untac

The Mirror, Vol. 14, No. 680

In a Comment to a previous report in The Mirror, the question was asked:

Why do we have to bank on the UN? aren’t they an international political entity? Do we really benefit from their philosophy?

Thanks for raising the question – I appreciate if we can enter into discussions on The Mirror – I try to respond. But I am not sure how to understand your comment – maybe you can further clarify? And other readers are of course also welcome to join.

You responded to the article which reported about a statement by Mr. Subedi, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia: The Court System in Cambodia Still Has Difficulties in Providing Justice for Cambodian Citizens.

You ask, “Why do we have to bank on the UN?” – It is probably not possible to answer without going back to history: After years of fighting, the four Cambodian factions of the conflict agreed to find a new start for Cambodia under the guidance of the United Nations – and UNTAC was created to respond to this Cambodian request and was present 1992/1993, helping to organize the elections in 1993, which resulted in a new National Assembly and the establishment of the Kingdom of Cambodia. – Does your question mean that you disagree with the efforts of the different Cambodian governments since the late 1980ies and into the 1990ies, asking the United Nations to help to bring Cambodia again back into the international fellowship of nations, after many years of internal war?

Isn’t the UN an international political entity? It is more appropriate to say that the UN is an organization, created in 1945 by 51 countries, where by now 192 member states, represented by their governments, have agreed to cooperate, under the principles stated in the Charter of the United Nations:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

If it is a political entity, it is an entity where all the member nations of the UN try to work out common principles and common procedures to deal with problems faced in the world.

And you finally ask: “Do we really benefit from their philosophy?”

What you call “their” philosophy is what has been developed and continues to be developed as a commonly agreed basis by all the 192 member countries cooperating – including by the government of the Kingdom of Cambodia. Does your question mean you would prefer not to be part of this world wide community of nations? This has probably to do with what you mean with “we” – when you ask “Do we really benefit?” The UN has been created by 51 counties in 1945, but it has by now 192 member countries – these countries applied for membership and joined, because it seemed to be of benefit.

Over the years, a number of important documents have been added to describe the basis on which the international community of members of the United Nations wants to live. I mention here only some of the most important ones:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• The United Nations INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
• Convention on the Rights of the Child

These documents are referred to in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia. Are you proposing the Constitution should be changed, as this is not in the interest of some powers in Cambodia? Of course there are persons and groups and organizations in the world who do not want to be accountable for what they do, violating the principles on which the member countries of the United Nations have agreed, because these agreements will not allow to violate what has been agreed without being called to order.

Does your question mean that you would prefer that the situation of human rights in Cambodia should not be reviewed according to these international principles by Mr. Subedi, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, when you ask: Do we really benefit from their philosophy? I ask this, because I try to understand your final question.

Have a look at the last editorial – you can access it directly from the main page of the Mirror.
And please recommend The Mirror also to your colleagues and friends.

Back to top