|
Phnom Penh: Documentation Center of Cambodia, 2004. (274 pages)
Reviewed by Andrew Rigby, Director of the Centre for the Study of Forgiveness and Reconciliation
During 2002 the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) conducted a survey of the Cambodian readers of its monthly magazine, Searching for the Truth, to elicit views on issues of justice, accountability, and reconciliation in relation to the abuses committed under the Khmer Rouge regime of Democratic Kampuchea (DK) during the 1970s. Suzannah Linton has used the results of this survey to produce a fascinating review of the many challenges facing Cambodians as they seek to come to terms with the personal and collective horrors of their genocidal past.
As someone with a background in comparative peace and reconciliation studies and a personal, although very ‘amateur’, interest in Cambodia, I was impressed by the comprehensive scholarship of Linton – evidenced by the range of sources she draws upon in seeking to locate the Cambodian experience within the broader field of transitional justice studies. Whilst the responses to the DC-Cam survey serve as the cue for her reflections, she draws upon a variety of analyses of how different successor regimes have attempted to deal with the legacy of gross human rights abuse, division and collective trauma for the sake of peaceful co-existence and reconciliation.
In most cases the legal and quasi-legal processes and other institutional procedures associated with transitional justice programmes have followed closely upon the collapse of the old regime. It is one of the ‘peculiarities’ of the Cambodian case that that such a study should be published a quarter of a century after the displacement of the DK regime, reflecting the lack of substantive progress made in bringing perpetrators of abuse to justice and making appropriate reparations to their victims.
Studies have shown that most state-directed efforts to deal with the legacy of past abuses are variants of three standard approaches: amnesties and official amnesia, purges and prosecutions, and truth commissions. To a significant degree the approach adopted reflects the interests and the balance of power of relevant state and non-state actors during the process of transition. Amnesties and amnesia – an official policy of ‘forgive and forget’ – is typically pursued by those regimes that have come to power by means of a process of negotiation between competing elites in a situation where the representatives of the old regime can exercise a credible challenge to the new political order if threatened by legal or other sanctions. By contrast, the purging and prosecution of those deemed responsible for past abuses is generally pursued when the new regime feels confident of its power and ability to pursue justice without risking political and social stability, and is driven by an overwhelming public demand for such sanctions. Typically such conditions prevail when the new regime has come to power as a result of a popular comprehensive victory over those who are the potential targets of such a purge.
Whereas trials and purges are aimed at punishing the perpetrators of crimes against their fellow citizens, the prime concern of the truth commission approach to addressing the pains of the past is with the victims. The aim is to identify them, to acknowledge them and the wrongs done to them, and to arrive at appropriate compensation. The best known examples of this approach include the transition to democratic rule following the military juntas in Argentina and Chile, and the establishment of the post-apartheid regime in South Africa. In general it would seem that the truth commission approach is favoured by regimes that lack either the will or the means to prosecute the perpetrators of political crimes, because of the relative resources controlled by those who would be its chief targets, but where the policy of ‘forgive and forget’ is not viable because of the depth of division and level of bitterness in society. Such conditions are likely to prevail when the old regime has been displaced by means of a negotiated transfer of power, driven by overwhelming public resentment and disaffection that undermined the capacity of the old state to impose its will.
Whatever variant is pursued, the dominant concern of new regimes is to promote the necessary degree of social order to ensure regime security and legitimacy. Hence, in the case of Cambodia the lack of significant progress towards a coherent programme for transitional justice and reconciliation can be attributed to the interests of the political elites. The main policy thrust has been aimed at bringing an end to the threat of violence from the Khmer Rouge by various means, including the cooptation of senior figures into significant positions in the new regime. In the words of Linton, ‘Reconciliation in Cambodia has been used by the elites as a convenient label for power sharing as a solution to ongoing political struggles.’ (p.16)
Bringing an end to the threat of a resumption of violence is a necessary component of any national reconciliation project. It is unfortunate that this priority can leave many victims of abuse angry at what they see as the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for their suffering and resentful at the lack of appropriate reparations. The evidence from South Africa would seem to indicate that too many victims experienced the truth and reconciliation process almost as a piece of theatre taking place on a public stage far removed from their own lives and experiences. This is the challenge that continues to face Cambodians – how to develop a coherent transitional justice programme that will promote reconciliation not just at the national level of competing political elites, but at the grassroots levels of the villages, neighbourhoods and families where the pain of the Khmer Rouge years was experienced most directly and most traumatically.
