Cambodia-US: Debt and War Compensation

Phnom Penh Post Newspaper, 14 December 2012 (Original Link)

Dear Editor,

There’s a Khmer saying that goes: “If you point your finger at others, the other four fingers actually point at yourself.”

During the landmark first visit by a serving US leader to Cambodia, America may have had no time to pay tribute to Norodom Sihanouk, the father of the Cambodian nation, but it didn’t forget to talk about Cambodia’s debt and preach to it about human rights.

Concerning the “bloody debt” that was perceived by most Cambodians, US ambassador to Cambodia William Todd recently made a further clarification that this perception was in fact based on “misunderstanding” and “misinformation” because the debt “arose from shipments of agri-cultural commodities”. Todd also described Cambodia as being “unwilling to pay” compared with, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a statement on February 14, 2008 by Kirk Miller, of the US Department of Agriculture, during a hearing before the House of Representatives, Cambodian officials had confirmed in writing in February, 2006 that Cambodia owed the US $162 million in principal. If interest is included, the total amount owed as of now may well have risen to approximately $400 million, as has been reported by the media.

We are not trying to shrug off the previous administration’s legacy and ignore our current human-rights situation, which is not perfect.

But to keep things on an equal basis, I believe many Cambodians would also want to hear the US talk about war compensation, an apology and its own human-rights practices in Cambodia during the early 1970s.

More than two million tonnes of bombs were dropped on Cambodian soil, and this act alone denied Cambodian people’s right to life itself. Was it not a human-rights issue when innocent Cambodians had to run for their lives to shelter from this carpet bombing?

If we make a simple calculation of the destructive power of one tonne of bombs, we can come up with a figure for the cost of this destruction that could easily exceed Cambodia’s debt of $400 million. Although it is perhaps an unfair comparison, the US is still in a better position than Cambodia because the debt is refundable, but the loss of the families of Cambodian people can never be refunded.

Nowadays  there is none of the “fog of war” that Robert S. McNamara, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon experienced during the 1970s. So, as a member of the post-war generation, I earnestly hope the US can view Cambodia in a better light and that it will try to understand more about Cambodia and its people by learning from the past so both nations can look forward to enhanced bilateral relations. Cambodian people can be very forgiving, but we will never forget the pain of our recent history.

ASEAN--Coolheaded Reset Required

Letter to Editor, Phnom Penh Post, 17 July 2012

Dear Editor

ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting ended in a blast without issuance of joint communique, which is unprecedented since its establishment in 1967. Some described it as “failure”, “disappointing” or “irresponsible” and the media seems to frame Cambodia, Chair of ASEAN, as the “China-follower culprit” in the drama of “black and white”.

But what is the basis of the judgment between “black and white”? Ultimately, those who wish to see ASEAN’s communique on South China Sea want to see ASEAN pointing finger at China as the “black actor”.

With strong frustration, some says that, rather than a small state like Cambodia, Indonesia might be able to handle the issue better. But this is doubtful considering the current tension and the multi-parties at stake. It is not about the Chair, it is about every member.

All ASEAN members share common desire to have peace and prosperity in the region. However, when come to this issue, each member has different position on how ASEAN should handle it. The media show only two sides, Cambodia versus the Philippines and Vietnam, but fall short to explore the remaining members even though they are aware that ASEAN acts on “Consensus”, and not by the Chair’s unilateral decision.

On one side, the position of the Philippines and Vietnam is that they want to peacefully contain China by the communique, which is regarded as an international pressure, in order to prevent China from taking aggressive action. They need “immediate painkiller”.

On the other hand, Cambodia fears that the above approach might produce adverse effect, which is to push China to the corner and the latter withdraws from dialogue. Cambodia puts priority on the formulation of the Code of Conduct so that the concerned parties can refer to when future friction arise. Cambodia prefers “vaccine” to direct confrontation.

History has shown that ASEAN is the best platform for dialogue. However, in terms of conflict resolution, ASEAN is not the place one should look to. It does not have such mechanism, not even among its members—for instance the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. Frustration always arises whenever one looks for ASEAN with such expectation. Rather than a Win-Lose parameter, ASEAN is at its best for the neutral platform of dialogue.

Even if ASEAN is often criticized as talk-shop, but the talk itself is crucial for conflict prevention. A blast of quarrel at the meeting table is far better than the blast of armed conflict.

The lesson from last week is that, for ASEAN, every voice counts. Now that the strong positions have already been expressed, it is now time for ASEAN to cool-headedly reset its discussion by exploring acceptable line between “painkiller” and “vaccine” without paralyzing its overall integration efforts.

Cambodia's Siding Story--Between China and the U.S.?

