Red
Cross gift distribution by Bun Rany used as a PROPAGANDA forum for the CPP
Chumteav Thom Dr. Bun Rany
distributes gifts to elderly people (Photo: Uy Song, Koh
Santepheap)
Subject: WHAT ONG YIN TIENG AND HIS CRIMINALS VIETNAMESE TEAM WILL DO IN THIS
CASE?
Tat Marina prior to her acid
attack
Tat Marina
now
Svay Sitha, a high ranking
CPP official, is now the secretary of state in Hun Xen regime's Council of
Ministers
WHAT ONG YIN TIENG ,A
VIETNAMESE CPP ,HEAD OF THE ANTI CORRUPTION TEAM WILL DO WITH HIS VIETNAMESE
CPP
SUCH AS SVAY SITHA IN THIS CASE WITH TAT MARINA ?
CAMBODIAN VICTIMS OF THE VIETNAMESE RULE
HA HA HA ! a warning to all Vietnamese occupiers of
Cambodia .
Beware , you will pay dearly one day
HAPPY ARE THE VIETNAMESE RULERS IN CAMBODIA OCCUPIED,
COMING TO FOOL THE USAID OFFICIALS WHO ARE BECOMING
PARTNERS IN CRIMES WITH THE VIETNAMESE OCCUPIERS OF
CAMBODIA 1993-2010.
ONG YIN TIENG IS A
VIETNAMESE RULING CAMBODIA UNDER THE LABEL "CAMBODIAN".
Key corruption suspects identified
Monday, 11 October 2010
22:46 Vong Sokheng and Brooke Lewis
Photo by: Julie Leafe Om Yentieng,
chairman of the Anticorruption Unit, speaks during a press conference in
July.
The head of the newly established Anticorruption Unit has
said that investigations of more than 20 graft cases involving government
officials had resulted in “several” offenders being identified, but that the
body would not pursue any prosecutions until the end of next year.
Om
Yentieng, who is also a senior adviser to Prime Minister Hun Sen and chairman
of
the government-run Cambodian Human Rights Committee, said no arrests would be
possible until new legislation comes into effect about 12 months from
now.
“We could not arrest individual corrupt officials and send them to court
while we are waiting for the new Law on Anticorruption, which will be
implemented by the end of the year 2011,” he said.
“The Criminal Code will be
officially implemented by December this year, and the Law on Anticorruption
will
be put in place 12 months after.”
Yim Sovann, spokesman for the opposition
Sam Rainsy Party, said there was no excuse for the ACU to wait for the new
penal
code to come into effect before prosecuting offenders.
He argued that
offenders could be punished immediately under the UNTAC Criminal Code....read
the full story in tomorrow’s Phnom Penh
Post or see the updated story online from 3PM UTC/GMT +7
hours.
FOR
CAMBODIA Strong Resolution on Cambodia
Human Rights Abuses
Feb. 27, 1982 : UN
Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva adopted a
resolution condemning Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia as a violation of
Cambodian human rights. The vote was 28 in favor, 8 against, and 5
abstentions.
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
A/RES/41/6, by vote of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a
withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia.
10 UN
RESOLUTIONS,(1979-1988) VOTED BY 116 UN MEMBER COUNTRIES ,CALL VIETNAM TO CEASE
HER OCCUPATION OF CAMBODIA & REMOVE ALL HER TROOPS FROM THE COUNTRY, ARE NOT
RESPECTED AS OF TODAY.
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a
resolution A/RES/41/6, by vote of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a
withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia.
President Reagan's address to the 43d
Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, New York,September
26, 1988.
"Mr. Secretary-General, there are new hopes for Cambodia, a nation
whose freedom and independence we seek just as avidly as we sought the freedom
and independence of Afghanistan. We urge the rapid removal of all Vietnamese
troops ...."
As of today,Cambodia is still occupied by the Vietnamese
troops despite the call from the US president to Vietnam to cease her
occupation
of Cambodia since 1988.
Cambodia needs Independence from Vietnam and the
Vietnamese invaders.
Vietnam must cease her occupation of Cambodia at
once.
Bury
To: [email protected]
Subject: Burma's Generals Reelect Themselves
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:00:06 -0500
Special Report
Burma's
Generals Reelect Themselves
By Doug Bandow
on 11.8.10 @ 6:08AM
Burma's agony continues. On
Sunday the military dictatorship held a rigged election to cloak itself in
civilian garb. The people of Burma will continue to suffer under one of the
worst governments on earth.