Linton’s study, based on the observations of the respondents to the survey, is an exploration of how this process might be progressed. She works with a simple and straightforward definition:
Reconciliation involves the process of learning how to co-exist and work together with people one does not like or is not liked by and coming to terms with personal negativity about one’s experiences, whether one be victim or perpetrator. Reconciliation as a process may be simply about assisting people and through that, wider society, to get things back into perspective so that all may lead as normal lives as possible.’ (p.15)
She continues in this grounded fashion, observing that there is no magical elixir that can bring about the minimum basis of mutual trust necessary for Cambodians to cooperate together for the sake of a common future. The actual vision of such a future, as sketched out by the respondents and interpreted by the author, embraces a fair and democratic society, free from corruption and violence, where peace and justice are nurtured and protected by the rule of law.
One of the main observations Linton draws from the survey is that in designing a comprehensive transitional justice strategy that will sow the seeds of future harmony, Cambodia’s leaders need to involve and engage in open dialogue with people from all walks of life in the formation of a holistic approach that will go beyond a few show trials of elderly Khmer Rouge leaders. She identifies four basic objectives that should inform such a process: ‘ … to do justice, to grant victims the right to know the truth, to grant reparations to victims in a way that recognises their worth and dignity as human beings, and to purge those associated with the repressive regime from public office. It should also aim to prevent the recurrence of such abuses and, to the extent possible, repair the damage they have caused.’ (p.31)
How can one ‘do justice’ in a post-genocide society? For most people in the West justice is understood to have something to do with compensation or ‘making right’ and holding people to account for their actions – restitution and retribution. But the painful reality in a society like Cambodia is that there can never be anything like a full form of restitution. What has been lost can never be regained. Moreover, there is no way that accounts can be settled with those involved in the torture and unnecessary deaths of their fellow Cambodians – there are far too many of them. Mass trials and prosecutions would destroy the social fabric of the society, even if it were possible to implement such a process. Moreover, studies have shown that in so many cases there can be no clear-cut distinction between the perpetrators of barbaric acts and victims – many of the torturers and killers were themselves separated from their families, brutalised and conditioned to believe absolutely in the power of the regime, and faced certain death if they refused to carry out their orders. The survey revealed that Cambodians themselves are capable of distinguishing between those with greatest culpability and the rank-and-file who were invariably the direct perpetrators of atrocities. As a consequence, a majority of respondents saw one element of ‘doing justice’ as involving the prosecution of the surviving leadership of the Khmer Rouge, preferably with international involvement because of a lack of faith in the integrity and the capacities of Cambodian jurors.
However, this focus on senior personnel being held to account in a court of law is construed by Linton as representing more than a desire for retribution. She focuses on the ‘symbolic justice’ of such trials, observing that amongst the respondents,
There were many who pointed to the deterrent effect of trials as a moral lesson, which is linked to the great importance that respondents placed on attaining generational changes in conduct. Trials are seen as having the potential to break the cycle of violence and impunity. This is the use of the judicial process as educational, a deterrent in that what would emerge would be so shocking as to serve as a warning of blind obedience to doctrine, the extreme dangers of authoritarian leadership, and the punishment that would be meted to individuals for their role in the horrors. (pp. 229-230)
Linton has a background as a specialist in international law and human rights, and she emphasises that one of the main symbolic and educational functions of criminal trials would lie in their representation of the importance of procedural justice and the rule of law in Cambodia. Respondents repeatedly pointed out that they sought an end to the ongoing cycle of impunity and lawlessness in Cambodian society. What they sought was a society governed by the rule of law with courts as the most appropriate forum for dealing with suspected criminals, and in this context rejected ideas of taking personal revenge against those that had harmed them.
The Buddhist teaching that vindictiveness is ended by not being vindictive was also evident in people’s approach, and Linton emphasises throughout the book the importance of Cambodia’s Buddhist culture in shaping the reconciliation process. One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is that people have to face the consequences of their actions, but it also teaches compassion – the injunction to help wrong-doers abandon their old ways and gain release from the destructive delusions that drive greed and hatred. In the words of one senior Cambodian Buddhist who was interviewed by staff of DC-Cam in 2002, ‘Revenge will never end if people solve conflicts through passion, greed, anger and insanity … The most important things are truth and accountability in order to set an example for other people not to do the same things.’ (p.145) It is clear that for many Buddhists in Cambodia the best way to reveal the truth and establish accountability is by means of properly conducted trials. As one respondent phrased it, ‘In the law, those who commit crimes must be punished. In Buddhist law, those who commit sinful acts are destined to receive unfortunate results. We suppress vindictiveness by not being vindictive. There must be justice and proper prosecution if we are to live in peace and prosperity.’ (p.23)
One of the surprising results of the survey is that there was little support amongst respondents for a Cambodian truth commission as a means of revealing the truth and establishing accountability. One possible reason for this might be a lack of awareness of such an institutional process, because there was support for a comprehensive commission of inquiry that would help people begin to understand just how and why ordinary people turned into torturers and killers. Respondents made it clear that there was a need for Cambodians to develop an understanding of the root causes of their auto-genocide, so that they can begin to explain what for so many remains inexplicable. As Linton concludes, ‘all Cambodians of whatever faith and political perspective, need to be part of an effort to create their own record of their own past, in order to reconcile with what happened.’ (p.242)