Letter to Editor, Phnom Penh Post Newspaper, 27 June 2012

Dear Editor,

Is Cambodia leaning toward China or the U.S.? For Cambodia’s context, this question was once buried with the end of Khmer Rouge regime. To simplify history, in 1960s, Cambodia was leaning toward China. In 1970s, Cambodia was leaning toward the U.S. Then, the next three decades, Cambodia plunged into civil war with millions suffered. That was the time the siding story disappeared.

To our anxiety, currently, this story seems to emerge again. With China’s rise through its economic prowess and its sizeable military spending on the one side, and the so-called “America’s Pacific Century” on the other side, the struggle for influence is heating up between the two powers.

Even though “neutrality and non-alignment ” is stipulated in Cambodia’s constitution, from the outside world, it is perceived differently providing the current scale of its bilateral relations with China vis-à-vis with the U.S.

Politically, as Cambodia is chairing ASEAN, although hilarious as it may be, rumor has it that “Cambodia forwards every document to China before meeting with ASEAN”. It is hard to believe that there are people who take this worst joke seriously when “Consensus” and “ASEAN-centrality” is core ASEAN’s trademark.

Economically, some people expressed serious concern about the influence of “Chinese capital” in Cambodia. But how many countries in the world that do not want Chinese capital amid Euro crisis and U.S.’ economic slowdown? In early June, Japan even started direct trading between Japanese yen and Chinese yuan. In market economy, as long as it does not affect national security interest, it would be hard to imagine any country restrict the number of their economic partners.

This shows how alarming the perception from the outside world. However, for Cambodia, we are not shaken because the 30 years dark history is still fresh. Experiences tell us that at time of civil war and at time of emergency, the siding story disappeared. Now, Cambodia is wishing that the siding story also disappears in time of peace.

Bid for Security Council has merit

Letter to Editor, Phnom Penh Post, 30 January 2012 (Original Link)

Dear Editor,

Having read Tony Guterres’ letter (Post, January 26), I would like to make the following comments.

First, it’s unfair, and too narrow a view, to evaluate Cambodia’s past co-operation with the UN in a few paragraphs. Twenty years of co-operation have brought many tangible benefits, from a democratic transition to socio-economic development and the building of human resources.

Many of the post-conflict nations where the UN has helped broker peace are still marred by divided armed factions, but Cambodia has developed not only its domestic well-being but has contributed to the international community by turning itself from a recipient country of peacekeeping forces to a dispatching country of such forces.

Second, the United Nations Security Council is not an exclusive club for perfect countries (if there is such a thing in this world). UN bodies belong to every member country. As such, they have a fair representation not only in terms of region but also level of development.

It’s common for member states to have different opinions from the UN, and UN bodies are not always right. The UN consists of many countries that naturally have their own agendas. Who would say UN was sane enough to recognise the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime after 1979?

Finally, having more than 100 countries support Cambodia’s candidature means they recognised Cambodia’s ability to represent the voice and interests of the many vulnerable countries in this world, and its ability to actively participate in maintaining peace and security in the world, based on its experiences in peacebuilding and national reconstruction.

Sim Vireak

-------------------------------------------------------

(Phnom Penh Post, 26 January 2012)

Security Council bid shameful

Tony Guterres

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Dear Editor,

I read in yesterday’s Phnom Penh Post that Prime Minister Hun Sen is still working hard on winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council for 2013-2014.

The Prime Minister talks about more than 100 countries apparently supporting such a bid.

    Those countries should be ashamed of themselves, given this government's actions over the past two years, which include:

• threatening to expel the highest-ranking United Nations official in the country (resident co-ordinator Douglas Broderick);
• threatening to close down the UN Human Rights office in this country;
•  requesting the removal of the UN Human Rights country director in Cambodia;
•  interfering in the proceedings of the UN-sponsored Khmer Rouge tribunal (the latest example being the saga regarding the appointment of Judge Kasper-Ansermet);
•  unlawfully incarcerating a UN employee for six months in a clear case of intimidation against the UN;
• violating the UN convention on the protection of refugees by deporting Uighur and Montagnard asylum-seekers;
• maintaining Cambodia among the most corrupt countries in the world (according to a Transparency International survey);
• maintaining Cambodia as the worst country on the rule-of-law index (as ranked by the World Justice Project);
• continuing a systematic campaign of unlawful evictions, land grabs and human-rights violations; and
• continuing its efforts to shrink the overall democratic space by clamping down on freedom of expression and the political opposition (as per today's Human Rights Watch classification of Cambodia as “not a free country”.

Giving Cambodia a seat on the UN Security Council at this time would translate into the UN endorsing and rewarding the government's "rogue" actions against UN institutions and principles.

The UN and its member states should uphold the values and principles of UN membership. Giving a seat to Cambodia would do the exact opposite.

The media needs to put the facts straight to avoid having such a surreal bid materialise.

Tony Guterres

Phnom Penh