November 20, 1997
PRESS RELEASE
LETTER OF CAMBODIAN CO-PRIME MINISTERS
TO UN SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE IN CAMBODIA
In response to the report of September 26, 1997 by H.E. Ambassador Thomas Hammaberg, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Human Rights in Cambodia, H.E. Mr. Ung Huot and H.E. Samdech Hun Sen, Cambodia's First and Second Prime Minister, wrote to Ambassador Hammaberg a letter dated November 18, 1997 which reads as follows:
Your Excellency,
We have read with interest your report of September 26, 1997 concerning the situation of human rights in Cambodia. While it contains some good points, in general we feel that it falls short of the mark. Its deficiencies include inaccuracies, lack of evidence, misleading or incomplete information, an emphasis on negative aspects of the situation, and a pronounced bias.
We have attached as appendix responses to the report from various ministries. However, among the various items, which we would like to highlight, are the following:
I. Dated information
One problem with your report is that it contained criticisms, which have been overtaken by events. In some cases, such as the election and political parties laws, it should have been clear that governmental actions was imminent. This fact should have had an effect on the manner in which the report was written; yet it apparently did not. Examples of progress which have been made include the following:
Election laws: In the section on "Free and Fair Elections", critical comments are made concerning the Royal Government's lack of an election law and law governing political parties. These comments were premature. First, you are fully aware that these laws, the subject of which concerns very sensitive and controversial subjects, have been moving through the governmental process for the last year. By the same token, even at the time of the writing of your report, considerable progress had been made.
Second, since the assurance of your report, the National Assembly had adopted the law on political parties. As this response is being written, the election law is being debated-both inside the National Assembly as well as in the press. So the criticism in the report is both unfair and premature.
Constitutional Council: In paragraph 49, 69 and 70, criticism is leveled at the Royal Government for not forming the Supreme Council of Magistracy and the Constitutional Council. Yet, the first step toward the formation of the Supreme Council of Magistracy is underway thanks to green light recently given by His Majesty the King to the Acting Head of State to convene the first meeting of this Council. With the creation of the latter body, the Constitutional Council then can be created.
II. Lack of evidence
On a number of occasions, statements are made which are not substantiated. But the credibility of any criticism must be related to facts, which can be demonstrated. This is not done in a number of instances, including the following:
Military impunity: In your report on the third mission to Cambodia, you reported that "over 60% of the crimes committed against individuals were carried out by military personnel…" An interesting statistic, if true. But where does this figure come from? What methodology was used to derive this percentage? You do not say, but reliable statistics are difficult to get in Cambodia and a politically charged one such as this would be particularly so. Nevertheless, it is stated as fact by the Special Representative.
Election law and Political Party law: In paragraph 47, the Special Representative is critical of the draft political party law on several grounds, some of which have been incorporated in the new law. According to your report, the fact that each applicant party has to prove support from at least 5,000 members "seems unjustified". Why? According to international standards, is it unheard of that a minimum member of supporters in order to be listed on the ballot? We submit that many functioning democracies require a minimum number of voters for support, and in many countries far more than is being asked for in Cambodia.
Likewise, you state that a deposit of US$3,300 by each party "appears restrictive" Why? Assuming that a political party is able to get the minimum 5,000 citizens to sign a petition to support it, this means that only 0.1% of the 5 million voters is required to certify the seriousness of the political party and each supporter would only have to contribute US$0.66 in order for the party to qualify. We wish to inform you that the National Assembly had already adopted this Law on Political Party and according to this legislation, only 4,000 citizens are required to prove support for their sympathetic party.
III. Emphasis on negative reporting, not positive
There is a pronounced emphasis in your report on negative aspects of the situation in Cambodia, and rarely is any credit given when progress has been achieved. The Special Representative can not be totally oblivious to the areas where progress has been made, yet not mention is made concerning matters which would not take any great investigation to discover. In fact, the newspapers have reported on a number of areas of progress, many of which are ignored in your report. These include the following:
Depolitization of the Military: In your report, a criticism is made that the Royal Government Armed Forces were never fully depoliticized following the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. However, no credits is given to the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces for its educational efforts to instruct soldiers after the events of July 5-6 that service to the Government is paramount, and that they do not serve political parties. While much is made about 40 bodies of officers, who apparently were killed extrajudicially, no mention is made of the clashes given to the soldiers of the units from the Trang Krasang barracks and elsewhere so that they could be reintegrated into a professional army, not one driven by factions. The fact that these clashes occurred was reported in the newspapers in Cambodia but not mentioned in the report of the Special Representative.
