Monday, June 4, 2012

Commentary: Human Rights Watch versus voters’ rights


Commentary

Human Rights Watch versus voters’ rights

If people in foreign lands didn’t know that Cambodia was about to have an election, those who understand NGO “human rights” propaganda could have found out by reading an article by Human Rights Watch Asia director Brad Adams in the International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the New York Times).

Not that the article mentioned the commune-sangkat elections. That is not the method of Adams or HRW. The last thing they would want is to call attention to such a democratic procedure in Cambodia. But, knowing that the elections will attract widespread interest, HRW obviously thought it might be able to divert attention, and possibly even discredit the elections, with a sufficiently scurrilous and hysterical attack on Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Therefore, Adams’ article, which consisted almost entirely of abuse that has been repeated many times before, and which would be just as (ir) relevant at any other time, was carefully timed to allow it to be reprinted in Cambodia just before the election. An English-language mini-newspaper even swallowed the bait.

Adams was the obvious candidate to write the diversion, because his willingness to do almost anything to vent his hatred of Hun Sen is legendary. My own first encounter with this occurred a decade ago, when Adams published in the Phnom Penh Post (13-26 September 2002) an article attacking Hun Sen, which Adams claimed was based on the Thai government’s “official record” of a May 1998 meeting between Hun Sen and the then prime minister of Thailand. As the reproduction in the Post made obvious, Adams’ “official record” was anything but that: it consisted of clumsily pasted together papers, written in bad English, not Thai, with no government logo, signature or authorisation of any kind. This was pointed out in a subsequent letter to the Post, but Adams never retracted nor attempted to justify his “official record”.

The attitude revealed in that incident – if the rest of the world doesn’t agree with Adams’ view of reality, then there is something wrong with the rest of the world – is evident in his latest attack. Adams begins by reproaching the world for the fact that Hun Sen is “[o]ften overlooked in discussions about the world’s most notorious autocrats”. Most rational people would conclude from that that most of the world doesn’t regard Hun Sen as a notorious autocrat. Not Adams.

Adams has what he considers a better argument: dictators who had been in power for a long time have recently been overthrown in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Hun Sen has also been in power for a long time. Therefore … therefore what?

Adams must be getting frustrated at tripping over his own illogic, so he launches into wholesale abuse of Hun Sen based on a very jaundiced view of Cambodian history. For a start, what, in Adams’ view, happened in Cambodia between 1977 and the arrival of UNTAC? Nothing at all, to judge from his article. The Khmer Rouge period has to be mentioned so that Hun Sen can be called “a former Khmer Rouge commander”. Then there is a necessary leap 15 years into the future.

The leap is needed in order to avoid mentioning that Hun Sen risked his life to help overthrow the KR – a rather more impressive record of defence of human rights than the badly written, illogical and inaccurate scribblings of Brad Adams. Furthermore, the decade of the 1980s, which Adams skips over without a mention, was when the government of which Hun Sen was part, and which he headed from 1985, was leading the rebuilding of the country in extremely difficult conditions of an international boycott that resulted in nearly all UN assistance for Cambodia going to the KR and other opposition camps in Thailand. It is not excluded that Helsinki Watch (the previous name of HRW) may have issued a press release saying “tut-tut” about this, but I am not aware of it conducting any major campaign on behalf of the human rights of the Cambodian population in this instance.

Once he gets to the 1990s, Adams feels free to let the ammunition fly. Since the arrival of UNTAC, everything that has really gone wrong, plus everything that somebody has said has gone wrong or anything that Adams might imagine has gone wrong, is the fault of Hun Sen. This is typical: “... when the then largest-ever United Nations peacekeeping force entered Cambodia to implement the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements, Hun Sen and his party mobilized the security forces to intimidate and attack opposition party members”.

How’s that? The CPP government led by Hun Sen was running the country. According to Adams, it wanted to attack opposition party members. Therefore, it waited to do so until “the then largest-ever United Nations peacekeeping force” entered the country? What are we supposed to conclude? That the CPP government couldn’t suppress its opponents if it wanted to until the UN peacekeeping force rounded up opposition party members and handed them over to Hun Sen to be intimidated and attacked?

