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
នៅក្នុងសន្និសីទកាសែតមួយ នៅព្រឹកថ្ងៃទី៨ ខែមិថុនា ឆ្នាំ២០១២នេះ ដែលរៀបចំឡើងនៅ ទីស្តីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្រ្តី ឯកឧត្តម កែវ រ៉េមី មានប្រសាសន៍ថា អ្វីដែលជាការកត់សម្គាល់របស់ខ្ញុំ ការចោទប្រកាន់របស់លោក អាដាម
ដែលធ្វើឡើងនៅមុនការបោះឆ្នោត គឺជារឿងបុគ្គល
ធ្វើឡើងដោយសារការស្អប់ និងគ្រាន់តែជាការសងសឹកតែប៉ុណ្ណោះ
ដើម្បីឲ្យកម្ពុជាវឹកវរទៅរកភាពអន្តរាយ។ ឯកឧត្តម កែវ រ៉េមី បាន
អះអាងថា នៅកម្ពុជាមានសេរីភាពគ្រប់គ្រាន់
ជាពិសេសសេរីភាពក្នុងការបញ្ចេញមតិ និងសារព័ត៌មាន ។
ជាក់ស្តែងគ្មានការត្រួតពិនិត្យពីរដ្ឋាភិបាលចំពោះការសរសេរ
អត្ថបទរបស់អ្នកសារព័ត៌មានឡើយ។
ទាក់ទងនឹងការយកព្រឹត្តិការណ៍នៅក្នុងប្រទេសអារ៉ាប់មួយចំនួនមក
ប្រៀបធៀបជាមួយកម្ពុជា ដោយលោក ប្រេដអាដាម ឯកឧត្តម កែវ រ៉េមី បាន
មានប្រសាសន៍ឲ្យដឹងថា
សភាពការណ៍កម្ពុជាខុសពីសភាពការណ៍នៅបណ្តាប្រទេសអារ៉ាប់
ដែលគ្មានការបោះឆ្នោត គ្មានសេរីភាពសារព័ត៌មាន ហើយប្រទេសខ្លះនារី
ឬ យុវជនគ្មានសិទ្ធិបោះឆ្នោត។
ផ្ទុយទៅវិញកម្ពុជាមានការបោះឆ្នោតទៀងទាត់
អំណាចបែងចែកដាច់ពីគ្នារវាង សភា រដ្ឋាភិបាល និងតុលាការ។
ការបោះឆ្នោតក្រុមប្រឹក្សាឃុំសង្កាត់
គឺជាការផ្តល់សិទ្ធិអំណាចដល់មូលដ្ឋាន។
កំណាត់ផ្លូវជាតិលេខ៥៦
ប្រវែង១១៣ គីឡូម៉ែត្រ ចាប់ពីក្រុងសិរីសោភ័ណ ខេត្តបន្ទាយមានជ័យ
ដល់ក្រុងសំរោង ខេត្តឧត្តរមានជ័យ
ដែលត្រូវបានចាត់ទុកជាច្រករបៀងសេដ្ឋកិច្ច ដ៏មានសក្តានុពលស្ថិត
នៅប៉ែក ពាយ័ព្យ នៃតំបន់ព្រំដែន របស់ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា
បានប្រារព្វពិធីបើកការដ្ឋានស្តារឡើងវិញ នាព្រឹកថ្ងៃទី៧ ខែមិថុនា
ឆ្នាំ២០១២ ក្រោម អធិបតីដ៏ខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់សម្តេចអគ្គមហាសេនាបតីតេជោ ហ៊ុន សែន
នាយករដ្ឋមន្រ្តី នៃព្រះរាជាណាចក្រកម្ពុជា ព្រមទាំងវត្តមាន ឯកឧត្តម
លោកជំទាវ ឥស្សរជនជាន់ខ្ពស់ តំណាងគ្រប់ស្ថាប័ន
របស់ព្រះរាជាណាចក្រកម្ពុជា ឥស្សរជនការទូត តំណាងអង្គការជាតិ អន្តរជាតិ
ពិសេសតំណាងធនាគារអភិវឌ្ឍន៍អាស៊ី និងថ្នាក់ដឹកនាំ និងប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ
នៃខេត្តបន្ទាយមានជ័យ និងខេត្តឧត្តរមានជ័យ ជាច្រើនរូប។
