The Mirror, Vol. 12, No. 574
As it happens quite frequently – which is also normal – there are a number of complex problems being faced in the country and in its international relations. Whatever they are, they normally require cooperation – with friends and with adversaries. And such cooperation depends on mutual understanding, where it is not always possible to find equally common ground. It may be necessary that one side or one group or one position is prepared to make concessions, to achieve some common gain.
While reading through the reports of the week, it is obvious that this is not easy. Mutual understanding cannot be achieved blindly – it cannot grow, when one side tries to dominate the other, sets conditions, or has reservations which hinder an open exchange of concerns. Or when one side is not open to share its aspirations and intentions, so that they are not transparent to the other side. Full transparency cannot be expected immediately. But if openness is not the goal it will not be growing, not even in small steps.
There is a case where this process can be seen.
During the grenade attack on a group of demonstrators led by the Sam Rainsy Party in March 1997, more than 10 persons were killed, and more than 100 were injured, also a citizen of the USA. Therefore the US Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] got involved, on their own. The results of their investigation were never revealed to the public – in neither of the two countries.
Then, in early 2007, the Director General of the Cambodian National Police was invited to visit the USA and the FBI, and he said in anticipation, “’We also want to do in Cambodia what the big power countries have done well. We don’t want others to criticize us any longer…’ Concerning the visit, the Director General expected that the Cambodian police and the FBI will continue to strengthen their cooperation in order to prevent terrorism, drug trafficking, and cross-border crimes which are of joint concern in the region and globally.”
Then, in January 2008, the FBI inaugurated a Legal Attaché office, located in the US embassy in Phnom Penh, with a Cambodian-American as the head of the office in Cambodia.
Having now an FBI office in Cambodia, the Sam Rainsy Party appealed to the FBI, at the occasion of the 11th anniversary of the grenade attack of March 1997, to re-investigate the case, “to ensure that criminals and those who are behind the attack cannot run away from justice, and to promote respect for the rule of law in Cambodia.”
By now, the Cambodian authorities declared to welcome it if the SRP would provides evidence, witnesses, or any other motivation concerning the case. And at the same time they pointed to a letter from Mr. Sam Rainsy to the Prime Minister, apologizing that he would no longer make any allegations without evidence that the government was behind the attack.
During the past week, a new stage of mutual trust has been achieved. The FBI and Cambodian police officials are discussing details that are needed to be clear for the cooperation to investigate the murder of the Moneaksekar Khmer journalist Mr. Khim Sambo and his son. That such cooperation needs to be based on mutual clarity is obvious: the US embassy declared, “The Ministry of Interior of Cambodia and the FBI are deciding how to cooperate with each other, but an official decision has not yet been made.”
The public does not know the details of these negotiations. Maybe they relate to special problems which sometimes let an investigation disappear from public eyes, when accusations of officially sanctioned impunity were made. The participation of the FBI should help to alleviate such fears. But the public will continue to be interested to see the progress of the this investigation.
Public monitoring is an important element of transparent administration and government. It is a continuing surprise and mystery, that most reporting in the Khmer press about the tensions at the Cambodian-Thai border is not transparent.
Neither the reports about the meeting about Preah Vihear between the Cambodian and Thai foreign ministers in Hua Hin, nor the report about a huge amount of money provided by the province of Kompong Cham to help the armed forces who protect the Preah Vihear Temple, nor the article criticizing the diplomatic performance of the Cambodian government make clear reference to specifics – beyond speaking about the “border” or about the “contested area.” This is all the more a serious problem, as – to our knowledge – the final map presented by the Cambodian government representatives on the way towards the listing of the Preah Vihear Temple, nor the official Cambodian declaration in the Joint Communique, countersigned by UNESCO, that “the Kingdom of Cambodia accepts that the Temple of Preah Vihear be nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List without at this stage a buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple” has been published in the media in Cambodia. How can mutual understanding develop, when the Cambodian public is not aware of these agreements, and the additional agreement with UNESCO, to develop a joint management plan – together with Thailand – by 2010, when the UNESCO World Heritage Committee will revise the Preah Vihear listing of 2008.
To achieve a good mutual understanding in order not to jeopardize the listing as a World Heritage Site will require not only an openness to negotiate with the Thai neighbors in the north, but also an openness towards the Cambodian public, which has not yet seen these agreements – neither in a foreign, nor in the language of the country.
We appreciate any information from our readers about such publications in Khmer and in the Cambodian media, if they exist, in case our information is not correct. The same text of the Joint Communique was intensively discussed in a three-days parliamentary debate in Thailand, and the fact that it had been signed by the Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs in violation of the Thai constitution, by acting without prior consent by the parliament, led to his resignation. It is utterly surprising that the Cambodian media, while regularly and emotionally concerned with the situation at the border, have not provided transparent information about the final document, signed by a Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the country, at the basis for the conflict – and for any future solution.
Recent Comments