Adams never tires of such nonsense. For example: “Hun Sen has proven ... able to keep his domestic opponents and international critics off balance. His main tactic has been the threat and use of force.” It might be conceivable that domestic opponents could be intimidated. But “international critics”? Have the US or EU been afraid to raise their voices because of the fear of a Cambodian invasion? Has HRW? Has Brad Adams gone into hiding?

The point of all Adams’ blather is to discredit not only the current commune-sangkat elections but also past and future national elections. He says nothing about the UN-run 1993 elections, in which there were many serious challenges regarding particular incidents, because in those elections the CPP came second. Instead, he focuses on 1998, when the CPP came first and there were demonstrations in Phnom Penh against the results of the election, his implication being that “of course” the protesters were right. What Adams neglects to mention is that even the International Republican Institute (IRI) observers of that election, while critical of the prior political atmosphere, found nothing serious to object to in the conduct of the election or the counting of the ballots.

As for subsequent general and commune-sangkat elections, they have been closely observed and generally approved by both international and national observers. In the current election campaign, all 10 parties have been given 12 minutes of free radio and TV time every day to present their message. Similar free time was provided in previous elections. But Adams simply denies reality (again), saying: “The country goes through the trauma of manipulated elections every five years in which no one imagines that the vote will be free and fair ...”

What “manipulated” really means here is that Cambodians have a habit of not voting in the way Adams and HRW think they should. And it is likely to get worse, from their standpoint. A Gallup poll last month found a 93 percent approval rating for Prime Minister Hun Sen. According to an IRI poll in December, 81% of respondents believed that the country was generally “moving in the right direction”. And 67% indicated that they would probably vote for the CPP in the commune-sangkat elections (compared with 58% who did so in the 2008 general election).

Maybe, instead of trying to misrepresent or belittle Cambodian voters’ decisions, HRW should respect their vote. That would be more appropriate behaviour for an organisation that has “human rights” in its name.

Comment by Allen Myers

04 June 2012

បទអត្ថាធិប្បាយ៖ ចាញ់​ឆ្នោត​ស្រែក​ថា អយុត្តិធម៌ នេះ​ គឺជា​ទម្លាប់​របស់​បក្ស​ប្រឆាំង​ ​