Gen. Ne Win seized power in
1962. Nearly a half century later the country is ruled by a junta headed by
Gen. Than Shwe. The military's crimes are many. It has imposed a corrupt and
brutal dictatorship; conducted a genocidal war against dissident ethnic groups;
suppressed civil and political liberties; kept the country desperately poor;
and enriched well-connected allies at public expense. The government even
impeded international assistance after devastating Cyclone Nargis in
2008.
The regime has repeatedly
attempted to rebrand itself. For instance, the junta once called itself the
State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC, but shifted to the State Peace
and Development Council. Alas, the only peace the SPDC believes in is of the
grave and the only development it supports is of junta members' bank accounts.
The generals occasionally ousted and imprisoned each other.
In 1990 the junta foolishly held
an election. Like the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Polish Communists, who also
called free ballots, the Burmese military overestimated its popular support.
The Burmese people decisively rejected the regime, overwhelmingly voting for
Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. So the
generals voided the result, suppressed the NLD, and quarantined Suu Kyi,
subjecting her to house arrest for 15 of the last 21 years.
There has been no mellowing over
the years. In 2003 the regime promised a "roadmap to
discipline-flourishing democracy," which emphasized discipline over
democracy. The SPDC ruthlessly suppressed protests led by Buddhist monks in
2007. The following year the junta stuffed ballot boxes in a referendum on its
authoritarian constitution, drafted without popular input. The generals
routinely harassed Suu Kyi and sentenced many of her supporters to long prison
terms. The regime reached ceasefire agreements with a number of rebellious
ethnic groups, but since then has begun demanding that the forces disarm, a
nonstarter for people who have suffered from unlimited military barbarity for
decades.
The junta's latest strategy is
another election, for a two-house national parliament and 14 state and regional
assemblies. However, this ballot was rigged from the start to prevent any
chance of the opposition triumphing. First, there was no independent election
commission and no foreign observers were allowed. No electioneering, let along
criticism of the government was permitted. The media is largely controlled by
the government; even nominally private publications are censored. So are
sermons by monks. The cost of registering to run alone exceeded the per capita
GDP. Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, complained:
the vote was "being conducted in a climate of fear, intimidation, and
resignation."
Second, some 2000 imprisoned
democracy activists, including Suu Kyi and many other NLD members, were deemed
ineligible to run. Political parties were required to expel members with
"criminal" records, including for political offenses, to contest the
ballot.
Thus, the NLD, the nation's only
legitimate governing force, refused to participate. The generals then dissolved
the party (along with nine others). NLD activists responded by urging a
boycott. The regime threatened to jail them while promising development
projects to neighborhoods where residents marked their ballots ahead of time.
The government also barred people from participating in many eastern ethnic
areas, while in others rebellious groups refused to participate.
Third, the regime turned
military apparatchiks into civilian candidates. Through the misnamed United
Solidarity and Development Party the generals fielded candidates to contest all
1,163 offices at stake. The equally misnamed National Unity Party, representing
Ne Win, the original dictator who was ousted in 1988, put up 999 candidates.
Richard Horsey, a former UN official, contended that victories by some of the
latter would demonstrate that the military is not monolithic, but the NUP no
more represents the Burmese people does than the USDP. Both military factions
are paranoid, xenophobic, and despotic.
In contrast, the National
Democratic Force, a rump group of former NLD-activists, only contested 163
seats. A number of other small parties, including several ethnic-based
organizations, ran a few candidates. A number of independents also stood for
office. Still, Burma's foreign minister, Nyan Win, claimed: "Such a large
participation made it crystal clear that the elections become virtually
inclusive."
Fourth, parties were required to
affirm support for the 2008 constitution imposed by the SPDC. That document
reserves one-fourth of the lower house and one-third of the upper house to the
military, allows the "civilian" president to turn power over to the
military, creates a National Defense and Security Council, and permits the
military-controlled Union Election Commission to dismiss legislators for
"misbehavior."
Authority will not be
transferred. The generals will remain in charge. The Burmese people are not
fooled. Ashin Issariya, a founding member of the All Burma Monks Alliance,
observed: "It will be the same faces and the same system that we have been
living with for decades. The name 'elections' does not change anything for
us." Long-time NLD activist Win Tin said the election "will just help
the military get what they want -- to rule for a century or more." Dot Lay
Mu of the Karen National Union warned: the generals are using the poll to
"consolidate and prolong" their control.
The junta's objective is another
image makeover. Today the SPDC is widely reviled around the world and subject
to U.S. and European sanctions. The generals hope to gain greater international
acceptance.
