CAMBODIA: THE ELUSIVE PEACE DIVIDEND

CAMBODIA: THE ELUSIVE PEACE DIVIDEND

By The International Crisis Group (ICG)

August 11, 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Almost a decade after the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements, Cambodia is at peace and the government is at last secure enough to contemplate the trials of some Khmer Rouge leaders. The country has a coalition government that is stable, has reclaimed its seat at the United Nations (UN), and has become a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It is posting 4 per cent annual economic growth rates and making modest strides in economic reform. Clearly the country has moved forward: it is intact, it is without internal or external threats, and it has the necessary framework for good government.

Given the gulf that existed between the political groupings of Cambodia in 1991 when the Paris Accords were signed, and the lack of a liberal, democratic tradition in the country, the existence of a stable coalition government by the year 2000 could be seen as an important first step in achieving the potential offered by the 1991 settlement. But this judgment must remain considerably clouded given the systematic resort to political violence and abuse of process by key players to get to this point. Cambodian politicians could have done better. There is peace but the majority of Cambodians are still waiting for their peace dividend, and many believe that it will never come. Social welfare is virtually non-existent and the national economy has little prospect of supporting the growing adult population.

Cambodia remains a strongman’s state, replete with lawlessness, human rights abuses, grinding poverty, bloated security forces and an economy thriving on prostitution, narcotics trafficking, land grabbing and illegal logging. The ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), led by Prime Minister Hun Sen, has now achieved long-sought legitimacy but this has come essentially by default – by marginalising political opposition, wearing down donors and diplomats, and maintaining a lock on power through the military and local government offices.

The government has pledged itself to an ambitious agenda for growth and reform, yet it remains to be seen whether the CPP will deliver. There is considerable room to believe that the CCP’s public commitment in a donors’ meeting in Tokyo in February 1999 to a program of political reform and social welfare is disingenuous. In the most important areas of necessary reform foreshadowed in 1991, the government has made little progress. The likelihood of large-scale violence or a collapse of government control is relatively low, but all parties cannot ignore the cumulative effects of ongoing abuses by the ruling party or the potentially explosive issues on the horizon. Economic inequalities are increasing, and are being met more frequently with public protests against land grabbing and corruption. Tensions within the armed forces are being exacerbated by attempts to reduce the size of the forces, while attempts to replace old guard local officials may unleash violence against their opponents. One of the most sensitive, if not potentially traumatic, issues is the question of a tribunal for the surviving Khmer Rouge leadership. The ruling party cannot agree within itself on the way forward, and any decision will elicit strong public response. The government has yet to show consistent leadership on any of these major issues despite its commitment to donors to do so.

The international community, deeply involved in pushing Cambodia to the horrors of 1975 and then in trying to bring it back, bears a particular responsibility for the state of the country. Those who signed the 1991 Peace Agreements can take credit for finally drawing the teeth of the Khmer Rouge and bringing an end to the civil war, and those who have kept the country financially solvent in subsequent years can take much of the credit for the limited gains made. But they should all be now honestly reviewing their role in creating and subsidizing the government that today controls the country.

ICG’s previous report on Cambodia emphasised the importance of breaking the cycle of impunity, stepping up preparations for local elections and reforming public finances by shifting excessive military spending to social sectors. These recommendations still hold, although none has been addressed effectively by the Cambodian government or the donor community.

This report makes the following additional recommendations.

Linking Aid and Governance Reforms

1. Donor governments must adopt a more visibly political approach to coordination, solidarity behind agreed goals, and a much more critical eye toward the Cambodian government, being willing to take action if agreed goals are not achieved.

22. The Consultative Group (CG) meetings of donors should include a greater diversity of politicians and Cambodian NGOs. If this is not acceptable to the Cambodian government, the CG should convene a separate meeting with Cambodian NGOs to be held the day before the formal meetings with Cambodian officials.

Land disputes

3. Donors should support the creation of an effective dispute resolution system that maximises representation for farmers and civic activists and minimises the participation of provincial or military authorities.

44. Donors should prepare immediately to increase aid for food and health care to offset the causes and results of landlessness.

5. Donors should give ongoing assistance to the clearance of landmines as a means of making more land available.

Demobilisation

6. Demobilisation that actually addresses the declared purposes of the program must be a higher priority both for the government and the donor community.

7. Donors should not fund the demobilisation project sponsored by the World Bank as currently envisioned. Efforts should be more focused, and include a strategy for cantonment of weapons, ending the small arms trade on the streets of the major towns and cities, and cutting back the most – not the least – costly parts of the armed forces.

Commune elections

8. Donors should not fund commune elections if the legislation remains as it is and if other practical benchmarks, such as reforming the National Electoral Commission, are not met.

Trials for the Khmer Rouge

9. The UN and other interested parties should be prepared to back the special courts to be set up under Cambodian domestic jurisdiction, but only under the firm condition that all living first-level leaders of the Khmer Rouge are subject to rigorous investigation that conforms to international standards.

10. There should be explicit provision in the legislation for all judges to be able to render public, reasoned dissenting opinions on all matters submitted to them.

11. Agreement should be sought to allow a foreign presence among the investigators apart from the principals identified specifically in the Cambodian bill.

12. International organisations, foreign governments and Cambodian NGOs should be prepared, perhaps through the vehicle of a joint monitoring committee, to document and publicise any weaknesses in the administration of justice under the proposed Cambodian tribunal.

Phnom Penh/Brussels, 11 August 2000

CAMBODIA: THE ELUSIVE PEACE DIVIDEND

I. INTRODUCTION

Given the gulf that existed between the political groupings of Cambodia in 1991 when the Paris Accords were signed, and the lack of a liberal, democratic tradition in the country, the existence of a stable coalition government by the year 2000 could be seen as an important first step to achieving the potential offered by the 1991 settlement. But this judgment must remain considerably clouded given the systematic resort to political violence and the systematic abuse of process by key players to get to this point. Cambodian politicians could have done better. There is peace but the majority of Cambodians are still waiting for their peace dividend, and many believe that it will never come. Social welfare is virtually non-existent and the national economy has little prospect of supporting the growing adult population.

The next three sections of this report (covering national political trends, political parties and the national budget) reveal the continuing entrenchment of a highly personalised, authoritarian and ineffective system of governance. The promise of the Constitution (drafted after the 1991 Paris Peace Accords) to establish a liberal and pluralist state, with basic freedoms guaranteed, and with an effective representative democracy, has not been fulfilled and is fading.

The report then provides an assessment of five topical political issues which are central to the transition that Cambodia has to make, and which demonstrate the massive problems that still lie ahead. These are human rights abuses and use of political violence; the question of land ownership and title after the wholesale population transfers under the Khmer Rouge (KR) government; the 1999 commitment of the Royal Cambodian Government (RCG) to reduce the armed forces by almost two-thirds; commune elections; and bringing to justice the KR principals responsible for the genocide and other serious crimes between 1975 and 1979.

II. EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL POLITICS

The historic national elections of May 1993, mandated by the Paris Peace Agreements and overseen by the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), yielded a clear victory for Funcinpec, the royalist party. But the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), unwilling to play by democratic rules, bullied its way into a coalition government. Cambodia became the only country in the world with co-Prime Ministers, Prince Norodom Ranariddh of Funcinpec and Hun Sen of the CPP. Each ministry had co-ministers, each of whom had his own staff. In September 1993, Cambodia promulgated its new Constitution and its parliament, known as the National Assembly, began work.

From 1993 to 1995, a spirit of cooperation and relief prevailed, generating the goodwill necessary to make the two-track system of government function. The country re-opened to the world after decades of war. Investment and foreign aid pushed the GDP growth rate to 7 or 8 per cent and the first steps were taken towards rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. But it was not to last, and throughout 1996 and the first half of 1997, relations between the Prime Ministers and the two parties frayed. No common ground could be found on critical issues such as sharing power at the local level, coping with the remnants of the Khmer Rouge or approaches to basic economic development. The CPP and Funcinpec paid equally little attention to adapting to the norms of democratic parliamentary governance; rather, they continued to rely on patronage or authoritarian tactics. But the CPP, with control of the armed forces, was in the stronger position.

In March 1997, the uneasy balance was fractured when unidentified assailants threw grenades into the midst of an opposition party rally led by Sam Rainsy, killing seventeen and wounding dozens of others. Tensions came to a head in July 1997, when the CPP ousted Funcinpec in a military coup. Over 100 Funcinpec officials and supporters, as well as members of other parties opposed to the CPP, were killed in three days of fighting. Opponents of the CCP, including First Prime Minister Ranariddh, many Funcinpec MPs and opposition leader Sam Rainsy and his supporters, once again fled the country.

The international community, weary of Cambodian infighting, did not seriously challenge the legitimacy of Hun Sen’s new government established by force. Some countries, including France and Japan, accepted the CPP’s charge that Funcinpec had brought Khmer Rouge soldiers into Phnom Penh, thus triggering a necessarily military response to ensure national security. Others, such as the United States, froze aid and withheld recognition of the post-coup government. The UN decided in September 1997 that Cambodia’s seat should remain vacant until the conflict could be resolved and Cambodia’s pending acceptance into ASEAN was similarly deferred.

Despite the less than satisfactory government structure which emerged from the 1993 elections, the international community could not resile from support for new elections to settle Cambodia’s political crisis. The July 1998 elections were less violent than their 1993 counterpart, mainly because the Khmer Rouge were no longer a factor and the opposition had been cowed, but the electoral machinery, including the National Election Commission (NEC) and access to the electronic media, was controlled entirely by the CPP. Funcinpec and the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), just returning from exile, not only had little time to organise and compete but also had to cope with a hostile environment and the recent experience of the coup. Human rights workers and election monitors documented politically motivated murders, widespread intimidation and rampant vote buying in the run-up to the elections.

Not surprisingly, the CPP engineered a change to the formula by which votes translated into seats and obtained through its electoral plurality a majority of seats in the Assembly. Yet it fell short of the constitutionally mandated two-thirds of the National Assembly needed to form a government. In the days immediately following the election, Funcinpec and SRP complained of procedural violations in the counting process, but these grievances were simply rejected by the NEC and the Constitutional Council, the legal body charged with resolving electoral complaints. The opposition parties organised demonstrations in the streets of Phnom Penh to protest the government’s blatant manipulation of the electoral process, leading to a police crackdown in mid-September 1998. The CPP, desperate to form a government, put in place an illegal travel ban to prevent elected members of parliament from leaving the country, thus forcing their participation in a swearing-in ceremony in late September. Shortly after the ceremony finished, the ban was lifted and once again many Funcinpec and SRP members, including Ranariddh and Rainsy, left Cambodia to lobby for foreign support to overturn the election results.

In mid-November 1998, Ranariddh abruptly agreed to participate in a coalition government with the CPP and returned to Phnom Penh to broker the deal. Rainsy, whose only alternative was to remain in exile, returned a few weeks later to take up the formal role of opposition leader. The critical vote of confidence took place in early December 1998. Less than two months later, the international community conferred its legitimacy by pledging $470 million in aid at the donors’ meeting in Tokyo. Although the government looked suspiciously like its unsuccessful predecessor, donors described themselves as ‘cautiously optimistic’ as Hun Sen promised a laundry list of reforms tailor-made to international concerns, including economic and judicial reforms, protection of human rights and the environment, a reduction in the civil administration and military demobilisation. That spring Hun Sen traveled to New York to assume Cambodia’s seat at the United Nations, kept vacant in the wake of the 1997 coup. The final international political victory for Hun Sen came in April 1999 with Cambodia’s formal accession to ASEAN.