The third pillar in the overall transitional justice programme that Linton attempts to sketch out relates to the issue of reparations for the victims of the past horrors. Here she goes little beyond emphasising the importance of comprehensive mental health and rehabilitation programmes at the grass-roots. It is clear that she sees these primarily as a necessary complement to the kind of wide-ranging commission of inquiry she advocates, and certainly there is evidence from South Africa and elsewhere that the experience of many witnesses to the formal truth commissions was extremely distressing and far from therapeutic, as they were called upon to recount and relive past traumas without appropriate support services. But the victims of the Khmer Rouge years stretch far beyond the bereaved and the survivors of torture. A whole generation suffered direct loss and violence of one form or another during those years, and subsequent generations have been damaged by the ongoing legacy of a culture of violence and impunity, division and poverty. In such a context the most important foundation upon which to build national reconciliation must be a sustained effort to advance social justice. As one respondent expressed it:
National reconciliation is a way leading to stability and peace to develop a society which was abused with wars, and national reconciliation has to be on social justice grounds. A social justice exists only if we promote a culture of respecting human rights, understanding social morality, and carry out legal obligation … national reconciliation is based on transparency, equality and justice. (p.194)
The fourth guiding objective for a comprehensive transitional justice programme for Cambodia identified by Linton is the purging from public office of those associated with the repressive regime. However, she is forced to accept, however reluctantly, that too many former Khmer Rouge cadres are now in positions of authority within the Cambodian state structures for this to be feasible. She does cling to the hope, however, that alternative forms of accountability might be implemented – that former perpetrators be encouraged to try to make amends in some manner for the wrongs of the past.
Who are to be the key agents in the implementation of such a far-reaching programme of transitional justice? Linton identifies three. The Cambodian government’s role should go beyond the administration of criminal trials and other institutional developments to the encouragement of an open political environment and a sustained effort to promote social justice. An important role for the non-governmental organisations and movements of the civil society sector will be to encourage, pressure and assist the state in the fulfilment of its obligations, not least by helping survivors and their families to articulate and express their demands of the government. Linton also suggests that civil society agencies have a particular aptitude and responsibility for working at the grass-roots level, in the space created by processes of accountability to work directly on reconciliation and social repair. The third key agency is the Cambodian people themselves. Again and again respondents emphasised the importance of changes in personal attitudes and behaviour as one of the central elements of any reconciliation process, recognising the need for people to come to terms with the demons from the past and learn to live alongside each other, working towards a common future. In relation to this, Linton engages at various points in the book with the issue of forgiveness as a constituent part of any reconciliation process. Like other authors she concludes that no-one has the right to expect or to require survivors to extend the hand of forgiveness to their persecutors, and that reconciliation in the form of co-existence can take place without forgiveness.
Like any published work, this book has its flaws. It is repetitive and would have benefited from a firmer editorial hand. At times I felt that the author could not quite decide whether she was writing a research report or a book for a wider lay-readership. Some might question the appropriateness of devoting such a large section of the book to a comprehensive overview of the survey, with details of how the data was collected and processed – and then the responses presented with statistics to two decimal points, graphs and pi-charts. All this might be of interest to the professional social scientist and public opinion pollster – but I could not help thinking that at least part of the motivation was to present the findings as ‘scientific’ with ‘hard facts’ to support the observations and conclusions of the author. I also feel that Linton places too great a faith in the healing power of the rule of law that reflects her own legal background. Moreover, whilst not an expert on contemporary Cambodian history, I think she is too dismissive of the serious threats to national peace and security faced by the government over the past decade. I also found it somewhat contradictory that she affirms the need for a purge of public officials who had been part of the Khmer Rouge apparatus, but then acknowledges that such a cleansing operation would not be feasible. I was also disappointed that she failed to give consideration to some of the more innovative proposals for establishing accountability that have been suggested by scholars such as Craig Etcheson.
But setting these reservations aside, there is a rigor and a level of integrity to this work that means it will become one of the indispensable resources to be consulted by those charged with directing the path of national reconciliation in Cambodia. The survey on which it is based was a significant attempt to engage with Cambodians on issues relating to reconciliation in their country. And therein lies the significance of the research, as an indication of the range of views and the issues that many Cambodians believe need to be addressed as their country progresses along the path of reconciliation. As such, this is a valuable and stimulating book. It is perhaps inevitable that it will now enter the political minefield of national and international debate about how to deal with Cambodia’s traumatic past. The real challenge is how to take these issues and debates back to the people themselves, to continue and extend the engagement and the dialogue that brought about the research in the first place, so that whatever the features of the overall transitional justice programme that emerges, the Cambodian people themselves will feel the degree of ownership necessary for the vision of a shared future to become a reality.
|
|