Climate of fear?: In paragraph 43 and 44, much is made of the rumors, which were rampant after the fighting. Many rumors instilled fear in person who had supported opposition parties or other politically active persons. Yet, not mention has been made of the measures taken by the Royal Government to ensure that all who want to participate in a legitimate manner in the political process can do so. No mention is made of the repeated assurances by both Co-Prime Ministers and Chairman of the National Assembly to members of the National Assembly, RCAF, administration, etc… who oppose the Government that they can return without fear and reenter political life. No recognition is given to the many members of the parliament and government who returned to duty, even after a prolonged absence. At this point, we wish to draw your attention to the fact that Cambodia is a "unique case in the world" where Parliament, Government and Administration members can return to their respective duty after a prolonged absence or holiday with or without permission. Therefore, the reader of your report would have no idea that an active political debate continues in Cambodia today-whether it is in the Parliament, within the Government, and in the society as a whole.
Media: In paragraph 50 and 51, criticism is made of the current structure of the media in Cambodia, stating that it is dominated by one political party. However, no mention is made of the print media. Today, without questions, Cambodia enjoys the most free press in the region, perhaps in Asia as a whole. In fact, there are more newspapers being published today than before the fighting in July. A broad spectrum of opinion is represented in the press, and a lively debate on all matter of political issues occurs. There is no mention of this in the report of the Special Representative.
Military impunity: There is an entire section devoted to the problem of immunity (paragraph 56-59). However, no mention is made of current moves made by the Royal Armed Forces to tighten the code of behavior of its soldiers. For example, no mention is made of order to eliminate illegal checkpoints, control weapons and explosives, seize illegal weapons, registration of weapons, etc. Information about these measures has been reported in the newspapers and should have been easily accessible to the Special Representative, yet are ignored in the report. Furthermore, we are of the view the issue of military impunity should be leveled at those who had committed these barbarous acts, then fled the country and now push for their return and indeed without punishment.
IV. Political bias
We are sadden to say that elements of political bias also exist in your report. It should not be the place of the United Nations to take sides in internal disputes of member nations, yet your report appears to be doing just that.
Whose Coup?: The report on human rights continues to refer to the events of July 5-6 as a coup d'etat (paragraph 41 and 42). The Government must again object to this mischaracterization of the events. Even after the delivery of two White Papers issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, you continue to refer to the events in a way that clearly indicates a bias toward the position of the former First Prime Minister and against that of the duly constituted Government in Phnom Penh. The facts demonstrate that the Royal Government saved the country from a Coup, it did not lead one.
Khmer Nation Party: Yet another indication of the bias exists in paragraph 48, in which the Special Representative appears to take on the cause of the Khmer Nation Party. Senior Government Officials have repeatedly stated that, in the absence of a political party law, there was no legal basis for the registration of any new political party.
There are more new political parties aspiring for recognition by registration than just the KNP. Why does the Special Representative single out this party in order to show his favor?
In another section (paragraph 74), the Special Representative indicates his regret that the Phnom Penh court refused to consider Mr. Sam Rainsy's complaint about his ouster from the FUNCINPEC party, while two years later, a different decision was reached in the case of a different faction in FUNCINPEC. Yet, these cases are different, and even in countries with sophisticated legal systems, similar cases can have dissimilar verdicts, depending upon the facts and the law.
The Royal Government of Cambodia is grateful for your assistance and continues its cooperation to promote democracy and human rights in its war-torn country. However, we do hope that future reports on the situation of human rights in Cambodia would be very accurate, well balanced, politically unbiased, and a more full reporting of the positive aspects of development in Cambodia.
We kindly request you to circulate this letter and annexes as the official documents of this current UN General Assembly session.
Please accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of our highest consideration.
Ung Huot Hun Sen
First Prime Minister Second Prime Minister