Cambodia
Genocide Tribunal

Note: This article illustrates the merit in trying war
criminals ASAP. The Democrats want to wait four years to prosecute Republicans.
They may have reasons for this, but one of them is not justice.

Cambodia:
Blogging on Genocide'
by Geoffrey Cain


Elena Lesley, a Phnom Penh Post reporter and Fulbright scholar, jots her ideas
on The Tribunal Report.

After graduating from Brown University in 2004, the articulate, cunning Elena
Lesley was awarded a Henry Luce Scholarship to Cambodia to write for The Phnom
Penh Post. With a long-time interest in Asia,
it seemed like a good match. But knee-deep in a society scourged by years of
civil war and gut-wrenching poverty, the experience quickly proved eye-opening.

She vowed to return.

Elena then spent three years in the U.S.
reporting for St. Petersburg Times in Florida,
but found herself frustrated at the lack of news coverage of Cambodia
outside the country. Hearing that Cambodia's
genocide tribunal was underway, she returned to Phnom Penh on the ultra-prestigious Fulbright
grant to blog for the Post.

Now, she speaks with Global Voices author Geoffrey Cain about her blog, the
tribunal, and the challenges it faces.

From your personal observations as a journalist-blogger, what challenges does
the Khmer Rouge Tribunal face in bringing the perpetrators to justice?

Of course, there’s the issue everyone keeps raising: age. Since most of the
defendants are in their 70s and 80s and not in particularly good health, there
is a great deal of concern that some could die before trials begin. This is
probably what worries most of the Cambodians I have discussed the tribunal
with. While a trial for torture chief “Comrade Duch” could begin as early as
September, any predictions for the other defendants are somewhat uncertain at
this point.

Part of the ambiguity stems from the relatively complicated nature of the cases
against the four other defendants. I’m certainly no expert on the minutiae of
each case, but Duch’s is apparently more straightforward – after all, he has
cooperated with the court to a certain extent.

There is another issue at play in “bringing perpetrators to justice,” and it
involves the scope of the prosecutions. When the United Nations and Cambodian
government were negotiating the tribunal’s creation, Prime Minister Hun Sen
(himself a former member of the Khmer Rouge) insisted that only a handful of
the most senior leaders be tried. Critics of the Prime Minister have claimed
that he intentionally narrowed the scope of prosecutions so as not to implicate
any former Khmers Rouge who now hold high positions in his government.

When you think about all the people who were involved in planning and
implementing Khmer Rouge policies, five defendants seems like a very small
number.

Is the tribunal addressing these challenges effectively, or is complete justice
a lost cause 28 years after the atrocities concluded?

Well, what do you mean by “complete justice?” Or even “justice” for that
matter? I don’t think the tribunal is a lost cause, but I do believe it is
somewhat symbolic and abstract.

If you look at it for what it is, literally, the tribunal is a punitive process
for a very small group of people. However, there are many organizations that
are using these legal proceedings as a jumping off point for discussion and
education, both of which are sorely needed in Cambodia.

Supporters of the tribunal often argue that it can set a new standard for the
Cambodian judiciary and help end the country’s “culture of impunity.” Both are
very ambitious goals, and while I hope the tribunal helps move Cambodia toward
a more just and accountable society, it’s impossible to predict how much impact
it will have in these areas.

Which is why I believe educational and outreach efforts related to the tribunal
are of primary importance. Many Cambodians have never truly come to terms with
their experiences under the Khmer Rouge. At the same time, around 60 percent of
Cambodians were born after the Pol Pot era and have little knowledge about the
period. While younger generations may not realize it, the legacy of that
disastrous social experiment is still very much alive in their country.

The court, along with various other organizations, has been coordinating
outreach efforts, but it’s a tall order. Accessibility, both practically and
theoretically, is problematic. The location of the court itself is hugely
inconvenient. At least a 40-minute drive from central Phnom Penh, the judicial complex’s remote
location is no doubt a deterrent for many who would otherwise attend
proceedings. In terms of the substance of the court’s work, concepts and
arguments are highly abstract and during this phase, the “investigative”
portion, little information is made available to the public. Trying to engage a
largely agrarian population – many of whom are just struggling to survive –
under these conditions is, to say the least, difficult. Which is why, in my
opinion, more resources should be devoted to such efforts.

In addition to what the tribunal can do for Cambodia, there’s also the issue of
setting a precedent for the international community. As one Khmer Rouge
survivor told me: "It is very, very important to put these people on trial
as an example to other dictators. You cannot abuse people this way and get away
with it – even 30 years later."

How do you tread the line so tactfully between blogging and journalism? Do you
blog about the tribunal differently than, say, writing for a traditional
newspaper?

Writing for the blog is definitely different from writing for a newspaper. The
tone can be a lot more casual and each entry doesn’t require a traditional
“news hook,” as an article might. So there’s much more flexibility and posts
can range from pretty standard news updates to anything international-justice
related that I find interesting.

Of course, in the blog I’m also able to inject some of my own thoughts and
opinions. To be honest though, I try to keep this to a minimum. My main goal is
to convey tribunal developments and issues surrounding the court to an
international audience – not necessarily to weigh in on all of them.

Some say professional journalists and bloggers operate in separate worlds. Do
you think journalists should embrace blogs more enthusiastically for reporting?
Can blogging enhance traditional journalism?

Definitely. It’s silly to say professional journalists and bloggers operate in
separate worlds because, really, a blog can be whatever you want it to be. It’s
just a question of format. Many people seem to be under the impression that
blogging is somehow inherently different from mainstream journalism and that
blogs are synonymous with personal musings and ranting.

They can be used for these purposes, and that’s totally legitimate. However,
they can also be used simply to report news or to supplement what appears in a
publication’s print version.

Do you think blogging has potential as a "new face" of interactive
journalism, in our age of Web 2.0, interactivity, and social networking
websites?

I certainly think blogs are a convenient format for conveying news and ideas.
Whether they will serve as spaces for valuable online interactivity and
analysis, I’m not sure. We’ll have to wait and see how much substantive
discussion they can foster.

Elena's musings can be read at The Tribunal Report.

You may view the latest post at
https://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/08/05/cambodia-blogging-on-genocide/