The international response to
the junta has been divided. The U.S. and Europe have campaigned against the
regime, but Burma's neighbors have refused to join in. China supports the
generals irrespective of how many people they kill. India is economically
active in Burma and, along with Malaysia and Singapore, trains SPDC military
officers. Other countries, including Thailand, have refused to do more than
apply limited pressure, valuing Burma's natural resources more than Burmese
human
rights.
Now Asian governments are
lauding the poll while Western governments are unsure how to respond. Some
analysts argue that even a flawed election presages possible political
liberalization.
Daron Acemoglu and James A.
Robinson of MIT and Harvard, respectively, wrote: "History shows that
gradual, half-hearted reforms of this sort are exactly how many autocracies
successfully transition to democracy." However, the examples they cite are
less than convincing. Great Britain and early America were republics which
distrusted direct democracy, not dictatorships. Chile immunized participants in
the military regime, but returned power to an elected civilian government.
Taiwan allowed the established though previously outlawed opposition party to
contest newly free elections. Burma matches none of these. Egypt may be closer,
but that nation remains unfree a half century after Col. Abdul Nasser became a
civilian.
Allowing a genuinely free vote
for a civilian government with some independent powers even while the military
maintains control over security agencies might permit a gradual evolution to a
more liberal system. But allowing a few dissident civilians to assume powerless
positions in a system controlled by the same authoritarian apparatchiks, only
wearing
suits rather than uniforms, is unlikely to yield any noticeable difference in
governance.
Some analysts posit that the
process may empower younger military men. Younger does not necessarily mean
reformer, however. Observed journalist Bertil Lintner, "Lower and
middle-ranking army officers remain immensely loyal to the leadership, knowing
full well that they can only rise to prominent and privileged positions by
showing that they are even more hardline than their superiors." Anyway,
the aging process guarantees personnel turnover. The faux elections add
nothing. So too when it comes to dreams of economic liberalization and
government transparency: such policies will change only if the military wants
them to change, not as a result of the vote.
If Suu Kyi is released after her
house arrest formally expires on Nov. 13 -- and she is allowed to resume active
political activities, along with other democratic activists -- then there might
be at least a little hope for a little change. But if most of those who have
been fighting for liberty remain imprisoned, opposition political activity
remains proscribed, and criticism of the government remains prohibited, then
even Suu Kyi's release, though welcome, would signal no change.
Still, Lex Rieffel and David I.
Steinberg, of the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University respectively,
argued that "With smart, nuanced policies, however, the U.S. and other
Western countries could help to ensure that the November election is a major
step toward a democratic and prosperous Burma." What policies they do not
say. Since the ballot changes nothing substantive, it is hard to imagine
policies which could to turn the vote into a positive step forward.
The fact that the faux election
offers no prospect of change doesn't mean the West should maintain its policy
of isolation and sanctions. This strategy has manifestly failed. Today's only
winner is China, which has achieved disproportionate influence in Rangoon.
Attempting to reinforce
isolation and sanctions is a dead-end. For instance, the administration is now
pushing for a UN-sponsored commission to investigate Burma for war crimes. It's
a fine idea, but one that will never get past Beijing in the Security Council.
Given the prevalence of human rights abusers in the international body, General
Assembly or Human Rights Council vote is no more likely.
It is time to move in the
opposite direction.
Kurt Campbell, Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said the ballot
"will be without international legitimacy" but called for
"dialogue" as "the best way forward" among difficult
options. He hopes for the rise of new players and structures, but that's more
dream than reality. The poll alone is no reason by itself to reverse policy.
The U.S. should not aid the junta's attempt to disguise its malign character.
Brutal authoritarians were in control on November 6, before the vote. Brutal
authoritarians remain in control on November 8, after the vote.
After a decent interval,
however, Washington should consult with Europeans and leading Asian states to
forge a united strategy to press Burma for reform. The U.S. government needs to
recognize that its ability to influence events in Rangoon is limited. Broader
international support, especially in Southeast Asia, is required for any hope
of progress.
No policy offers much likelihood
of success. But promising to eschew attempts at coercive regime change while
offering rewards for political liberalization may provide the best, if still
not a good, strategy to promote real change. For instance, Jared Genser of
Freedom Now argued: "It is only through a facilitated process of
tripartite dialogue among the junta, Suu Kyi and the National League for
Democracy and the country's disparate ethnic groups that any real reconciliation
and progress toward democracy will be made."
Burma poses one of the world's
greatest humanitarian challenges. The latest "election" changes
nothing. The Obama administration should treat the new "civilian"
government no different than the old military regime. But Washington
nevertheless should acknowledge the failure of its past democratization
efforts, and look for a new way forward.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
