|
August 5, 1998 Dear Dr. Tith: I was able to go to Cambodia as an election observer with the NDI delegation. It is a wonderful and amazing country and I greatly appreciated the opportunity. However, just FYI, I spoke at considerable length with Ellen about our observations of the election--I was in her group in Kampong Cham province and I concur with much of what she has said here. I was very frustrated with the premature and almost-absolute approval of the election process by the international community and remain a "dissenter" regarding the public statements issued by our U.S. group to date. I hope you are doing well. I look forward to seeing you again sometime soon. Best, Carol
`Miracle on the Mekong' or Orchestrated Outcome? Wednesday, August 5, 1998; Page A19 On July 26, a year after a bloody coup by the Cambodian People's Party (CPP), Cambodians voted in parliamentary elections. On July 27 and 28, with virtually no results reported, and having visited a fraction of the 11,000 polling stations, the European Union-dominated joint international Observer Group and the U.S. delegation gave their stamp of approval. The joint observer group said the election was "free and fair to an extent that enables it to reflect, in a credible way, the will of the Cambodian people." The U.S. delegation praised an apparently "successful exercise in national self-determination." At a press conference, former representative Stephen J. Solarz, a leader of the U.S. team, called the elections a potential "miracle on the Mekong." He said that election day conditions had "to some extent mitigated" preelection intimidation and the CPP's control of the media and electoral apparatus. Solarz denigrated opposition parties' complaints about the process and referred to the opposition as the"loser." If the U.S. delegation had taken more time in issuing its statement, he said, "the train would have left the station."
I was a member of the U.S. delegation. I went to Kompong Cham province, which is governed by Hun Neng, the brother of CPP leader Hun Sen. My team concentrated on Tbaung Kmum district, east of the Mekong, which has one of the worst human rights records in Cambodia. At a dozen polling stations, we saw voters turn out early and in high numbers to wait in line, enter cardboard cubicles for privacy and then put their folded ballo= ts in the slot of a secure aluminum box. Through a translator, we talked to voters, officials and local observers. None reported problems. Sometimes our translator talked to people alone. The next day, we watched ballots being counted on the floor of a pagoda. We left before most returns were relayed to the provincial election authority, and then to Phnom Pehn. Back in the capital, we compared notes with delegation members who went to other provinces. Like us, they reported an orderly process and a massive turnout. Like us, they saw no instances of overt intimidation and no obvious fraud. Like us, they heard no complaints from party representatives or local observers. So why am I skeptical? The uniformly positive responses from voters and officials strike me as odd. I wonder whether the high turnout reflects something other than enthusiasm. At one polling station, officials wrote the turnout, 99.2 percent, on the blackboard three hours before closing. They already knew who wasn't coming to vote. Even though we were knowledgeable about Cambodia and election monitoring, our methods may simply have been inadequate to the task. How likely is it that Cambodians would speak openly about coercion to us or our translator, an unknown Khmer man? It would be difficult to get answers under any circumstances. Two of our group stopped to speak to a man on a bike in a vast rubber plantation. He was frightened. My colleagues suggested he pretend to be giving directions. As he gestured, he told them that people were scared, and that if they felt able to vote freely they would vote against the regime. Then he got nervous and left. Our findings and methods contrasted with those of a Khmer-speaking American human rights worker with six years' experience in Cambodia. Rather than briefly visit many polling stations, she and three companions spent much of the day outside one station in Kampot province. They identified the village chief and his subordinates overseeing the crowd. They overheard muttered comments about villagers and their allegiances. The village chief said he would stay all day -- a violation of election rules -- to make sure things went smoothly and to fetch people who hadn't voted yet. What if they don't want to vote, he was asked? "Everybody would want to come to vote," he replied. Members of Funcinpec, the party ousted in last July's coup, reported death threats from the commune chief, who served as the poll security chief, if the vote didn't "go well." These people are no longer sleeping at home. I do not know what I saw -- a well-run election with the fullest participation of the Cambodian people, or an orchestrated exercise carried out by an electoral apparatus controlled by the ruling party. Many things I saw have more than one interpretation. Observers more skilled than I saw intimidation. Whatever observers saw on election day, we know enough about Cambodia, the coup last July and its aftermath -- including as many as 100 political assassinations -- and the CPP's domination of the electoral process not to prejudge the outcome, undermine political parties' ability to contest fraud or underestimate the danger Cambodians face for exercising their rights. The writer is a former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
|
|
[ Membership ] [ Feedbacks ] [ Contact Us ] |
  |