Op-Ed by Antoine Phirun Pich,
Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa
Twenty years after the Paris Peace Accords were reached, Cambodia still faces the inherent challenges of an emerging democracy while its people have been allowed to enjoy a certain degree of liberty (at least compared with the Khmer Rouge genocidal regime of the mid-1970s or the decade-long Vietnamese occupation that followed). However, to the outside observer, the country remains far from the democratic society based on the rule of law that drafters of the accords could have legitimately expected. This is partly due to the initial political circumstances that lead to the absurd formation of a bicephalous first mandate government, or the hidden military agenda of one of the signatory countries indubitably involved in the 1997 coup.
It is beyond doubt that Vietnam’s hegemonic ambitions over Cambodia have been the most prevalent obstacle to the effective implementation of the peace accords in so far as it has contributed to the establishment of an open door policy for Vietnamese nationals to settle across the country’s (eastern) provinces, thereby jeopardizing unity, independence and national identity. Due to the ethno-demographic distribution of modern Cambodia and its clandestine subservience to the neighbouring government, there can be no doubt that the “Vietnamese factor” will forever remain inseparable from the Cambodian political landscape. But given today’s communications technologies and coercive principles of international law, whether Vietnam will truly succeed in annihilating Cambodia in the same way as in the past remains an open question.
Be that as it may, Hanoi’s current stranglehold on the Phnom Penh government has already negatively affected Cambodia’s fragile state of democracy, given the influence of Vietnam’s own internal political framework. Indeed, over the years, the Cambodian government has severely restricted fundamental freedoms in its numerous attempts to eliminate/silence the opposition and its blatant violations of human rights, namely with regard to unionists, land rights protestors, journalists and opposition parliamentarians. Moreover, one cannot but notice the use of the judiciary for political ends and the total absence of separation of powers within the governance of the state, each branch being under the permanent control of Prime Minister Hun Sen.
The Paris Peace Accords, signed in 1991 under the aegis of the United Nations by 19 countries as well as all Cambodian factions, notably made provisions for the conduct of free and fair elections, the withdrawal and non-return of foreign forces, and the adoption of a new constitution. Although the elections have taken place and a constitution has been adopted, the international community has failed to ensure the successful implementation of complementary aspects of the accords, the latter being devoid of penal provisions or sanctions. There has been no formal verification of the withdrawal (not to mention the backdoor return of Vietnam’s secret forces during the bloody coup) and it is still unclear whether the Vietnamese army plays a role that exceeds simple “cooperation” in modern Cambodia’s military affairs.
It should also be noted that Phnom Penh has ratified unequal bilateral treaties signed under the Vietnamese occupation by means of a 2005 “supplemental treaty” with Vietnam, notwithstanding article 55 of the constitution that provided for the annulment of all treaties incompatible with Cambodia’s independence and territorial integrity. In addition, millions of hectares worth of land concessions (a considerable amount of the country’s territory) have been granted to foreign companies, predominantly Vietnamese, with terms as long as 99 years without regard to the impact upon the local population. Such long-term land concessions not only affect the livelihood of thousands of families living in poor communities, but also risk undermining the stability of Cambodia’s already precarious economy.
It would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the peace accords’ principal objectives of guaranteeing respect of human rights in Cambodia along with its sovereignty and territorial integrity have never been fully met, hence the recent appeal from parliamentarians for its reactivation. To all intents and purposes, given the complexity of the Cambodian question on the international level and the risks of reopening negotiations in a matter long considered closed, chances are that the said appeal, as serious as it may be, will most probably fall on deaf ears. It remains to be seen, however, whether Cambodia’s rocky road towards the rule of law truly lies within the judicial settlement of longstanding impunities or, in the wake of a deterioration of the human rights situation, within the signatories’ international obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment