Background

Cambodia has been ruled since 1985 by Hun Sen, who came to power with Vietnamese backing in the aftermath of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime. Hun Sen is leader of what is now called the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), an organization that contains a number of former members of the Khmer Rouge, including himself. Since UN intervention in the early 1990s for true multi-party democracy failed, conditions for human rights and opposition politics have been difficult. A decade ago, the Khmer National Party, led by Sam Rainsy, sprung up as the main opposition party, and has since changed its name to the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), due to the creation of another KNP, apparently to confuse voters at the ballot box.

In 1997, sixteen party activists were killed in a grenade attack on a SRP rally, a crime that has never been properly investigated by the Cambodian authorities, and in which the police present did little to intervene. Despite a climate of intimidation, the SRP polled 22% of the vote in the last elections in 2003. The following year saw high profile human rights activist Chea Vichea murdered, a crime that has also remained unsolved. Since December 2005, the violence that saw one SRP activist killed every month has much reduced, with a new climate of détente and some dialogue between the SRP and the government.

However, questions have been asked about how long this is likely to continue. Furthermore, there are concerns that recently eased political tensions may distract attention from other human rights abuses in Cambodia, which remain severe. Human trafficking, sexual slavery, a lack of proper rights for workers and the increasing dire situation for landless farmers are urgent problems.

Rado Tylecote met Sam Rainsy at his party headquarters in Phnom Penh to discuss political and human rights in Cambodia.

RT: What is the current state of human rights in Cambodia?

SR: The current human rights situation is not very good. Things have improved slightly over last few months, but it’s still bad, there is still an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. This is not surprising when you realise that this country is totally dominated by a former Communist regime, whose strongman is definitely Mr Hun Sen. He has all the power. There is no separation of powers, no checks and balances, so you can see all kinds of abuses. The SRP is the opposition and the only opposition in parliament. We are the first opposition in Cambodia’s modern history. We are doing pioneering work. We are growing as a party, and in spite of many difficulties we hope to be in a position to implement political evolution in the next few years.

After the grenade attack on the SRP, is dialogue possible before investigation?

We have to start. When the opportunity is there, we try to establish dialogue- it’s not a culture yet, just the beginning of the type of government-opposition dialogue that is common in western countries. Here the government used to be very confrontational and violence was widespread. For the first time we have the opportunity to start a dialogue and we can only welcome it. But we definitely cannot yet talk about lasting dialogue, we just have to start sometime, somewhere.

How has Hun Sen and CPP responded to the invitation to dialogue?

They have accepted this offer but with second thoughts. Understandably they try to take advantage of this dialogue- and we do too, we are a party. But we know the situation is volatile. It could reverse at any time.

‘The next few months will be a test for democracy’

Cambodian politics seems to be at a pivotal juncture- a fork in the road between authoritarianism and democracy. Will it continue democratising or could things go back?

It is a dim hope that democratization will continue. The next few months will be a test, whether the opposition will be able to cont our activities. In this climate of détente, we are developing activities at the grassroots level, establishing networks in remote villages we could not penetrate until recent times. Now people are coming up more easily to register as opposition members. However I fear that with this growing trend for the opposition, the ruling party may feel threatened and could react and retreat to their old ways.

Is there anything in past behaviour that people should look out for in the next few months?

Up until December we had at least one person killed every month. We lost some eighty activists over the last ten years, since our inception. Besides those, there were many hurt, wounded, harassed, who had their houses burnt down, had to flee their homes- so a climate of fear, violence, harassment. Over the last four months in the current détente, there have been no deaths and no significant incidents. So this shows two things: previously the violence was a fact of life for the opposition; it also shows it was definitely political. Thanks to the current détente we can enjoy some peace, but it may not be real peace, but just a lull.

So guarded optimism then?

We should be vigilant. I always ask people [watching Cambodia] abroad to be vigilant.

‘The détente may be a trick to divert attention’

As well as political violence, what are the biggest human rights problems?

The danger now is that the détente in the political climate and improvement in respect for political rights will divert attention from the bad situation relating to other rights. I’m referring to land grabbing, violation of the rights of workers, a lack of representation of workers and traders. The main concern is the situation of landless farmers. More and more farmers are losing their land, and about 20% of farmers have lost their land so far. These abuses are worsening. People refer to Cambodia now, and people say ‘oh, it’s improving, there’s dialogue, the opposition leader and the PM are talking’, but the most important point is the situation with landless farmers. Farmers represent 80% of the population. The living conditions of ordinary people have not improved. I’m afraid that the détente may be only a trick to divert attention from the worsening situation in economic and social rights.

What are the main causes of landlessness?

Corruption. Landlessness stems from corruption. Government officials at all levels want to make easy money. They started with deforestation, but now that most of the forests have been destroyed, they have turned to land grabbing.

Are there proper checks and balances that could be put into the Cambodian system?

We need democracy. Without real democracy this country will continue to suffer. Our only resources are natural and historical, like ruins and temples, but everything is being plundered and looted.

‘The Cambodian people suffer from three things: hunger, fear and ignorance’

As long as Cambodian people think authoritarianism is just their lot, how can things change?

We have to change the mentality. The opposition has been working hard to improve that in this country. But the ruling party can exert a grip on the Cambodian people. The government does everything so that the Cambodian people suffer from three things: number one is hunger from extreme poverty; two is fear; three is ignorance. So when people are hungry, fearful, ignorant or isolated, and deprived of information, any totalitarian party can control and manipulate the population. This is very Khmer Rouge. This is exactly what the Khmer Rouge did. Although they are different in intensity, there is no difference in nature: they use hunger, fear and ignorance to control the population.