The government has pledged itself to an ambitious agenda for growth and reform, yet it remains to be seen whether the CPP will deliver. There is considerable room to believe that the CCP’s public commitment in the donors’ meeting in Tokyo in 1999 to a program of political reform and social welfare is disingenuous. In the most important areas of necessary reform foreshadowed back in 1991, the government has made little progress. The likelihood of large-scale violence or a collapse of government control is relatively low, but all parties cannot ignore the cumulative effects of ongoing abuses by the ruling party or the potentially explosive issues on the horizon. Economic inequalities are increasing, and are being met more frequently with public protests against land grabbing and corruption. Tensions within the armed forces are being exacerbated by attempts to reduce the size of the forces, while attempts to replace old guard local officials may unleash violence against their opponents. One of the most sensitive, if not potentially traumatic, issues is the question of a tribunal to try the surviving Khmer Rouge leadership. The ruling party cannot agree within itself on the way forward and any decision will elicit strong public response. The government has yet to show consistent leadership on any of these major issues despite its commitment to donors to do so.

The instinct to exploit government bodies for party interests persists. The most blatant example since the establishment of the new coalition is undoubtedly the formation of a Senate, established largely to create another legislative chamber to warehouse senior party members for whom other sinecures were not available. Funcinpec, for instance, had insisted on Prince Ranariddh occupying the position of President of the National Assembly, but this put CPP President Chea Sim out of a job. The Senate allowed for another Presidency position for Chea Sim as well as jobs for those who had run and not been re-elected.

The National Assembly, the parliamentary chamber provided for in the original Constitution, appears to be meeting more regularly than it did in the 1993-1998 term, but its operations in many ways resemble those of a Soviet or Chinese style parliament rather than the more representative one clearly implied in the Constitution. Even though there is an opposition party with seats in the Assembly, lack of significant opportunities for debate is a measure of its relatively undemocratic character. Members of the Assembly rarely, if ever, visit their constituencies. Sessions are now regularly televised, but the coverage is suspended during debates over controversial issues or if members of the opposition are speaking. This is reminiscent of the CPP’s success in blocking opposition access to the electronic media in the preparations for the 1998 elections.

The Assembly has passed about 30 laws during its current term, but many deal with relatively non-pressing issues, such as auto insurance. The Assembly quickly reverts to puppet status whenever dealing with issues on which the ruling party has an interest in stalling, such as legislation that would mandate serious penalties for government officials engaged in corruption. The democratic process is further undermined as legislation continues to be vaguely worded and leaves much of the actual regulating work to be enacted by Ministerial sub-decrees. Assembly members and their staff members have little expertise in drafting legislation, and all legislation under consideration is still initiated by the government. According to the Cambodian Development Resource Institute, the Assembly does not even get the opportunity to review the annual budget but receives it only two weeks before the start of the next fiscal year, ‘leaving no time for a proper review’.

The judiciary also remains loyal to the executive branch. The Constitutional Council, which is supposed to monitor adherence to the constitution and rule on potential threats to it, and the Supreme Council of the Magistracy, which is responsible for appointing, removing and disciplining judges, are both dominated by CPP loyalists. Lower-level judges have limited training in the law, with some reportedly not having completed primary school. Although new lawyers have been graduating in the last few years, the Bar Association has been slow to process their applications to practise. There is little cooperation between the judiciary and law enforcement officials, further diluting progress toward the rule of law.

Other aspects of governance in Cambodia remain unchanged, especially where official corruption is concerned. Despite the establishment of a government Anti-Corruption Commission in October 1999, a May 2000 survey conducted by the World Bank indicates that one-third of the population thinks official corruption is worse than three years ago – while the remaining two-thirds thinks corruption is much worse. Ministerial appointments are widely seen as opportunities to increase personal wealth and power, not to serve the country. Recently, a multiparty group of legislators ranked the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of the Interior, the judiciary and the Council of Ministers (the Prime Minister’s cabinet) as the most corrupt governmental bodies in the country. Although the necessary legislation has passed to establish a National Auditing Authority (NAA) to monitor spending across all government institutions, the CPP has stalled the NAA’s establishment until it can ensure its own dominance of the body.

Donors, particularly international financial institutions like the World Bank, are increasingly reciting the mantra of ‘good governance’. Yet their criticisms are couched in weak rhetorical terms of ‘political will’ rather than of corruption, bribery, ineptitude and abuse of state power. Cambodian ministers and legislators will have to work considerably harder to stamp out their own corruption, turn around their economy and earn reputations as genuine legislators and representatives of their people before their country can be considered truly stable.

I. POLITICAL PARTIES

A. Cambodian People’s Party

Consistent with its style of rule in the 1980s, the CPP is not simply a political party; it is the governing apparatus of Cambodia. The CPP currently claims a nationwide membership of more than three million, or about one-quarter of the total population. The Party has an extensive and highly organised national network, primarily through village ‘cells’ and a monopoly on local government offices (see below). At the national level, it has control of the most powerful and lucrative ministries, including: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Commerce, Environment, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Industry and Energy, Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction, Planning, and Post and Telecommunications. CPP and Funcinpec provide co-Ministers for the pivotal Ministries of Defense and the Interior, but in both instances the Funcinpec members are far weaker than their CPP counterparts.

In the months preceding the 1998 elections, the CPP’s rolls had swelled to four million. This was likely a combined result of Funcinpec’s demise in the previous year’s coup, the Sam Rainsy Party’s difficulties organizing in the countryside, and the CPP’s practice of forcing enrolment in the electoral register. During the election itself the CPP received less than two and a half million votes, losing almost a million to Funcinpec and half a million to the SRP. CCP insiders attribute the loss to rural dissatisfaction with commune chiefs. Given that most of the party’s membership is in the countryside, it will have to be somewhat sensitive to demands for changes in local level leadership. Commune elections (discussed further below) are expected to take place at some point in the next few years, and, in anticipation of that, the CPP is already well underway identifying more popular local candidates.

The CPP tends to make much of its role as the force that liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge and from the Vietnamese, and Hun Sen in particular often refers to the importance of maintaining the country’s sovereignty. The Party claims it is devoted to strengthening the country so that it can remain independent, and on improving the standard of living after decades of war. Yet it is incapable of relinquishing highly authoritarian tactics or corrupt practices. Although the CPP’s stated agenda focuses on reforming the government – which includes improving the judiciary, paring down the bloated armed forces, improving the quality of governance and fighting corruption – these appear to be priorities of international donors, not of the Party itself. The CPP clearly prefers to stick to the age-old strategy of patronage and intimidation, rather than real reform, to ensure popular support.

Hun Sen continues to be driven by a desire for international legitimacy. He and the CPP were for a decade shunned as puppets of Vietnam, then viewed with suspicion for their bullying tactics through the early and mid 1990s, then once again marginalised after the 1997 coup through the loss of the UN seat and the postponement of ASEAN accession. The CPP’s loss at the polls in 1993 came as a serious shock to the Party, and its narrow and tainted victory in 1998 continues to rankle. The Prime Minister likes to view himself as another Lee Kuan Yew and clearly thinks the need for economic development, particularly following the devastating decade of isolation and socialism resulting from Vietnamese rule, requires a firm hand. He is seen as effective, especially when compared to Funcinpec and its leadership, and this has earned him significant support among donors. Few in the international community appear concerned that his effectiveness is driven by a desire to maintain power first and reform the country second – even if those two strategies are fundamentally incompatible.

The Prime Minister’s capacity and inclination to use and abuse his power are painfully obvious. Even worse is his tendency to do it in order to pacify his external funders. Under significant pressure from the donor community to ensure a peaceful election day in 1998, for example, a single directive from Hun Sen suddenly brought an eerie calm to the days preceding the election despite a campaign marred by violence. In his speech to the January 1999 Consultative Group meeting in Tokyo, the Prime Minister pledged to crack down on illegal logging. Global Witness, an environmental watchdog group, claimed that ‘incredible changes’ followed, but later noted that in terms of fundamental transformations in this industry, the ‘RCG has, by and large, failed to suppress illegal activities by timber concessionaires, both in terms of detection and punitive actions.’ Perhaps most grotesque was the December 1999 re-arrest of almost 100 people, as reported ‘on the orders of Prime Minister Hun Sen because he disagreed with their original sentence or acquittal’. The Prime Minister continues to use his power like a light switch, flipping it on and off as necessary, and the donor community – ironically – continues to see this as grounds for ‘cautious optimism’ because power is occasionally exploited to achieve results they want. Given how little Hun Sen has had to do to convince donors that he is committed to reform, it is not surprising that he ‘felt happy’ about getting the money following the most recent Consultative Group meeting.

The CPP is well known for its party discipline, and reliable information on factions within it or divided loyalties is not readily available. Nevertheless, it is unlikely to be the monolithic entity that its public face reveals. Since the formation of the 1993 government – and indeed, even before that – rumors have periodically circulated about fissures within the CPP, though some believe that the Party itself encourages these rumors. Deputy Prime Minister and Co-Minister of the Interior, Sar Kheng, is often cited as a rival to Hun Sen. Despite his oversight of the notably thuggish police, Sar Kheng achieved a degree of favor from the international community through his involvement, then perceived to be a positive role, in the late 1996 and early 1997 preparations for elections. While some of this goodwill evaporated as a result of the coup and the subsequently problematic elections, Sar Kheng can still be seen as an alternative power centre within the CPP. Other CPP leaders periodically cited as potential challengers to Hun Sen include Chea Sim, president of the Party and of the newly created Senate, and Ke Kim Yan, Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF). Despite these tensions, there is little evidence of a faction with enough support to oust Hun Sen.

Over coming years, the divide within the CPP is more likely to be between ‘old guard’ members and technocrats returning form overseas than between the military and civilians. The Party can no longer exist solely through brutality and authoritarian rule; if it is to develop at all, or advance reforms, it will require increasing assistance from those who have been educated abroad. CPP members who have remained in Cambodia or Vietnam have had little opportunity to develop the skills necessary for modern trade, banking, computing, urban planning or infrastructure development. These returnees tend to occupy advisory positions to Ministers and Secretaries of State and, while nominally committed to the CPP, are clearly uncomfortable with the Party’s authoritarian tendencies. In the future, the Party may be faced with either losing this badly needed base of knowledge or becoming more accommodating to its changing membership.

B. Funcinpec

Funcinpec’s traditional appeal has been based on the party’s connection to the monarchy and to religion. Prince Norodom Ranariddh, now President of the National Assembly, is the son of King Norodom Sihanouk, who is still viewed with great reverence by most Cambodians. Funcinpec’s victory over the CPP in the 1993 elections and its moderate showing in the 1998 elections are attributed to this connection. The party includes among its legislators, ministers and other party officials about a half-dozen other members of the royal family.

Despite a seemingly natural advantage in a deeply traditional society, Funcinpec has failed miserably to develop itself as an effective political party. It is currently unclear on its own national membership and regionalstrengths. If the party has tactics for attracting new supporters, they are unclear. Funcinpec’s agenda is broadly committed to reform and economic development, but it lacks a plan for implementation as the party struggles to make use of the ministries it controls, such as Education, Information, Inspection and Anti-Corruption, Justice, Public Health, Rural Development and Women’s Affairs. Funcinpec tends to blame its weaknesses on the intimidating tactics – directed at local and national level supporters – of the CPP and on its responsibility for under-funded social welfare ministries, but the party’s inept leadership must also be considered. Prince Ranariddh’s very agreement to form a coalition with the CPP in late 1998 appeared to take a number of Funcinpec members by surprise, and it is actions such as these that lead observers to conclude that the Prince is uninterested in governing or party development beyond what is necessary to secure his own personal power. Ranariddh is often outside the country and, despite having insisted on the position of President of the National Assembly, often misses sessions.

Privately some senior Funcinpec members bemoan this predicament and express the hope that Ranariddh will become the next king, thereby allowing for a successor to Ranariddh to rejuvenate the party. The person mentioned most often as successor is Prince Norodom Sirivudh, a stepbrother to the King as well as former Foreign Minister and Funcinpec secretary-general until his expulsion, arrest and exile in late 1995. Sirivudh returned to Cambodia in 1999 despite strenuous opposition and threats from the CPP (including a threat to shoot down any plane known to be carrying him). As leader of the party, Sirivudh would have the potential to rejuvenate it. Sirivudh currently serves as an adviser to the King, but it is expected that he will at least run as a Funcinpec candidate for the National Assembly in 2003 if not make a bid for a senior party position.

The more effective Funcinpec ministers make some progress in their respective sectors but are challenged with the most daunting of Cambodia’s problems and little money. Mu Sochua, Minister of Women’s and Veterans’ Affairs, is credited with trying to manage effective programs with almost no resources, while other observers cite Minister of Justice Ouk Vithun’s efforts to improve the judiciary. Other senior members of the party appear to be content with titles and positions and show no real interest in effecting political or social change. Accusations of corruption are made against Funcinpec as often as they are against the CPP. Between these charges and those of Funcinpec’s rudderlessness, the party has also lost the confidence and support of the donor community.

The party’s lack of cohesion and direction is unlikely to cause a split, but it also virtually guarantees Funcinpec will never mount an effective challenge to the CPP until there is a change in leadership.

C. Sam Rainsy Party

The SRP currently estimates its active supporters to number about 500,000. Founded and chaired by former Funcinpec Finance Minister Sam Rainsy in 1995, the party holds 15 seats in the National Assembly, and seven in the Senate. This must be seen as a remarkable achievement, given that the SRP has only been in existence for a few short years. Most of the SRP’s support is to be found in Phnom Penh and surrounding areas, though the party managed to win the single-member seat of Pailin, a longtime Khmer Rouge stronghold, in the 1998 elections. The SRP is currently focused on trying to develop a nationwide network of party activists to help expand its reach in preparations for commune elections. Although the SRP includes other prominent politicians, such as MPs Son Chhay and Tioulong Saumura, critics of the party accuse it of being driven by a single individual.

Since it is the SRP that has borne the brunt of the CPP’s hostilities, Rainsy’s popularity may in the long-term be the more serious challenge to the CPP. Its pressure on the SRP has included the most absurd administrative harassment, such as a court challenge to force the party to change its name in 1997, as well the most lethal, such as the 1997 grenade attack. Violence and intimidation directed against the SRP is not uncommon: a later grenade-attack on Rainsy in 1998, the ongoing intimidation of party supporters, and attempts to frame party members for crimes are evidence of that. That no one has been arrested or tried for any of these offenses seems to send a very clear message to opposition supporters that not only are they putting themselves in jeopardy but that they can also expect no justice.

Although both the SRP and Funcinpec were labelled by the CPP and some donors as the opposition parties in the 1998 elections, it is only the SRP that has fully embraced this role since Funcinpec joined in a coalition government. Unlike Funcinpec, the SRP has dutifully – if pedantically – followed parliamentary procedure to try to elicit information from the government about its practices and policies. In the past 18 months, SRP has submitted over 100 questions to the National Assembly (the standard method of examining government policy) and none have been answered. Although the SRP tries to make best use of its positions in the Assembly, the legislature’s failure to function properly thwarts Rainsy’s attempts at enforcing government transparency.

In addition to pushing his agenda through the legislative system, Rainsy is also known for his very public political gestures. The SRP regularly organises demonstrations, marches, strikes and memorial services, marking everything from the murder of its supporters to the need for environmental protection legislation. In doing so, Rainsy often employs inflammatory rhetoric that, while less harmful than the violent tactics employed by his opponents in the government and security forces, loses him support in the international community. The most well-known example was his use of virulent anti-Vietnamese rhetoric, guaranteed to incite popular Cambodian sentiment, during the post-election demonstrations in September 1998. The issues on which Rainsy focuses are of course pressing matters – with corruption there can be no development, with violence there can be no democracy, without environmental safeguards the country’s ability to support even subsistence agriculture may be jeopardised – but he is impatient with his allies and opponents alike. Transforming the fundamental governing structure of an authoritarian regime to a fully functional parliamentary democracy is no quick task and time will tellwhether Rainsy is in this battle for the long haul.

Donors in Cambodia appear to have a high threshold for overt political violence but an extraordinarily low tolerance for what they consider ‘destabilizing’ behavior. Diplomats will privately admit that they find Rainsy arrogant and irritating, accusing him of fabricating threats to himself and his supporters and ‘crying wolf.’ While some of Rainsy’s tactics and statements are at best unreasonable, it is unclear why donors who claim to support non-violent, democratic rule find his efforts so distasteful by comparison with outright government abuses.

The SRP’s limited geographical appeal will in the short term make it no challenger to the CPP. In the longer term, however, the party may well erode traditional support for Funcinpec, particularly among younger voters. In order to survive, though, Rainsy and his colleagues will have to live with a constant threat of political violence from the CPP and others.

I. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND THE NATIONAL BUDGET

After seven years of relative peace and almost $3 billion in foreign aid, Cambodia remains in dire socio-economic straits. According to the 1998 National Health Survey, more than one in nine Cambodian children die before their fifth birthday. Infant mortality is on the rise, an estimated 180,000 people are HIV-positive, and the World Health Organisation has ranked Cambodia 174th out of 191 countries for health care delivery. The Cambodian Women’s Crisis Centre estimates that there are 50-55,000 prostitutes, one-third under the age of 18, employed in brothels across the country. Pedophile sex tourists make their intentions plain on a daily basis in Phnom Penh with impunity from prosecution. Average life-span is 54 years, yet the population of 11 million is expected to double by 2020.

These figures give just an indication of the breathtaking socio-economic challenges Cambodia continues to face. But government expenditures, which should serve as the acid test for the coalition government’s commitment to reform, do not reflect these concerns: funding for education has declined while spending on health has only increased from 4.3 to 5.3 per cent of government outlays. The World Bank notes that these ministries often cannot make full or efficient use of the resources they are allocated. The Ministry of Defense, on the other hand, continues to be given almost 40 per cent of the annual budget and regularly utilises more than 100 per cent of that amount. These relative expenditure shares have remained consistent for the past three years, illustrating just how disingenuous are the government’s pledges to reform and develop.

The economy is still struggling to find natural prices and taxation rates following the spikes generated by UNTAC’s presence and the presence of a large international contingent for the 1998 elections. About half of the annual budget comes from import duties and the sale of state resources, the other half from foreign aid. Cambodia has few competitive exports, at least of a legal variety. Foreign-owned garment factories are forming a fledgling industrial base, but currently favorable tariffs offer a protection that will drop in the coming years. Individual income taxes are still unheard of. The government is currently contemplating an income tax on foreigners in Cambodia (many of whom work for aid agencies) in preference to taxing its own citizens. Civil servants are still paid a meager wage of $20 month, a salary so low it virtually forces them to engage in corrupt practices.

According to the World Bank, Cambodia has one of the lowest revenue collection rates in the world. In an effort to increase revenue, a 10 per cent value added tax (VAT) on goods and services went into effect in January 1999. The tax, however, is specifically geared towards about 400 companies, primarily hotels, restaurants and tour companies, thus placing more of the burden of increased costs on foreigners. Moreover, the main industry that produces revenue for the government – textile production – is exempt from the VAT. Government revenue has increased from 9 to 11 per cent of GDP, or about $60 million, but it is unclear whether this can be attributed to the VAT imposed on external sources of cash or to selective crackdowns on particularly lucrative industries or wealthy individuals.

The cost of not reforming is indeed high. Research contracted by the Asian Development Bank predicts that if the reforms pledged at the 1999 donor meeting are completed, Cambodia’s GDP growth will rise from 4 to 7 per cent by 2020, thus increasing per capita income from $274 to $1,522. Without reforms, growth will stagnate and per capita income will increase a mere $16 over the coming two decades. The same report, however, notes ‘the difficulty of breaking the cycle of decision-making by small groups of powerful people and establishing more participatory governance practices’. While Cambodia’s growth rates in the aggregate show an improvement, poverty at the micro-level has actually worsened. This brief growth spurt may soon be over if the government continues to financially neglect the sick, the poor and the uneducated.

I. CURRENT ISSUES

A. Human Rights Abuses and Political Violence

The combination of an authoritarian regime and widespread poverty contribute to ongoing problems with human rights and political violence. Despite the aspirations of the 1991 Peace Agreements and the commitments to peaceful, pluralistic politics in the Constitution, several domestic Cambodian NGOs continue to document a seemingly unmitigated stream of abuses, working with the UN’s Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (COHCHR), as well as international organisations such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. At the same time, public frustration with the government is increasingly being seen in public demonstrations.

Since July 1999, Licadho, one of a half-dozen respected Cambodian human rights group, reports receiving no less than 40 complaints per month. In the first half of 2000, Licadho has investigated over 300 cases, including 39 killings, 18 incidents of torture, 31 illegal arrests and detention, 61 physical assaults and 81 rapes. The real numbers are likely much higher, given people’s reluctance to file complaints. In few cases are just settlements to be found through the court system, which continues to be weak and subject to political bias.

The ‘culture of impunity’ (freedom from retribution for major crimes) is often cited as the root cause of Cambodia’s problems. For all the attention paid to the issue, little has changed in the past few years. Like the government, the law continues to be seen and used as a tool to be manipulated by the powerful, not as a means for all citizens to protect themselves. A June 1999 report by two Cambodian human rights groups and Human Rights Watch documents how those with connections to the power structure regularly evade prosecution, even when they are clearly guilty of serious crimes like murder and rape. The report cites the partisan, unprofessional and often brutal behavior of the armed forces and the judiciary as the sources of perpetual impunity. ‘Now more than ever,’ the report concludes, ‘it is incumbent upon the government to provide more leadership, vision, and action in order to bring violators to justice.’ Yet rights groups say little has changed despite the government’s purported commitments to improving the legal system.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the treatment of prisoners in state custody. One in four prisoners report being tortured, though the real figures are likely far higher. In an effort to bring Cambodia ‘…more in line with international prison-management standards’, a late May 2000 government decree states that civil servants, not police officers, will in the future guard prisoners, though it is unclear when this shift will actually take place.

Public protests are on the rise, indicating not just dissatisfaction with the government’s inability to protect and provide for its citizens, but also a growing willingness to express those sentiments publicly. A few short years ago, it was unusual to hold public marches, particularly those directed against the government and especially without permission from the municipal authorities. The SRP can take some credit for starting this trend, but students, the landless, the homeless, garment workers, motor scooter taxi drivers and others have now adopted this form of political expression and do not always seek permission first. Most recently, Phnom Penh has seen a wave of protests by garment factory workers against low wages and poor working conditions. These have been violently dispersed, most recently with private security forces as well as police shooting at strikers. The government clearly does not resile from using disproportionate force against peaceful, unarmed crowds.

Vigilante justice, another expression of the frustration with security authorities, has also been on the rise. Petty thievery – be it real or perceived – is increasingly dealt with by civilians administering severe beatings. The Phnom Penh Post has run at least three grisly series of photographs documenting mobs of angry civilians capturing and beating thieves. On at least one occasion, police actually released a suspected thief into the arms of a waiting mob, only to stand back and watch him be bludgeoned, before the police killed him. It is difficult to tell whether the mobs’ hostilities are born specifically of frustrations with the police, but the practice – and the attendant police complicity – is chilling.