បទអត្ថាធិប្បាយ

ចាញ់ឆ្នោតស្រែកថា អយុត្តិធម៌ នេះគឺជាទម្លាប់របស់បក្សប្រឆាំង​ ​

          ជាលទ្ធផលបណ្តោះអាសន្នក្រៅផ្លូវការ បានបង្ហាញថា « គណបក្សប្រជាជន កម្ពុជា ទទួលបាន សម្លេងឆ្នោតគាំទ្រពីប្រជាពលរដ្ឋដ៏ច្រើនលើសលប់នាំមុខគេក្នុង​ ការ បោះឆ្នោត ជ្រើស រើស ក្រុមប្រឹក្សា​​ឃុំ សង្កាត់អាណត្តិទី៣នេះគឺឈ្នះដាច់លើគណបក្សដទៃផ្សេងទៀត ដោយ​ កាន់កាប់បានចំនួន​​១៥៨៩ ក្នុងចំណោម ឃុំ សង្កាត់ចំនួន១៦៣៣នៅទូទាំងប្រទេស ចំណែកឯ​ឃុំ​ សង្កាត់​ដែលនៅសល់​ចំនួន​៤៤ទៀត​ បាន​ទៅ​គណបក្ស​ផ្សេង​។
          គ្រាន់​តែនៅ​រាជ​ធានីភ្នំពេញ​ គណបក្ស​ប្រជាជន​កម្ពុជា​ដណ្តើម​បាន​សង្កាត់​ចំ​នួន​៣ ដែល​គណបក្ស​សម​ រង្ស៊ី បាន​ឈ្នះ​ក្នុង​អាណត្តិមុន​។ លទ្ធផល​នេះ​បាន​ធ្វើ​ឱ្យ​គណបក្ស​ប្រជាជន​កម្ពុជា​ដឹក​នាំ​ធ្វើ​ចៅ​សង្កាត់​ទាំង​៩៦ នៅ​ក្នុង​រាជ​ធានីភ្នំ​ពេញ​។
          បើធៀប​ទៅ​នឹង​ការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​ជ្រើសរើសក្រុម​ប្រឹក្សាឃុំ សង្កាត់ កាលពី​ឆ្នាំ២០០៧ គណបក្ស​ប្រជាជន​កម្ពុជា​ទទួល​បាន​សម្លេង​ឆ្នោត​​គាំទ្រកើន​ឡើង​ជាង​១ភាគរយនៅ​ទូ​ទាំងប្រទេស គឺ​ប្រជាពល​រដ្ឋដែល​បានបោះឆ្នោត​ជូន​គណបក្សប្រជាជន​កម្ពុជាមាន​រហូត​ដល់​ជាង៣លាននាក់។​
          បើ​ទោះបី​ជា​មិន​ទាន់​មាន​ការ​ប្រកាសលទ្ធផល​ឆ្នោត​ជា​ផ្លូវ​ការ ដោយ​គណៈកម្មាធិការជាតិ​រៀបចំ​ការ​​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​ដ៏ដោយ​ ប៉ុន្តែ លទ្ធផលក្រៅ​ផ្លូវ​ការនេះ គឺត្រូវ​បានទទួល​ការ​​​ស្វាគមន៍​ពី​សំ​ណាក់​គណបក្សប្រជាជន​កម្ពុជា​ដែល​មានប្រៀប​ជាង​គេ រី​ឯគណបក្សសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស​បាន​សម្តែង​នូវ​ការរីករាយ​ ដោយ​​សារ​បក្សរបស់​ខ្លួន​បានឈ្នះ​តំ​ណែង​មេឃុំនៅ​តាម​ខេត្តមួយ​ចំ​នួន​ ដោយ​ឡែក​គណបក្ស​ សម រង្ស៊ីវិញ​​ស្រែក​ថា ការ​បោះឆ្នោត​នេះ​ គឺមាន​ស្ថានភាព​អាក្រក់​បំ​ផុត​ និង​ថា​ការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​លើក​នេះ​មាន​ភាព​មិន​ប្រក្រតី​ជាង​ពេល​ណាៗទាំងអស់។
 គណបក្ស​សម រង្ស៊ី បាន​ត្រឹម​តែ២៣ ឃុំ សង្កាត់​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ​ ដោយ​ត្រូវ​បាត់​បង់​ចំ​នួន​៥ភាគរយ​ បើ​ធៀប​នឹង​​ឆ្នាំ២០០៧ ដែល​គណបក្សប្រឆាំង​មួយ​នេះធ្លាប់​​បាន​ទទួល​ឃុំ​សង្កាត់​នៅ​ទូ​ទាំង​ប្រទេស​ចំ​នួ​ន​​២៨។ ដោយ​​ឡែក​គណបក្សសិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​វិញអាច​នឹង​ទទួល​បាន​ដំ​ណែង​ជាមេឃុំ​ចៅ​សង្កាត់​​ចំ​នួន​២០។
          បន្ទាប់​ពី​ដឹង​ថា​ បក្ស​សម រង្ស៊ី​ចាញ់​ឆ្នោត ភ្លាម​ៗទាំង​លោក គង់​គាំ ប្រធាន​ស្តី​ទី​ និង​លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ អ្នក​នាំពាក្យ​គណបក្ស​សម រង្ស៊ី ស្រែក​ឡាំប៉ានិង​បាន​ប្រកាសច្រាន​ចោល​លទ្ធផល​នៃ​ការ​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​នេះ​។ ​វាបាន​ក្លាយ​ទៅ​ជាប្រពៃណី ​វប្ប​ធម៌របស់​បក្ស​ប្រឆាំង​នៅ​លើពិភព​លោកទៅ​ហើយ​ គឺនៅ​ពេល​ដែល​ខ្លួន​ចាញ់​ឆ្នោត​តែង​តែ​លើក​ហេតុ​ផលនេះ​ ហេតុ​ផល​នោះ​មិន​ចេះ​ចប់​។