What do you think the international community and political parties abroad, such as in Britain, can do?

Stop being complacent. Donors are very complacent. You know, representatives from donor countries and international financial institutions live comfortably, are pushed to be compliant and don’t want a clash with the government. They live like kings here and think only of their careers, so they try to make their HQs lenient.

They may think that if they push your government too hard they may be expelled.

No. The Cambodian government cannot function without the international community. They give them more than 50% of the budget, the government can’t expel them. But they do blackmail them, taking the Cambodian people hostage, by saying, ‘if you stop helping us then our people will starve, will die’. From Saddam Hussein to the current Burmese junta, they always say these things, always.

Could people accuse you of trying to cut off aid to Cambodia?

No, on the contrary- I ask donors to be more careful to ensure that their money reaches those who need it. There are a lot of ways of ensuring this, you can use independent audits, set benchmarks, use conditionality, use consistent language. However this doesn’t happen because the international community is made up of donors who have different interests and different policies, and the government plays on this division.

‘This is a mafia state’

The abuses of women’s rights in Cambodia are serious. Is the government taking sufficient action?

This is a mafia state. This is a state that derives its resources from all kinds of abuses. I mentioned deforestation and land grabbing, but you are right to point to human trafficking, drug trafficking, and all related activities.

How much pressure has been put on the government?

Not enough. If Hun Sen cannot be changed by pressure, if this international system cannot improve the situation on the economic front, what should be tried is to push for fair elections. The Cambodian people are fed up with the current situation, so the only way to move forward is to have free and fair elections, and this is why I hope that the next elections will be that. We want the next election to reflect the will of the people, whereas the last election just distorted it.

‘When we win, Hun Sen won’t be eliminated. We will leave him a way out’

What do you think we should look out for?

With the détente the opposition can operate more openly. One of the goals of my rapprochement with Hun Sen is to make him less fearful of the opposition. When we win, he won’t be eliminated. We will leave him a way out. This is the strategy we need, because if you try to eliminate the powerful it can become like in a Pinochet scenario. In Kenya they have followed this approach to ensure impunity from prosecution for certain crimes for a previous leader. But the best example is Indonesia- Suharto would have been liable for prosecution.

Are you proposing this as a solution for Cambodia?

Not yet, it’s not the right time. But we have to push forward these kinds of ideals, so that we don’t see him fighting to the end, so that the transition can be peaceful. We are not going into details, but the kind of situation that allows him to step down without fearing being killed or imprisoned, allows him a pension and so on, would not cause a tragic end.

Would this help change the culture of violence and revenge in Cambodia?

Yes. I must help to ensure that there is a peaceful transition. Maybe this would be a compromise that does not reflect full justice, but sometimes you have to do that. Should we prolong the suffering of millions of innocent people because we want justice to be administered to a tyrant who could try to take maybe ten more years before being forced by military means to step down? If he steps down voluntarily we could give him some impunity, and this would spare the suffering of millions of innocent people. It is a tradeoff, and sometimes they are difficult to make, because as a matter of principal of course we want a criminal to be prosecuted. But that could make the guy fearful and he could fight to the bitter end. What would be the point?

Many Cambodians seem resentful of Vietnam. How much influence does Vietnam still have?

I have lived in Europe for half my life, and I was struck by the reconciliation between France and Germany. These countries were bitter enemies for centuries- but they are now partners in the EU. I have that kind of vision for Vietnam and Cambodia. There has been a lot of tension and hatred, but we have to look far beyond that. We cannot choose our neighbours. One day we will need to change our mentality, so we must start now. In order to preserve your identity and existence you have to be strong economically and politically. So I want living conditions for Cambodians to be improved, then they will seek peaceful and friendly relations with Vietnam.

What about the welfare of the Khmer-speaking people in southern Vietnam?

I don’t agree with my fellow compatriots who still dream of getting land that is now a part of Vietnam, it is not to be dreamed of. Maybe we can be more vigilant about preserving Cambodia’s area now of course. But also on developing Cambodia: on building education and on giving people prospects, then the preoccupations of the older generations will seep away.

‘In the cities you cannot buy votes for a handful of rice’

On a broader subject, recent events in Thailand show that he rural-urban divide is still intensely strong. A big challenge in Cambodia must be that what people in Phnom Penh and people in the provinces are prepared to tolerate are very different. 

Do you mean people in Bangkok are different to people in the countryside?

I mean they are much less tolerant of corruption and misrule. Are there parallels in Cambodia?

Yes, Phnom Penh is an opposition stronghold- most of the electorate voted for the opposition. In the other cities it was similar- in the constituencies where there is a concentration of people there is less fear than in the countryside, there is less poverty, not that kind of hunger where you can buy votes for a handful of rice. In the cities nobody dies of hunger; and there is more information in the cities. So the strongholds of the opposition are the cities and along the main communication lines- along the roads, along the rivers, and the river-plains: where it’s relatively fertile, where they can send their children to school, where they listen to the radio, where they can read and write. So this is just the opposite of what the CPP wants the Cambodian people to be. They want the Cambodian people to live in fear, in poverty, in misery and in ignorance. If you can free the Cambodian people from these three diseases, then they will vote for democracy.