Two former Khmer Rouge leaders have been sentenced for life in prison. The ruling followed a two-year trial which has caused some controversy, yet the sentence has been seen as landmark in the history of the country. What sense does life sentence for octogenarian make, and why has it taken more than three decades to bring those people to justice?
Nuon Chea, 88, and Kheiu Samphan, 83, were found “guilty of the crimes against humanity, of extermination … political persecution and other inhumane acts”. According to prosecutors, these people played “key roles” in the Khmer Rouge regime, which held from 1975 to 1979. During their four years’ rule more than 1.7 million people died of hunger and mass executions. Kang Kek Iew, 72, head of internal security under the regime, is already serving a life sentence. Other Khmer Rouge top officials died before the trial. Pol Pot, the party leader, died in 1998 at the age of 73 and military commander Ta Mok died in 2006 while awaiting court trial. Despite some controversy caused by the trial, its verdict has been widely described as most important for the further development of the country.
Virak Ou, President of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, and Vinita Ramani Mohan, co-founder of Access to Justice Asia, share their opinion on this issue.
Virak Ou: I think this is a very significant case. The two persons on trial – Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan – these are the names that we all come to be aware of to be the most responsible for the regime, for the atrocities among only a handful of other people. So, these are the people I grew up to learn about, to read about, to get angry at. So, I think it is still very-very significant.
For most people, I think, it remains to be seen whether this whole trial can bring some sort of a sense of justice and reconciliation for the Cambodian people and the victims. I myself felt a bit let down by the fact that the trial is taking a long-long time, but also that the political interference is taking place. But, at the same time, when I was at the reading of the verdict this morning, I did feel a sense of justice, I did feel a sense of closure and that we can move on.
What I also want is for the Cambodian people to look at ourselves not just as victims, but also as the survivors, that we are the survivors who can look forward, who can move on and achieve great things in the future.
The tribunal is what is called a hybrid tribunal, set up with an agreement between the UN and the Cambodian Government. The tribunal was actually started about 8 years ago. The process has actually taken quite a long-long time. Some of the accused are pretty old. One of them has died during the whole process. Another one has been unfit to stand trial.
So, we have only two remaining most senior Khmer Rouge leaders, who now stand trial. And today, when we discussed the verdict for these two most senior leaders, their age is also an issue as well, because they are 83 and 88 years old.
But why has it taken so long? I mean, why did the trial start only in early 2000, if the crime was committed in the 1970’es?
Virak Ou: The crime was committed in the 1970’es. The whole discussion started in the 1990’es, but that process was stalled for quite some time. There were a lot of political issues, a lot of wrangling, as well as resistance from the ruling Government, which has some connection to that regime as well. And since then the whole process took quite a lot of time.
But also, the tribunal was marred with political interference and accusations of corruption. And there is a lot of ongoing back and forth problems between the UN and the Cambodian Government. The Cambodian Government resists different attempts by the investigating judges to investigate more cases, for example.
So, it played out pretty poorly. It’s taken a long time and also cost quite significantly - $200 million so far – to convict the three people. One is a less senior individual and these two convicted today are the most senior people up to date. So, yes, this is the most significant case. The trial has come to this conclusion this morning that this is a very significant case, indeed.
As an expert, do you see any risk that similar crimes could occur in other parts of the world?
Virak Ou: If you look at what happened back then, the world came together and vowed to never again let such atrocities to take place. That was the end of the WW II. Since then we had a lot of atrocities that took place, one of which has actually happened in my country, has happened to my family. And we have similar crimes that take place elsewhere: in Rwanda, Somalia and this issue now in Gaza, for example, in North Korea.
So, yes, I'm seeing the atrocities. I lived through much of this. But also, the world has to do more to prevent the atrocities of such scale from happening again. And I think the world needs to recommit to preventing crimes against humanity, I don’t believe that the world has done enough.
Vinita Ramani Mohan: I think the key thing here is something that many people hear with respect to Cambodia, which is a feeling that there has been a culture of impunity in the country. As you rightly observed, these crimes took place more than 35 years ago and there was really nothing other than a short trial in 1979. So, there has been no justice, there has been no acknowledgement of the degree and the scale of the crimes that were committed during the period of Democratic Kampuchea.
So, despite the fact that there’s been such a long passage of time, I think it is important for victims to feel that justice has been served in some shape of form, even if it is slowed or limited in its scope, it acknowledges the victims’ suffering. I think that was very critical for the survivors.
And if we go back to the time of those crimes, how are those people who actually were committing those crimes, justifying what they were doing? Was there any relevant justification to that?
Vinita Ramani Mohan: During the course of the trial the defense has, of course, raised several complex justifications for what took place, and also, of course, was insisting that their clients are not guilty. I think the complexity for us, as civil party lawyers, as the organizations representing the survivors and even for some victims themselves, there is an acknowledgement that the situation on the ground at that time was very complex.
