National reconciliation in Cambodia: can there be forgiveness in the absence of the rule of law?
Say Bory November 1998
The Paris agreements set as a key objective the promotion of ‘national reconciliation’ in Cambodia’s profoundly divided society. While of crucial importance to consolidating Cambodia’s long-term peace, it is a difficult and open-ended task. Little was said in the actual text of the agreements concerning how genuine national reconciliation would come about. Though it must ultimately end at the individual level, through a process of healing and forgiveness, this process is arguably best promoted by the establishment of a legal framework which secures and protects both the rights of the individual and the broader public interest.
The difficulty of forgetting
Most Cambodians desperately want peace. The reality, however, is that people have different capacities to forgive and forget. The legacy of gross human rights abuses committed by the Khmer Rouge, along with outstanding grievances between Cambodia’s political parties, have created an environment that is not readily conducive to cooperation among Cambodians. The country’s ‘winner-take-all’ political system serves as a further disincentive to cooperation because the livelihoods of so many people are directly linked to the success of the political parties they support.
The difficulties of forgetting are illustrated at a political level by the post-1993 power-sharing arrangement which emerged between the CPP and FUNCINPEC in an initial attempt to foster reconciliation. This coalition came about not so much because the parties were ready to compromise on power-sharing, but because they had little choice but to work together. The apparent cooperation on one level between CPP and FUNCINPEC officials was undermined on another by deep-rooted distrust and an unwillingness to compromise. It soon became clear that each party wanted political reconciliation on its own terms.
This essentially meant holding on to power or swaying the political system to the party’s benefit. As competition increased and the coalition government weakened, both Hun Sen and Ranariddh began to use the rhetoric of national reconciliation to justify building alliances with the Khmer Rouge to bolster their political positions. The public rationale for their actions was that they were seeking to end the war and reintegrate the Khmer Rouge in Cambodian society. National reconciliation was thus pursued in the name of peace, which presented real dilemmas for Cambodia’s people, many of whom were not ready to simply overlook the past.
Peace or justice?
There are two prevailing views regarding the roles of peace and justice in shaping reconciliation. Some believe justice should be traded against the overriding aim of ending Cambodia’s long war. The opportunity to prevent more deaths should not be taken lightly. However, the controversial amnesties given to Khmer Rouge leaders like Ieng Sary in recent years create a dangerous precedent of impunity for Cambodian society, threatening longer-term peace and stability. The prospect that Ieng Sary will not be brought to justice is almost unbearable for many people, all the more so because many believe he was granted an amnesty for the gain of the country’s political leaders.
Others believe there can be no healing without justice. No one who suffered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge will ever forget; many will not be able to forgive. Retribution for those guilty of war crimes — both past and present — is for some, therefore, necessary to promote healing. But justice must not simply be sought for narrow political or personal gain, nor at any cost. The establishment of an effective rule of law in Cambodia which treats all equally — or at least a real hope that such a rule of law will come about soon — is crucial in promoting cooperation between Cambodians and allowing rebuilding to continue.
The collective interest
The need for the rule of law was emphasised in both the Paris agreements and Cambodia’s new Constitution. Article 31 states that ‘every Khmer citizen shall be equal before the law’. Yet different conditions for different people in effect authorise those with greater power or wealth to place their personal interest before that of the public. The development of a legal system which defends the public interest is therefore in many ways the precursor for genuine national reconciliation among Cambodians.
Say Bory was President of the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (BAKC) from 1995-1998. His article was written in May 1998 prior to his nomination by the King as a member of the Constitutional Council.