Prime Minister Hun Sen signs the Paris Peace Accords in 1991, ending 21 years of civil war in Cambodia. Gerard Fouet/AFP |
Peace accords a ‘ghost’, says Hun Sen, dismissing treaty that established democracy in Cambodia
Phnom Penh Post | 12 October 2017
Prime Minister Hun Sen yesterday said the 1991 Paris Peace
Accords – often held up as the founding document that brought peace,
democracy and human rights to modern Cambodia – was dead in the water.
Speaking to some 20,000 factory workers in Phnom Penh yesterday
against the backdrop of the most aggressive crackdown on the opposition
in years, the premier told the beleaguered Cambodia National Rescue
Party and the international community to stop “dreaming” and harking
back to the ideals enshrined in the agreement.
The current situation, he admonished, will not be solved by talking.
“Don’t imagine you can hold a meeting like the Paris Peace conference
again because the Paris Peace agreement is like a ghost,” he said.
The agreement, which was painstakingly put together in a bid to end
the country’s civil war and extract foreign influence from the Kingdom
in a waning era of Cold War realpolitik, pushed for a government to be
elected through democratic polls and espoused the ideals of human
rights.
Hun Sen, however, said the agreement held little relevance 25 years
on, in part because the Soviet Union – one of more than a dozen
signatories to the treaty – had disbanded.
The Khmer Rouge – which was still a formidable armed force in the
1990s – was also out of the picture now, so the agreement was useless
“unless the Khmer Rouge returns”, he added.
The premier then went on to take a swipe at the apparent hypocrisy of
the United States and the United Nations, calling “shame” on the latter
for continuing to recognise the murderous Khmer Rouge – rather than his
own band of Vietnamese-backed Khmer Rouge defectors – as the legitimate
government of Cambodia throughout the 1980s.
“Now we just use the law to protect the . . . security and peace of
our country, but they said that we violate human rights. But [the US]
shot, killed and dropped bombs on our people,” Hun Sen said, echoing a
familiar refrain of his often discursive speeches over the past 12
months.
He maintained the government had followed the agreement and “all the
elements have been merged in the constitution of Cambodia already”, but
it was his symbolic attack on the landmark accord that concerned the
opposition and analysts yesterday.
Cambodia National Rescue Party Deputy President Mu Sochua, speaking
from Berlin yesterday after fleeing Cambodia last week to avoid imminent
arrest, said the peace and principles enshrined in the agreement were
not dead but were under threat.
“We don’t want to go back to the Khmer Rouge years – that is why we
continue to use the Paris Peace agreement. As long as there aren’t free
and fair elections the constitution is violated,” she said, referring to
draft amendments leaked yesterday that would redistribute her party’s
seats to smaller parties that collectively won little more than 6
percent of the popular vote at the last national election.
“This is such a blatant, blatant robbing of the constitution,” she said.
“[For] the people of Cambodia right now, the silencing, the fear, the intimidation – that is reminiscent of years past.”
Political analyst Lao Mong Hay said the agreement still held
relevance, and suggested that the powers that be in Cambodia had done
the opposite of implementing human rights and multiparty democracy by
rewriting laws to legitimise political purges.
“In this agreement, first, it determines to [adopt] multiparty
democracy. Second, the regime needs to respect the human rights and rule
of law – the rule of law in the democratic society, not the communist
one, [which] is wrong,” he said, likening the current situation to “the
rule of law in a communist state”.
Paris was contentious from the outset – particularly the inclusion of
the Khmer Rouge, who oversaw the death of at least 1.7 million people –
and its impact has been questioned repeatedly over the past quarter
century.
Australian scholar Lee Morgenbesser claims the deal was dead in 1997,
when Hun Sen – then Second Prime Minister to Funcinpec’s Prince Norodom
Ranariddh – launched a bloody coup to seize control of the country. The
violence 20 years ago, observers argue, left the 1991 Paris Peace
Accords in tatters.
Just last year, Human Rights Watch Asia Director Brad Adams opined
that the 25th anniversary of the agreement required a requiem, not a
celebration.
In an article for the now-shuttered Cambodia Daily,
he wrote “the leader of the opposition is in exile, politicians and
human rights activists are in prison, and dissidents continue to be
killed . . .Why did Paris fail to deliver democracy and human rights?
“Hun Sen has consistently broken the fundamental promise of Paris:
that the country’s future would be decided by ballots instead of
bullets.”
Sebastian Strangio, author of Hun Sen’s Cambodia, pointed out the armed Cambodian factions were “pressed to the table” to sign on the dotted line.
“The CPP played along with Paris, they played along with the system
of democracy, but now that they are no longer reliant on Western aid,
they are starting to be much more open about their distaste for this
settlement and their desire to unpick what remains of its legacy,” he
said.
“The government made this argument before, and tended to make it in a
more subtle way . . . but he’s coming out and giving vent to a deeply
rooted anger about perceived Western double standards and treatment of
Cambodia in the 1980s.”
He added what made Hun Sen and the ruling party’s latest crackdown on
the opposition different to their pre-election strategy in the past –
after the 1997 fighting, for instance, Ranariddh was coaxed back to join
the 1998 elections, and the flow of foreign funds resumed – was a
“sense of permanence”.
“It symbolises a full repudiation of the Paris agreement and the
principles they espouse. It really is an exclamation mark on the
political crackdown that has escalated significantly over the past two
or three months.
“The government is continuing to tighten the screws on the
opposition, which at a certain point they’ll relax, but over time with
this cycle of repression, we have seen a steady shift to more open forms
of authoritarianism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment