August 12, 2009
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)
After three years, eight months and 20 days of the Khmer Rouge's brutal rule, during which 1.7 million Cambodians lost their lives, the signing of the 1991 Paris Peace Accords offered Cambodia and her people a respite from suffering and the destruction, and the promise of a bright future.
The Paris Conference's Final Act, signed on Oct. 23, 1991, by representatives of 18 governments (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam with the participation of officials from Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia representing the non-aligned movement and the United Nations Secretary-General and his representative) contains a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian conflict: a settlement that provides for a constitution based on democratic principles; the recognition of the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia; and provisions for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country.
The accords offered a foundation for liberal democracy and for human rights and freedom of the Cambodian people.
But the accords are only words on paper. Short of implementation, they are all but meaningless.
Liberal democracy and rights and freedoms do not appear automatically. Man has to work to bring them about. The creation of a framework incorporating three branches of government with limits on the powers of each does not mean a system of checks and balances is established -- not if, in spite of their institution, one man or group of men dominates, influences, pulls strings from above.
Take the case of today's Cambodian system of government. James Madison would call it "tyranny" because one man, Hun Sen, the chief executive, and a group of men, the Cambodian People's Party, his party, control all three branches of government, making a mockery of international norms for an independent legislature and judiciary.
Following the signing of the accords, there were lavish self-congratulations and the touting of Cambodia's transformation as a "success story." Yet, the Cambodian People's Party, brought to power by Vietnam's 1978 military invasion, and propped up, since the 1979 routing of Pol Pot by Vietnam's troops, busily built its party power structures, organization and discipline, and forcefully pushed party interests ahead of the nation's interest.
The first UN-supervised 1993 general elections gave the mandate to govern to the democratically elected victor, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, but the CPP and Sen demanded that Sen, who lost the elections, be made co-prime minister of Cambodia, and that existing governing state institutions be co-governed.
And so, the country had a two-headed government, two armies, two systems, two policies. The 1997 military coup launched by Sen killed many and sent Ranariddh and his loyalists fleeing the country. This happened before the eyes of state signatories of the accords and of the United Nations.
American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. said: "The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." And British political philosopher Edmund Burke said: "All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Nearly 18 years after the accords, Cambodia has not become a liberal democracy nor do her people enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms. The failure has been a collective one, with Cambodians unable to work together and signatory governments' Cambodia fatigue leading them to want a semblance of political stability, even if they must turn a blind eye to rights violations.
It's in human nature in general to deny one's culpability in an unpleasant situation and to blame others for it. Yet each day that passes is one more day too many for the Cambodian people and their country to be denied what the accords promised.
Furthermore, an issue that could result in a hot war between Cambodian and Thai troops, neighbors to the west, over the Preah Vihear temple, has been left unsolved as soldiers eyeball each other, their fingers on the trigger, separated by only a few hundred yards. The accords' signatory states agreed to the maintenance, preservation and defense of Cambodia's sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity. What does a bubbling conflict mean to them?
For the moment, absent open warfare, the world is content to let Cambodia remain under the control of a corrupt dictator. Still, in an authoritarian atmosphere, stable commerce cannot be expected to flourish; the economy will continue to benefit the few and consign the majority to the poverty that has become their norm.
There cannot be liberal democracy where fundamental rights and freedoms are not allowed. Innovation must be encouraged. "Outside the box" thinking must flourish; people must have the hope that the power to improve their circumstances is within their grasp.
After Cambodians learn to reconcile with one another, unlearn a culture that harbors generational memories of slights and disrespect, and move forward with self confidence, they may recall Buddha's teachings and practice them. At that juncture, the world community may feel it is in its interest to renew a commitment made long ago to Cambodia and her people.
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.
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)
After three years, eight months and 20 days of the Khmer Rouge's brutal rule, during which 1.7 million Cambodians lost their lives, the signing of the 1991 Paris Peace Accords offered Cambodia and her people a respite from suffering and the destruction, and the promise of a bright future.
The Paris Conference's Final Act, signed on Oct. 23, 1991, by representatives of 18 governments (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam with the participation of officials from Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia representing the non-aligned movement and the United Nations Secretary-General and his representative) contains a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian conflict: a settlement that provides for a constitution based on democratic principles; the recognition of the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia; and provisions for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country.
The accords offered a foundation for liberal democracy and for human rights and freedom of the Cambodian people.
But the accords are only words on paper. Short of implementation, they are all but meaningless.
Liberal democracy and rights and freedoms do not appear automatically. Man has to work to bring them about. The creation of a framework incorporating three branches of government with limits on the powers of each does not mean a system of checks and balances is established -- not if, in spite of their institution, one man or group of men dominates, influences, pulls strings from above.
Take the case of today's Cambodian system of government. James Madison would call it "tyranny" because one man, Hun Sen, the chief executive, and a group of men, the Cambodian People's Party, his party, control all three branches of government, making a mockery of international norms for an independent legislature and judiciary.
Following the signing of the accords, there were lavish self-congratulations and the touting of Cambodia's transformation as a "success story." Yet, the Cambodian People's Party, brought to power by Vietnam's 1978 military invasion, and propped up, since the 1979 routing of Pol Pot by Vietnam's troops, busily built its party power structures, organization and discipline, and forcefully pushed party interests ahead of the nation's interest.
The first UN-supervised 1993 general elections gave the mandate to govern to the democratically elected victor, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, but the CPP and Sen demanded that Sen, who lost the elections, be made co-prime minister of Cambodia, and that existing governing state institutions be co-governed.
And so, the country had a two-headed government, two armies, two systems, two policies. The 1997 military coup launched by Sen killed many and sent Ranariddh and his loyalists fleeing the country. This happened before the eyes of state signatories of the accords and of the United Nations.
American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. said: "The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." And British political philosopher Edmund Burke said: "All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Nearly 18 years after the accords, Cambodia has not become a liberal democracy nor do her people enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms. The failure has been a collective one, with Cambodians unable to work together and signatory governments' Cambodia fatigue leading them to want a semblance of political stability, even if they must turn a blind eye to rights violations.
It's in human nature in general to deny one's culpability in an unpleasant situation and to blame others for it. Yet each day that passes is one more day too many for the Cambodian people and their country to be denied what the accords promised.
Furthermore, an issue that could result in a hot war between Cambodian and Thai troops, neighbors to the west, over the Preah Vihear temple, has been left unsolved as soldiers eyeball each other, their fingers on the trigger, separated by only a few hundred yards. The accords' signatory states agreed to the maintenance, preservation and defense of Cambodia's sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity. What does a bubbling conflict mean to them?
For the moment, absent open warfare, the world is content to let Cambodia remain under the control of a corrupt dictator. Still, in an authoritarian atmosphere, stable commerce cannot be expected to flourish; the economy will continue to benefit the few and consign the majority to the poverty that has become their norm.
There cannot be liberal democracy where fundamental rights and freedoms are not allowed. Innovation must be encouraged. "Outside the box" thinking must flourish; people must have the hope that the power to improve their circumstances is within their grasp.
After Cambodians learn to reconcile with one another, unlearn a culture that harbors generational memories of slights and disrespect, and move forward with self confidence, they may recall Buddha's teachings and practice them. At that juncture, the world community may feel it is in its interest to renew a commitment made long ago to Cambodia and her people.
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.
1 comment:
Well said. A rational, intelligent voice brave enough to enter dialogue rather than throw racist, thuggish comments from behind the anonymity of the Internet.
Post a Comment