By Tioulong Saumura
The effectiveness of international pressure intended to improve human
rights in Cambodia is being rightly questioned. As with other
authoritarian regimes, engagement could prove disappointing, but censure
or sanctions could be ineffective or even counterproductive.
High expectations for U.S. President Barack Obama’s scheduled visit
to Cambodia from Sunday to Tuesday need to be curbed. However, there are
avenues open for diplomats and advocates of democracy in this country.
In approaching the current Cambodian government, the key word is “legitimacy.”
What concerns Prime Minister Hun Sen the most is that forthcoming
national elections in July 2013 could lead to a loss of legitimacy for
his government if they are not seen as free and fair by international
standards.
Hun Sen knows that for the international community to view the 2013
elections as legitimate, the Phnom Penh government must implement the
recent U.N. recommendations relating to reform of the National Election
Committee (to make elections in Cambodia meet international standards)
and the safe return of opposition leader Sam Rainsy (allowing him to
take part in an inclusive election process).
The substance of the U.N. recommendations is reflected in resolutions
on Cambodia recently adopted by the Philippine Senate, the Australian
Senate, the European Parliament, and in the October 31 letter by a group
of prominent U.S. congressmen to Obama, urging him to insist on
democracy and human rights when visiting Cambodia later this month.
If there is no indication that the U.N. recommendations are to be
effectively and rapidly implemented, friendly democratic countries
should make it clear that they would not send any observer to monitor
next year’s elections, which will then be considered a sham.
In effect, the result of those elections has already been determined
through the manipulation of voting lists by the current NEC. There is no
point in any international observer going to the country to observe a
foregone conclusion. Moreover, the international community should make
it clear that any government stemming from such illegitimate elections
would be denied legitimacy and recognition and face international
isolation.
The international community is entitled to adopt such a position
given the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements on Cambodia, an international
treaty signed under the aegis of the U.N. that guarantees the country
“genuine elections” leading to “a system of liberal democracy, on the
basis of pluralism.”
Only the prospect of international isolation can push Hun Sen to
reverse his authoritarian drift and to show more respect for democratic
rules and principles.
Cambodia is too small a country, depending too heavily on
international assistance, trade preferences, debt forgiveness, new loans
and foreign investment, to be willing and able to face any form of
international isolation.
Moreover, Hun Sen’s pride and ego, his growing family ties and
connections with the Western world, and his apparent eagerness to be
more prominent among world leaders, make him dread the prospect of
isolation more than anyone else in Cambodia.
The only remedy to isolation is legitimacy.
Because they are the recognized bearer and defender of universal
values such as democracy and human rights, the West and its allies are
in the unique position to assess the legitimacy of questionable or
evolving regimes.
Isn’t the ability to deny, confer or condition legitimacy, part of
that “soft power” whose might could be greater than the power of the gun
or the power of money?
Tioulong Saumura is a member of Parliament for the Sam Rainsy Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment