Cambodia: Blogging on Genocide · Global Voices
<PERSON>, a Phnom Penh Post reporter and Fulbright scholar, jots her ideas on The Tribunal Report.
After graduating from Brown University in 2004, the articulate, cunning <PERSON> was awarded a Henry Luce Scholarship to Cambodia to write for The Phnom Penh Post. With a long-time interest in Asia, it seemed like a good match. But knee-deep in a society scourged by years of civil war and gut-wrenching poverty, the experience quickly proved eye-opening.
She vowed to return.
<PERSON> then spent three years in the U.S. reporting for St. Petersburg Times in Florida, but found herself frustrated at the lack of news coverage of Cambodia outside the country. Hearing that Cambodia's genocide tribunal was underway, she returned to Phnom Penh on the ultra-prestigious Fulbright grant to blog for the Post.
Now, she speaks with Global Voices author <PERSON> about her blog, the tribunal, and the challenges it faces.
From your personal observations as a journalist-blogger, what challenges does the Khmer Rouge Tribunal face in bringing the perpetrators to justice?
Of course, there’s the issue everyone keeps raising: age. Since most of the defendants are in their 70s and 80s and not in particularly good health, there is a great deal of concern that some could die before trials begin. This is probably what worries most of the Cambodians I have discussed the tribunal with. While a trial for torture chief “Comrade <PERSON>” could begin as early as September, any predictions for the other defendants are somewhat uncertain at this point.
Part of the ambiguity stems from the relatively complicated nature of the cases against the four other defendants. I’m certainly no expert on the minutiae of each case, but <PERSON>’s is apparently more straightforward – after all, he has cooperated with the court to a certain extent.
There is another issue at play in “bringing perpetrators to justice,” and it involves the scope of the prosecutions. 926
When the United Nations and Cambodian government were negotiating the tribunal’s creation, Prime Minister <PERSON> (himself a former member of the Khmer Rouge) insisted that only a handful of the most senior leaders be tried. Critics of the Prime Minister have claimed that he intentionally narrowed the scope of prosecutions so as not to implicate any former Khmers Rouge who now hold high positions in his government.
When you think about all the people who were involved in planning and implementing Khmer Rouge policies, five defendants seems like a very small number.
Is the tribunal addressing these challenges effectively, or is complete justice a lost cause 28 years after the atrocities concluded?
Well, what do you mean by “complete justice?” Or even “justice” for that matter? I don’t think the tribunal is a lost cause, but I do believe it is somewhat symbolic and abstract.
If you look at it for what it is, literally, the tribunal is a punitive process for a very small group of people. However, there are many organizations that are using these legal proceedings as a jumping off point for discussion and education, both of which are sorely needed in Cambodia.
Supporters of the tribunal often argue that it can set a new standard for the Cambodian judiciary and help end the country’s “culture of impunity.” Both are very ambitious goals, and while I hope the tribunal helps move Cambodia toward a more just and accountable society, it’s impossible to predict how much impact it will have in these areas.
Which is why I believe educational and outreach efforts related to the tribunal are of primary importance. Many Cambodians have never truly come to terms with their experiences under the Khmer Rouge. At the same time, around 60 percent of Cambodians were born after the <PERSON> era and have little knowledge about the period. While younger generations may not realize it, the legacy of that disastrous social experiment is still very much alive in their country.
The court, along with various other organizations, has been coordinating outreach efforts, but it’s a tall order. Accessibility, both practically and theoretically, is problematic. The location of the court itself is hugely inconvenient. At least a 40-minute drive from central Phnom Penh, the judicial complex’s remote location is no doubt a deterrent for many who would otherwise attend proceedings. In terms of the substance of the court’s work, concepts and arguments are highly abstract and during this phase, the “investigative” portion, little information is made available to the public. Trying to engage a largely agrarian population – many of whom are just struggling to survive – under these conditions is, to say the least, difficult. 600