          ចំ​ពោះ​ ការ​រិះ​គន់​របស់​គណបក្ស​ប្រឆាំង​អំពីភាព​មិន​ប្រក្រតី​ ដែល​ថា​ ការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​នេះ​មាន​ឈ្មោះស្ទួន​ក្នុង​បញ្ជី និង​ចោទ​ថា មានពល​រដ្ឋមួយ​ចំ​នួន​បាន​បោះ​ឆ្នោតជា​ច្រើន​ដង​ក្នុង​ថ្ងៃតែ​មួយនោះ គឺជាការ​ភូកុហក់ មួល​បំ​ភ្លៃខុសពី​ការពិត​ទាំងស្រុង ពីព្រោះ​  ពល​រដ្ឋម្ចាស់​ឆ្នោត​គ្រប់​រូប​ គឺមាន​សិទ្ធិ​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​បាន​តែម្តង​គត់​ ហើយ​ត្រូវ​បាន​ជ្រលក់​ទឹក​ខ្មៅរបស់​គណៈកម្មាធិការ​ជាតិ​រៀប​ចំ​ការបោះ​ឆ្នោ​ត(..)​ ជាប់​ចង្អុល​ដៃ មិន​អាច​លាង​ជម្រះ​បាន​ដោយ​ងាយនោះ​ទេ ដែល​ខុសពី​ទឹក​ខ្មៅ​របស់​អ៊ុន តាក់។
            ជាទិដ្ឋភាពរួម​​ ការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​ជ្រើសរើសក្រុម​ប្រឹក្សាឃុំ សង្កាត់ កាល​ពី​ថ្ងៃទី​៣ ខែ មិថុនា ឆ្នាំ ២០១២ គឺ​បាន​ប្រព្រឹត្ត​ទៅក្នុង​បរិយាកាសល្អ​ប្រសើរណាស់ គឺគ្មានភាព​​មិន​ប្រក្រតី​ណាមួយ​ប៉ះ​ពាល់​មកលើ​លទ្ធផល​នៃការ​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​នេះ​ទេ។
          សូម្បី​តែអង្គការ​សង្គម​ស៊ីវិល​មួយ​ចំ​នួនដែល​​ធ្លាប់តែ​រិះ​គន់ ​អំពីដំ​ណើរការ​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​ជាច្រើន​អាណត្តិ​មកនោះ​​ ក៏បាន​សំ​ដែង​នូវ​ការពេញ​ចិត្តចំ​ពោះការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​នេះ​ដែរ ជាក់​ស្តែង​ អង្គការ​ ខុមហ្រ្វែល បានហៅ​ដំ​ណើរការ​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​ឆ្នាំ២០១២នេះ ថា បាន​ប្រព្រឹត្តទៅ​​ដោយ​សន្តិភាព​ មិន​មាន​អំពើហឹង្សាធ្ងន់​ធ្ងរដែល​​ធ្វើ​អោយ​ប៉ះ​ពាល់ដល់​ដំ​ណើរការ​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​ទេ គឺពិនិត្យ​ឃើញ​ថា​ មាន​ភាព​រលូន ខុសប្លែក​ពី​លោក​យឹម សុវណ្ណ នៃ​​គណបក្ស​សម រង្ស៊ី ដែល​ចាញ់​ឆ្នោត​ហើយ ស្រែក​ទាម​ទារឱ្យ​មានការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​សារជាថ្មី។
          ទោះយ៉ាង​ណា​ លទ្ធផលនៃការ​​បោះ​ឆ្នោត​នេះ​ បាន​បង្ហាញ​​អំពី​ភាព​សេរី​ ត្រឹម​ត្រូវ និង​យុត្តិ​ធម៌ និង​តម្លាភាព​ និង​បាន​បញ្ជាក់​យ៉ាង​ច្បាស់​អំពី​ដំ​ណើរការ​លទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ​នៅ​កម្ពុជា​ គឺ​​កាន់​តែ​មាន​ការរីកចំ​រើន​ និង​​ចាក់ឬសកាន់​តែជ្រៅទៅ​ៗនៅ​ក្នុង​សង្គម​កម្ពុជា​ ហើយ​នេះ​ក៏ជា​មូល​ដ្ឋានគ្រឹះដ៏សំ​ខាន់សម្រាប់​​​វាស់​​​ស្ទង់​ការបោះ​ឆ្នោត​សកល​ឆ្នាំ២០១៣ ដែល​ជាសញ្ញា​​ជោគ​ជ័យ​របស់​​គណបក្ស​ប្រជាជន​កម្ពុជា នាខាង​មុខផងដែរ។

អត្ថបទដោយៈ ពូន សំ​រេច