Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this important conference, and for giving those of us who have had to address these vital issues the opportunity to meet and share our ideas. Let me begin by providing a brief historical background.

In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge marched into Phnom Penh after the defeat of Lon Nol's Khmer Republic forces. The US-backed Lon Nol regime had been widely unpopular, and initially many Cambodian people welcomed the Khmer Rouge. For the next 3 years 8 months and 24 days however, they ruled Cambodia and her people with an iron fist. As a result, at least 1.7 million people of Cambodia's 8 million people died, according to generally accepted statistics. Many of them were dumped in mass graves after being deliberately killed by their torturers – others died of overwork and starvation. In response to border incursions, the Vietnamese army entered Cambodia, and together with Khmer Rouge defectors sought to topple the regime. They did so in January 1979, and a Vietnamese backed government, the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) was installed: still, the war continued.

Lengthy negotiations yielded an accord between all warring four factions in October 1991, which included a comprehensive political settlement. Although the Khmer Rouge was one of the factions that signed the agreement, and could have participated in the United Nationsorganized general elections in 1993, they subsequently decided to stay away from them and continued their armed struggle.

In 1996 Ieng Sary, one of the Khmer Rouge’s top leaders, surrendered to the Government. Under an amnesty offered by the Royal Government to encourage his defection, he was pardoned by King Norodom Sihanouk for his conviction by a People’s Republic of Kampuchea “people’s tribunal” in 1979. The terms of this surrender also allowed Khmer Rouge defectors to retain some control of the Pailin region, a gemrich area close to the Thai border, and continue to administer it as a type of autonomous zone.

Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot mysteriously died in the jungle of northwestern Cambodia in 1998. Following his death, other high-ranking Khmer Rouge cadres rallied to the Government and were also allowed to resettle in the gem-rich Pailin area. The infamous Ta Mok, known as “the Khmer Rouge Butcher” for his cruelty, was later captured. Duch, known for his role as the “Tuol Sleng S-21 Prison Torturer”, was apprehended around the same time. Both now await trial for crimes against humanity while in power.
Under pressure from the international community, the idea of a trial of not only those Khmer Rouge leaders in custody but of all others as well, gained momentum. A draft law was negotiated in absolute secrecy between members of the Royal Government and representatives of the United Nations and promulgated in August 2001. Details of the tribunal were to be negotiated through a Memorandum of Understanding. However, citing concerns about international standards of justice, the UN pulled out of this process in February 2002 and have promised not to return to it.

At a 2002 forum in Phnom Penh on the status of the tribunal, a young Cambodian-American woman asked whether a trial was what was really wanted or needed by the Cambodian people, and that perhaps development and poverty eradication were more pressing concerns. Certainly, very few people have made any effort to consult the Cambodian people about whether this tribunal will appease their need for truth and justice in regard to the Khmer Rouge regime, or whether this is no longer a concern for them over 20 years following the demise of the regime.

These questions had also been considered by my organization, the Center for Social Development (CSD). One of our on-going projects at the Center is to hold regular public forums on various issues of concern to the Cambodian people. In late 1999 we began planning a series of forums on the issue of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. The format for our debates dictates that we have representatives from all sides of the debate – in this case, we knew that members of the former Khmer Rouge would have to be invited, an unprecedented move by any organization. Some observers were critical of the inclusion of former Khmer Rouge members in the public forums, as many Cambodians are unable or unwilling to confront their former oppressors. Certainly, I have been criticized for even speaking with them. Some people were suspicious about the ultimate goal of the forums, which they thought might jeopardize national and international efforts to bring the Khmer Rouge to trial. This is understandable after all the suffering we Cambodians have lived through. I too suffered greatly during the years of the regime.

I should also point out that these former Khmer Rouge leaders entered a potentially hazardous situation by agreeing to take part in our forums. Talks of a tribunal stirred strong feelings of revenge against or punishment of the Khmer Rouge in many ordinary Cambodians, yet many of these former leaders still feel proud of their role in what they perceive as the just cause of liberating the poor masses of Cambodia.

Despite these concerns, we felt that in order for our society to stabilize and move forward, and for all people to develop to their full potential, we must work together. Our society is faced with the difficult issue of how to deal with our past. We felt that it must be discussed in public: that there should be dialogue. Contrary to the opinion of some of my critics, I do not want to forget what happened. I wanted to help our people deal with this tragedy, to find the truth and to voice their opinions on the trial.

Initially when our Center planned these forums, the idea was to ask whether a trial of the Khmer Rouge should or should not be held. With this in mind we set off to undertake our ground preparation including consultations in the remote former Khmer Rouge areas of Pailin and Phnom Malai, along the Thai border. Once there, we saw that the situation was extremely mercurial, both physically and mentally; there seemed to be no confidence that peace would hold, and there was a strong feeling that war could return at any moment. We then realized that the crucial issues were those of long-lasting peace and national reconciliation, of which the question of a trial of the former Khmer Rouge was a component. We wanted to open a door that could help free Cambodians and allow them to begin exploring and thinking about this important societal issue. It was vital that the government and the international community were not alone in their decision-making. We felt that the people of Cambodia and the victims should also have a voice in the process. Therefore, in January, February, and March 2000, our Center successively held three public forums on these issues, respectively in the cities of Battambang, Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville.

124 people attended our first forum in Battambang, including many from the nearby Khmer Rouge strongholds of Pailin and Malai. Former members of the Khmer Rouge said that they had now almost fully integrated into mainstream Cambodian society, and that a trial would undermine this process and lead to further instability and bloodshed and perpetuate a cycle of retribution. Some people who supported a trial commented that they did not necessarily bear the Khmer Rouge malice, but said that people who make mistakes should accept responsibility for those mistakes and submit themselves to the judgement of their peers. It was also seen that a trial would remind leaders of their responsibilities to the people and assist in establishing the rule of law in Cambodia.
Many more participants than expected attended the Phnom Penh forum. The 206 attendees included none of the invited former Khmer Rouge members presumably due to fear for their personal safety and security. During the discussion, there was a strong feeling of support for a trial. Attendees said that a fair trial would be an important component of national reconciliation. It would provide peace of mind and closure, without which there cannot be any national reconciliation, as well as reaffirming people’s trust in the political system and amongst the people.

In Phnom Penh, the discussion also turned to various models of a trial and which could provide the greatest degree of justice. The question of Cambodia’s notoriously partial and incompetent legal system was weighed against that of national sovereignty, and the notion that Cambodian people were the ones best able to decide their fate for themselves.

Former Khmer Rouge soldiers were again amongst the 114 participants at our final forum in the port city of Sihanoukville. Here, they were more receptive to the idea of a trial than those who had attended in Battambang. They said that those who were responsible for atrocities, or for ordering them should be brought to justice. They claimed that they had been deceived by the regime and that they too eventually became victims, losing many family members of their own. The effects of the destruction and misery of the regime were like a chronic “Khmer Rouge disease” that needs to be cured before reconciliation can be achieved said other participants. It was also noted that a trial would separate the guilty from the innocent, even within the Khmer Rouge, and help to dispel suspicion amongst the people. In this way, a trial was seen to be an important component of reconciliation.

At each of these forums, a survey of participants was conducted. Later, we extended the coverage of the survey to the readership of the Research Bulletin, which our Center publishes each month. In total, some 632 Cambodians were surveyed as to their views on these issues. Overall, the results showed that there was strong support for a trial, with 68% saying that a trial of the Khmer Rouge must be held; 51% also thought that all war criminals, including those from the regimes previous and subsequent to Democratic Kampuchea, should be tried. Only 9% said that the past should be forgotten.

There were a number of other suggestions, including education programs, as the Khmer Rouge history has not been taught in schools until the release of a Year 12 textbook in the past few weeks.

One suggestion, that particularly had the support of monks and women, was to hold public confessions (30%) or religious ceremonies (15%) instead of a trial. There was greater support for these views also amongst participants who had attended the forums: the hours of emotional debate that comprised each one seemed to have encouraged a greater spirit of forgiveness. Women and monks were also the main supporters of “letting bygones be bygones” (besides the Khmer Rouge), as they felt that this attitude reflected the teaching of the Buddha who said, “Hatred will not cease through hatred.”
The second part of the questionnaire asked whether a trial would be advantageous or disadvantageous to national reconciliation. Participants could choose one or both answers, or they could abstain.

The final result in this category showed that 82% felt it would be advantageous, 34% disadvantageous, while only 2% abstained. It is also interesting to note marked variations in some responses between the different locations. In Battambang, which is close to the Khmer Rouge zone, over 25% of respondents thought that the past should be forgotten, in Sihanoukville 18% felt the same way. In Phnom Penh, however, there was not a single participant who felt that this issue was best put behind us. In response to the proposition that “the former Khmer Rouge must be tried”, only some 40% of respondents in Battambang agreed, 55% in Sihanoukville, but 84% in Phnom Penh want to see a trial.

Despite these variations, there was still a strong recognition of the role of a trial in national reconciliation. The percentages of those who saw the trial as advantageous for the process of national reconciliation were: 64% in Battambang, 82% in Phnom Penh, while in Sihanoukville 76% saw the trial as a positive measure.

The forums provoked a huge response across the country. The first was broadcast on television. There were complaints that the views aired were not representative of the Cambodian people. Again we were criticized for our inclusion of all sides. For the first time since 1979, former ordinary members of the Khmer Rouge were given an opportunity to speak publicly and there were some people who were very upset about this. For us however, the key thing was that public debate had taken place: Cambodians were beginning to deal with their past.

At the forums, all sides stated the need for truth, justice, healing and national reconciliation. Yet, it is clear that there are widely different views on what these things might mean in practical terms. The task now is to reconcile these truths to the satisfaction of all parties. Any tribunal or trial is only one part of a comprehensive process of reconciliation. The ideas of harmony and peace that we associate with reconciliation cannot be suddenly achieved overnight, with one ruling or decision. There must be a balance. On the one hand, empty apologies will do nothing to appease the minds of the victims, but on the other we must also be careful not to unravel the progress that has been made in reintegrating former Khmer Rouge members into Cambodian society.
We see our forums as being part of the overall process of national reconciliation. As I said earlier, they were really the only time that any attempt has been made to systematically gauge the views of the Cambodian people on this issue which still haunts our society some 23 years after its supposed demise. By publicly voicing opinions, we can begin to understand what the elements of reconciliation might look like to ordinary people still struggling to recover from their suffering. The forums were one step, the trial is one step, and there will need to be others as well. I hope that other people and organizations in Cambodia, as well as in the international community, will remember to seek the opinions of the victims when deciding what those steps should be.

Thank you.