the fact that it could fail to reverse the perceived deterioration of human rights and democracy in the country, argues Kimkong Heng. 

The European Union (EU) and Cambodia are now engaged in what can be seen as a tug of war for influence and sovereignty, respectively. Despite unequal power relations, both sides are apparently trying to strengthen their stances against one another.

While the EU demands that the Cambodian government reverses Cambodia’s democratic drift and improve the country’s human and political rights situation, the Kingdom wants the EU not to interfere in its internal affairs. Both parties appear not to understand or seemingly ignore each other’s calls and look set to proceed with their own agendas, understanding, and assumptions.

..

In response to Cambodia’s crackdown on dissent and the dissolution of the leading opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), the EU announced last October that it would begin a formal process to withdraw its Everything But Arms (EBA) trade scheme from Cambodia. On February 11, it kicked off a six-month period of intensive monitoring and engagement that could lead to the temporary suspension of Cambodia’s preferential, tariff-free access to the EU market. The EU stated that the removal of Cambodia’s EBA status is only “the option of last resort”.

Cambodia has firmly responded to the EU’s EBA threat. The country has condemned the EU’s demands, regarding it as an “extreme injustice” and “acts of interference” in Cambodia’s domestic affairs. Prime Minister Hun Sen has repeatedly maintained that Cambodia will not “exchange national sovereignty with aid”.

As it now stands, the EU seems to have no other choice but to eventually withdraw its trade privileges from Cambodia, if no concrete measures are taken by the Cambodian government to address the EU’s concerns and demands. The Kingdom, however, is presented with limited options and the lack of willingness to manage the EU’s demands is because Cambodia views such actions as a practice of “double standards”.

Thus, while the world’s largest trading bloc criticizes the Southeast Asian nation for engaging in human rights violations, the latter sees such criticism as an injustice and interference. Each side no doubt sees the same issue from different angles, the result of which is a failure to engage in channels of dialogue at both bilateral and multilateral levels.

In this regard, it seems sensible that both parties take a step back and rethink their own approach. The EU’s coercive measures or scare tactics do not seem to yield intended results as the Cambodian government refuses to give in to the EU’s demands for improving core human rights and labour rights in the Kingdom. Cambodia’s “sovereignty-maintaining approach” does not seem to turn out to be effective, either.

..

If both sides proceed with their plans and stick to their own terms, it will lead to a lose-lose scenario that is in no one’s interests. Clearly the suspension of Cambodia’s EBA status will definitely damage relations between Cambodia and the EU. Cambodia will draw closer to China, its closest ally and largest economic and military benefactor, at the expense of its relations with the West. The EU, together with the United States, surely would not want Cambodia to alienate them and fully embrace Beijing.

Cambodia also does not want to break with the West, but the incumbent government led by the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) seems to have other more important priorities than its diplomatic relations with the EU and the US. Political domination and maintenance of peace and sovereignty are seen as number one priorities for the CPP-led government.

As argued in a recent article in the Bangkok Post, the CPP is “willing to lose the EBA status in exchange for getting rid of the opposition party” so that its dominance in Cambodian politics will not be undermined. This statement has implications for the EU.

Rather than moving ahead with its forceful approach to suspend Cambodia’s EBA trade benefits, the EU should perhaps consider alternative measures that would have consequences for the ruling elites, not the ordinary Cambodians. It is agreeable that withdrawing Cambodia’s EBA privileges will most likely have negative impacts on nearly one million Cambodian garment workers, most of whom are women. The chance that such measures would adversely affect the financial standing of the CPP elites is slim.

Thus, it is arguably more judicious that the EU direct its actions toward the CPP leadership rather than threaten the mainstay of Cambodia’s economy. The EU should try to understand Cambodia and what Hun Sen’s government wants and is willing to lose. For the time being, losing the EBA benefits perhaps does not cause great concern for the Cambodian government in the same way as losing votes and political domination.

..

Whether one likes it or not, a warning by Prime Minister Hun Sen that the withdrawal of EBA scheme from Cambodia could amount to the West’s third mistake may become true, if the EU succeeds in withdrawing the Kingdom’s EBA status but fails to reverse the perceived deterioration of human rights and democracy in this Asian country.

The EU, taking into account this scenario, may consider rethinking its approach to dealing with Cambodia. Instead of jeopardizing its relations with the Kingdom and compelling this small and open economy to have no hesitation in further embracing China, the EU as a major international actor has the responsibility to bring about hope and prosperity to people of all nations, and Cambodians are no exception.

Kimkong Heng is a doctoral candidate at the University of Queensland and a recipient of the Australia Awards Scholarship.

 

Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn slams EU over EBA’s review

March 5, 2019

Cambodia –EU Relations

Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn slams EU over EBA’s review

Ben Sokhean / Khmer Times

https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50584031/prak-sokhonn-slams-eu-over-ebas-review/

Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn, speaking to Cambodia’s Ambassadors, Permanent Representatives and Consuls  General in an annual conference at ministry’s office in Phnom Penh on Tuesday. KT/ Chor Sokunthea

Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn has lambasted  the European Union for applying a double standard with Cambodia over a review of Every Thing but arms preferential status, saying that they failed to act against Laos and Myanmar.

Speaking to dozens of Cambodia’s Ambassadors, Permanent Representatives and Consuls Generals in an annual conference at ministry office in Phnom Penh on Tuesday, Mr Sokhonn said that the EU acted improperly against the Kingdom.

“I want to say double standards because they use this issue to pressure Cambodia. We can say that they behave improperly,” Mr Sokhonn said, referring to the EU’s move to review the Kingdom’s EBA access.

He said that he discussed with EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström about more than 800,000 workers and two million other people who received benefit from garment sector in Brussels in January.

“Ms Malmström raised about pluralism as she accused us of dissolving the CNRP, so she meant it is no longer pluralism in Cambodia.”

Mr Sokhonn said that the EU failed to act against Laos and Myanmar.

“Laos has the EBA like us. If we talk about pluralism, is Laos a pluralism country? Why don’t you pressure Laos? Why do you still keep the EBA for Laos?”, Mr Sokhonn said, noting that bilateral free trade agreement between the EU and Vietnam has still existed even though Vietnam is a one-party system.

“They close their eyes not to see the government’s achievement. They want to see a perfect democracy,” he said. “Myanmar is also threatened to be sanctioned by the EU but so far they have not taken any action against that country.”

..

“Why don’t they do something against Laos and Myanmar,” Mr Sokhonn inquired.