Through 1999 and this year, there has been a quantitative decrease in violence directed against government opponents, but this should not lead observers to conclude that the government or the CPP has qualitatively changed its ways. Rather, the reverse may well be true: with one party clearly in charge of the country – and in possession of most of the weapons – few were willing to mount challenges. In addition, since the violence was in the past part of a pattern of electoral thuggery, the absence of an election has itself contributed to a decrease in the numbers. A COHCHR report to the UN Secretary-General in December 1999 pointed to repeated incidents of harassment and intimidation directed towards SRP members, including the dubious detention of two SRP officials in connection with an alleged assassination attempt on the Prime Minister and other government officials in September 1998. The January 2000 final report of Thomas Hammarberg, the outgoing Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights in Cambodia, emphasised repeatedly the problems of impunity in human rights abuses, noting that ‘…thorough investigations have not taken place in several cases where the perpetrators of violent acts are known to be members of the police or the armed forces’.

The persistence of these types of abuses is bound to affect people’s involvement in politics. Although local level elections are still at least eighteen months away, parties have begun identifying local candidates, and this has resulted in predictable hostilities. In early June, a prospective Funcinpec candidate for a commune council and his wife were murdered in Kampot Province, and although the investigation has not attributed the killings to political affiliations, the message sent to local people is clear nonetheless. The SRP and Funcinpec may have trouble attracting candidates and supporters because, as one villager put it, ‘People do not have a right to support any parties except the ruling government party’.

The COHCHR’s reputation for strenuously defending human rights and investigating abuses has waned. The office, which is constantly under pressure from the government to close its doors, has managed to extend its mandate through to March 2002. The COHCHR’s most recent director, however, has earned the scorn of other human rights workers, as well as diplomats and donors, for suggesting in a March 2000 interview that violence has persisted in Cambodia because ‘…it has become incorporated into their genes.’ While the office’s work in monitoring abuses and providing assistance in drafting laws is still well regarded, the COHCHR as a whole is not the strong supporter of human rights it once was. This in turn puts more pressure on the domestic human rights groups, which, while tough and effective, are still far more subject to government harassment than a UN body.

B. Land Ownership: Protests and Poverty

The most urgent problem Cambodia faces today is one of the most fundamental in any political order: right to the possession of land. Heated debates and physical assaults associated with a new regime for land title and tenure are playing into other big political issues, such as demining, population growth, refugee resettlement, property ownership and the consequences of new economic development strategies. Given that more than 80 per cent of Cambodia’s population survives on subsistence farming but less than 15 per cent have formal ownership of their land, this issue has the potential to be explosive.

Few Cambodians have ever held actual titles or deeds to land, regardless of the nature of the regime. In addition, the past three decades have seen significant population shifts around the country. Under the monarchy, all land traditionally belonged to the king, but those who cultivated a given area for a number of seasons were considered to have tenure to it. The Khmer Rouge annexed all property and forcibly relocated significant numbers of people around the country. The subsequent Vietnamese-backed regime (1979-1989) adopted the premise that all land was owned by the state, but in practical terms made little effort to administer any sort of tenancy laws. During that decade, some people attempted to return to their home provinces, while continuing civil war in the northern and western parts of the country uprooted others. UNTAC repatriated over 350,000 refugees, primarily to the northwest, in 1992 and 1993. Since the cessation of hostilities in 1980, Cambodia’s population has grown rapidly and is expected to double by 2020. Each of these factors has contributed to confusion over land ownership and disrupted traditional patterns of land tenancy. The existence of huge numbers of uncleared landmines in many parts of the country is a further complication to both land tenure and resettlement.

In this environment, economic growth – so badly needed in Cambodia – has produced a negative side-effect in skyrocketing land prices. With a highly speculative economy, a well-reasoned distrust of savings banks and limited alternatives for development, land has become the primary focus of investment. Cambodia’s rich and powerful have begun snapping up large tracts of land for sale or long-term leases. The military appears particularly egregious in its land grabbing through forcible eviction of current occupants, particularly in more remote areas. Often poor farmers are simply kicked off their land, which is then occupied by the military or other authorities, resold to developers, leased to logging concessions or used for other purposes. In few cases has there been any – let alone sufficient – compensation.

Preliminary research recently published by Oxfam suggests that 43 per cent of more than 4,000 landless families surveyed had once owned land but had lost it. Among these cases, the causes of the loss of land were reported as follows: 44 per cent as a result of illness forcing a sale or surrender of land; 18 per cent a result of a lack of food; and 13 per cent a result of expropriation. Within the last category, ‘…provincial and military authorities were cited as being responsible for 74 per cent of these cases’ – some 390 individual cases of seizure of land by government officials.

The Prime Minister included solving land disputes as one of his target reforms in his 1999 reform agenda. The government’s movements in this direction are at first glance encouraging. Having decided that the primary problems lay with provincial authorities, the government established Provincial Commissions for Resolving Land Disputes, which are to be monitored by a National Commission. Yet in five provinces surveyed by Oxfam, military and other officials dominate the Provincial Commissions, which likely discourages complaints being brought by or successfully resolved in favor of the farmers. Oxfam has estimated that one in eight families has no land, and one family in 30 is involved in some form of land dispute.

Cambodia is facing an imminent political crisis arising from the government’s inability to combine land distribution, food security, the judicial process as well as abuses of state power.

First, the potential for legal disputes to overwhelm the courts is high. On top of the judiciary’s notorious lack of independence from CPP control, it also lacks the administrative capacity and clear legal guidelines to adjudicate disputes. In addition, the very authorities with the power to grab land have equal power to control the courts, further hampering opportunities for appropriate legal recourse. The Provincial Commissions have reportedly been successful in keeping cases out of court, thus denying even the semblance of an opportunity for legal recourse to farmers and increasing the possibility that settlements will consist of insufficient payments. If judicial reform and the rule of law are truly government priorities, solving land disputes through the court system will indeed be a trial by fire.

