Wonderful Kerry op-ed on the Cambodian War tribunals

[karynnj]

Thirty years after the Khmer Rouge slaughtered about 1.7 million people, Cambodians have received a small measure of justice. A joint Cambodian-United Nations (UN) tribunal this month found Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity -- the first conviction of a leading Khmer Rouge figure.
<snip>
Duch's conviction is a milestone for Cambodia. But the work of the tribunal is hardly finished, and the stakes for the Cambodian people are too high for the international community to walk away now. The next set of cases will be more complex and politically charged, testing the will of Cambodia and the international community. The four most senior surviving Khmer Rouge leaders are sitting in the docket: former President Khieu Samphan; the group's chief ideologue Nuon Chea; Foreign Minister Ieng Sary and his wife, Ieng Thirith. These are some of the architects of the brutalities committed against the Cambodian people during the disastrous rule of the Khmer Rouge.

But on the cusp of these trials, the tribunal's future is uncertain. With Duch's conviction, some contributors have been tempted to declare victory and go home. Donor support is flagging, and a $7 million funding gap has already emerged for the current fiscal year. This April, Cambodian staff at the court stopped receiving their salaries as the money ran out until Japanese donors stepped up in early July. Moving forward with what one U.S. expert rightly calls the "Nuremberg trial of Cambodia" will be difficult unless the tribunal is properly funded.
<snip>
Cambodia's courts suffer from a number of institutional and organizational shortcomings, and judicial proceedings are all too often politicized. Strengthening Cambodia's judiciary is a long-term undertaking, but the Khmer Rouge tribunal can accelerate the process of reform by demonstrating the virtues of judicial independence, fairness, and due process of law. The more Cambodians witness a higher standard of justice, the more they will be inclined to demand it in their own judicial system. If the tribunal can help catalyze domestic judicial reforms, that success would be among its most significant and lasting legacies.

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_15754546?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com#ixzz0wsYVTv9b


It was hard to get the full intent of the editorial - on the need for accountability on these war crimes and the possible influence on improving the Cambodian courts, after they see the impact of fair trials.

[karynnj]

1. Intereresting comments on Kerry's op-ed by the President of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights

This 4 paragraph op-ed by the President of the Centre for Human Rights explains the problems in the Cambodian justice system - that Kerry refers to in his op-ed - and puts them in a historical perspective. While agreeing with Kerry that KRT could lead to Cambodians demanding a fairer justice system. The President further argues that this will only happen if people move to demand it - something that has not happened yet. He reinforces Kerry's op-ed in saying that they need to maximize the effect of KRT.

In a recent opinion piece published in The Phnom Penh Post, United States Senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry noted the potential of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to leave a lasting legacy “by demonstrating the virtues of judicial independence, fairness and due process of law” (“More justice for cambodians”, August 16). The Cambodian Centre for Human Rights is a strong advocate for maximising the KRT’s positive impact on Cambodia’s wider justice system. In this regard, Senator Kerry touched on an important point: If the KRT’s positive impact is to be maximised, along with an increase in the judiciary’s ability to supply justice, there must be an increase in Cambodians’ demand for justice.

He then explains the problems in the current system and the history of where they come from:

Cambodia’s justice system was rebuilt in the 1980s based on the communist model of its Vietnamese patrons. As in other communist states, courts were established as legal institutions subservient to the ruling party, with no recognition of the concept of an independent judiciary or the separation of powers. Despite the introduction of a new Constitution in 1993, guaranteeing an independent and impartial judiciary, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party has been reluctant to abandon its one-party-state ideology and respect the Constitution. The courts remain a political tool. They are all too often used to silence criticism of the government by the media, opposition politicians and ordinary citizens. It is in this context that we must consider the potential legacy of the KRT.

He then makes the case that without the public demand for improved justice, the system will not get better. He argues that the KRT's effect must be maximized.

Senator Kerry posited that “the more Cambodians witness a higher standard of justice, the more they will be inclined to demand it in their own judicial system”. Without strong demand for an independent and impartial legal system from a broad section of society, efforts to develop the knowledge, capacity and resources of the judiciary are unlikely to benefit ordinary citizens. One could argue that such efforts will contribute to demand for change from within the judiciary and a greater pride in work, and will make it harder for wrongs to go unnoticed. On the other hand, such capacity building might be counterproductive to the cause of human rights, improving the sophistication of an institution used to persecute those perceived as opponents of Cambodia’s political and business elite and sharpening a tool of oppression.

The USAID-funded Programme on Rights and Justice has noted: “Despite widespread public dissatisfaction with Cambodia’s legal system, judicial reform has yet to move large constituencies of ordinary citizens or business people to mobilise and take corrective action.” It is essential to expand constituencies for legal and judicial reform beyond Phnom Penh-based NGOs, to include a broad cross-section of society. In order to encourage and empower such demand, the positive demonstration effect of the KRT must be maximised. This can only happen if it is viewed as a credible, independent institution and, further, if it implements legacy initiatives focused on sending clear messages to the Cambodian people about what real justice looks like. The KRT is not a magic cure. But it does have the potential to influence the demand for reform; focusing on supply alone could be a very big mistake.

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2010082541468/National-news/making-justice-relevant-for-all-cambodians.html