This is the period of the Cold War. There was the ongoing conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia that had been happening through that period and, in fact, continued well into the late 1980’es and early 1990’es. The spillover effects of allegiances to both Russia and China had been impacting on the ground in Vietnam and Cambodia. There had also been the protracted conflict with the US. So, the Vietnam War was taking place at that time and extensive bombing on Cambodia had happened during this period.
So, I think in the 1970’es – the period during which the Democratic Kampuchea was in power and these events took place – it was historically very complex and there were many more parties involved, and a great deal of different factions that were at war with each other. So, there is no doubt, from a perspective of a sociologist or a historian, that the situation is a lot more complex. But for the purposes of the trial, it is hard not to acknowledge the fact that the Democratic Kampuchea, the central committee of this Government did issue orders and there were mass executions, there were torture centers, there were forced evictions and evacuations that took place.
And I think those are the facts. They have been laid out during the process of the hearings and those are undeniable facts – the facts that those things did take place during that period.
Was there some kind of ideology behind that? And if there was an ideology, is there any risk of a similar ideology being revived in one form or another in the world now?
Vinita Ramani Mohan: The Democratic Kampuchea was largely influenced by the Marxist ideology. They had been self-proclaimed Marxists, who studied in France and were members of the Communist Party in Paris during the 1960’es. And that really was the kind of influence that they’ve brought back to Cambodia. Many commentators and experts have remarked that they referred to many of the projects, that they then implemented on the ground, as a great leap forward, which, of course, then harks back to what happened with Mao in the communist China.
So, there is a sense that the ideologies, that they were borrowing from, were the things that they felt had the strong potential to being successful in Cambodia. But, of course, they took the country to “a year zero”, as many commentators have said. It turned out to be catastrophically failed experiment. And, as you said, there is always a concern for the survivors of mass atrocities and genocide, and historical crimes of this nature, that this kinds of ideologies can foment on the ground again and they can in fact take hold, and that that violence can be re-instigated.
And I think that’s why there is a feeling that the value to the processes like this, the value to insisting that we need the rule of law, we need capacity building, we need institutions that function legitimately and independently, part of why that rhetoric is important is that you hope, as you are saying, that this sort of ideology does not take hold again, and that fomenting of unrest on the ground doesn’t happen again.
So, we’ll hear, when you speak to many of the survivors on the ground and certainly speaking to our clients, that the current phrase that we don’t want this to happen again and that is why we want to the education, we want the dialogs, we want to be able to freely talk about these events so that we can ensure that this sort of ideology does not take hold again in our society.
But mass homicide is taking place almost everywhere in the world now. You’ve mentioned various independent institutions and, of course, this is very important. Could there be anything else done on a person-to-person level?
Vinita Ramani Mohan: I think one of the things is the outcome of today’s hearing, that the trial chamber of the court endorsed the reparations request that was put forward by the civil parties and the survivors. And that request touched on remembrance and memorialization initiatives, rehabilitation efforts (this would be providing more counseling and therapy for people suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder) and documentation and education.
And I think that’s really where we can decentralize these efforts, take the emphasis away from having it all only being done top down, that it is the Government’s initiative. It is a regional initiative that needs to institute these changes, but we also need to do it from the ground level. And I think that really happens at the level of education, at the level of pedagogy, at the level of exhibitions and the establishment of institutions where the culture of speaking about these things in an open manner, where the former perpetrators and the victims can actually meet in a safe forum and be able to talk about the events that took place and, perhaps, begin the process of reconciliation.
So, I mean, you will not be able to say – I, as a victim, forgive you for the things you’ve done. But the very fact that they can occupy the same space, meet in the same forum and listen to each other would already be a step forward. And those initiatives have been ongoing in Cambodia, but also in the region, in terms of atrocities or political violence that has taken place in ASEAN. I mean, Cambodia is by no means alone. We’ve had the Marcos regime in the Philippines. We’ve had Suharto in Indonesia. We’ve had atrocities committed in East Timor. So, there is a lot of history of this kind of violence.
And I think what we are all learning across the board, is that the initiatives from the ground have to happen and that we need to have them happen at the level of education and dialog, and institution building, and decentralized, and often modest (in terms of that we can’t wait for large amounts of funding for these things to happen, but often, very much can be done with very little money). And that is something we are all learning on the ground here. And that’s how I think we can ensure that the legacy of the tribunal sort of moves forward beyond the trials.
It is very easy to be skeptical about the process as a whole. There is plenty of criticism about it. There have been concerns about the scope and whether it has done enough. Of course, there is also the concern that a life sentence being pronounced for octogenarians really doesn’t hold a great deal of value, because they are in their 80’es, so, really, what does that mean. Of course, those criticisms are legitimate and I think it is fair to raise those issues.
But I think what is really important to remember, is that today we had some sort of an acknowledgement in a public form, in the court of law in Cambodia that crimes of this gravity, of this scale will not go unacknowledged and that there is a punishment that will be meted out by a court of law. And that this is an opportunity for people to get some degree of closure and come to some peace about what has happened, and, hopefully, find a positive way to move on in terms of the legacy of remembrance and memorialization that is now being implemented on the ground.
So, I think, really, it is important for us to go about with something positive and finds ways to move that forward.