Secondly, the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction is currently revising a draft land law. This law, expected to go before the National Assembly in the middle of 2000, aspires to enshrine a system of land titling, ownership and registration. In a heartening move this draft has been opened to significant input from domestic and international NGOs. But if a ministerial regulation (called a sub-decree) of February 2000 to clear the way to establish a land register is any indication, the procedures do not bode well for poor, illiterate farmers who have little experience dealing with officialdom and little time to spare on formal court proceedings.

Other complex and explosive issues, such as protection of tenancy for current occupants, have reportedly not yet been finalised in the draft land law. The NGO community advocates the provision of de jure land rights to farmers and occupants, but it remains to be seen whether the final version of the law will respect this request.

Thirdly, access to land has proved to be a focal point for popular protest throughout history, and Cambodia is already showing that it will be no different. Over the past six months, groups of landless people from a variety of provinces have made their way to Phnom Penh to protest their losses outside the National Assembly. On several recent occasions, the government’s response was to disperse the protests with police and water cannons. The people’s grievances went unanswered, and at no time during the visit to Phnom Penh of the protesters did the relevant Assembly members from the CPP or Funcinpec, or the Ministry of Land Management, make efforts to meet with them.

Even worse is the response to those who protest in rural areas, who are often subject to serious harassment by the military or provincial authorities. In late June and early July, nine people were arrested in Banteay Meanchey for resisting eviction from their homes by military police, who were seizing the land to give it to military officers and business people. Local officials claim to have made other land available, but the villagers say the land is remote and laden with land mines. A UNHCR official in Cambodia has confirmed forced relocations into mine-infested areas of villagers whose land was seized by the armed forces. If this is the manner in which the RCG intends to handle land disputes, alongside the rising tide of popular protests, the issue could spark a nationwide movement.

Fourthly, disrupting agriculture has the potential to cause serious problems through food shortages, and this will affect not just rural populations but urban dwellers as well. The government, which still owns roughly 80 per cent of the country’s land, must take immediate measures to ensure that the already-widening gap in inequalities does not become yet worse. There is no margin for error on this issue – Cambodian peasants cannot live on less than what they currently have.

If the government is truly committed to anti-poverty measures, it should be cracking down on its own members or affiliates who are grabbing land. Moreover, if the CPP wants to be seen as the party of the people, it should be devoting far greater resources to helping poor farmers – not refusing to hear their grievances.

C. The Military and Inadequate Demobilisation

The CPP’s longtime power base is in the security forces. This includes the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF), the police, the gendarmerie (paramilitary police) and numerous bodyguard units. Cambodia’s armed forces total about 160,000 personnel, while there are an additional 60,000 police and 10,000 gendarmes. With the demise of the Khmer Rouge and a lack of external threats, the government has recognised that there is no longer a need for such a large force. In May 2000, the Prime Minister publicly committed to halving the army as part of a donor-funded demobilisation program. But paring back the military could threaten its loyalty to the CPP, particularly as the demobilisation has been forced upon RCAF.

CAMBODIA: THE ELUSIVE PEACE DIVIDEND

By The International Crisis Group (ICG)

August 11, 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report makes the following additional recommendations.

Linking Aid and Governance Reforms

Land disputes

44. Donors should prepare immediately to increase aid for food and health care to offset the causes and results of landlessness.

5. Donors should give ongoing assistance to the clearance of landmines as a means of making more land available.

Demobilisation

6. Demobilisation that actually addresses the declared purposes of the program must be a higher priority both for the government and the donor community.

Commune elections

8. Donors should not fund commune elections if the legislation remains as it is and if other practical benchmarks, such as reforming the National Electoral Commission, are not met.

Trials for the Khmer Rouge

10. There should be explicit provision in the legislation for all judges to be able to render public, reasoned dissenting opinions on all matters submitted to them.

11. Agreement should be sought to allow a foreign presence among the investigators apart from the principals identified specifically in the Cambodian bill.

Phnom Penh/Brussels, 11 August 2000

CAMBODIA: THE ELUSIVE PEACE DIVIDEND

I. INTRODUCTION

Given the gulf that existed between the political groupings of Cambodia in 1991 when the Paris Accords were signed, and the lack of a liberal, democratic tradition in the country, the existence of a stable coalition government by the year 2000 could be seen as an important first step to achieving the potential offered by the 1991 settlement. But this judgment must remain considerably clouded given the systematic resort to political violence and the systematic abuse of process by key players to get to this point. Cambodian politicians could have done better. There is peace but the majority of Cambodians are still waiting for their peace dividend, and many believe that it will never come. Social welfare is virtually non-existent and the national economy has little prospect of supporting the growing adult population.

II. EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL POLITICS

The government has pledged itself to an ambitious agenda for growth and reform, yet it remains to be seen whether the CPP will deliver. There is considerable room to believe that the CCP’s public commitment in the donors’ meeting in Tokyo in 1999 to a program of political reform and social welfare is disingenuous. In the most important areas of necessary reform foreshadowed back in 1991, the government has made little progress. The likelihood of large-scale violence or a collapse of government control is relatively low, but all parties cannot ignore the cumulative effects of ongoing abuses by the ruling party or the potentially explosive issues on the horizon. Economic inequalities are increasing, and are being met more frequently with public protests against land grabbing and corruption. Tensions within the armed forces are being exacerbated by attempts to reduce the size of the forces, while attempts to replace old guard local officials may unleash violence against their opponents. One of the most sensitive, if not potentially traumatic, issues is the question of a tribunal to try the surviving Khmer Rouge leadership. The ruling party cannot agree within itself on the way forward and any decision will elicit strong public response. The government has yet to show consistent leadership on any of these major issues despite its commitment to donors to do so.