We were seated in an assembly, and the court was right in front of us, surrounded with glass walls and crimson curtains. Following a music resembling those in detective movies, the curtains opened. First came Nuon Chea, who put together a short performance for us, claiming that due to his short breath he would be unable to read his response to the opening statements. Yet, he continued reading when the judges asked him to. Afterwards, he leaned back in his wheelchair, and almost fell asleep in front of the judges. I remember being irritated by his lack of respect. Witnessing the policemen in the Court warning the Cambodians to sit straight didn’t help much.
After Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan took the floor. He started with expressing his ‘sincere respects to all the monks in the audience’. Considering their approach to pagodas and monks during their reign, I found this incredibly strange. We have spoken to monks who were puzzled on Khmer Rouge policies. One of them pointed out his confusion with Pol Pot’s behavior, ‘he was once a monk too, after all’. Nevertheless, Khieu Samphan tried to convince the judges that though it may seem unbelievable now, 36 years ago, communism gave hope to millions around the world. Referring to the USA bombings during the Vietnam War, he asked ‘Do you wonder what my country felt after such killings and bombings? No, I can see that you can’t. (…) But most Cambodians gave their support against Lon Nol and we organized the resistance movement against the oppression’. What I found extremely interesting was how they kept referring to 1975 and the USA bombings. It is certain that USA cost the lives of many Cambodians, and the reasoning is clear on how this caused increased support for the Khmer Rouge. However, I find it very difficult to understand how this relates to the genocide that the Khmer Rouge leaders are responsible for. How is this relevant to mass killings of the Chams, the Vietnamese and their fellow Khmers? I felt they were trying to manipulate these facts in order to point out that the rest of the world is not innocent either.
Even though it was quite interesting to watch Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan, the real performers were the lawyers. The show began with a Cambodian lawyer, who decided to read the papers he held in a monotonous voice. I was surprised because I expected to see crafty, creative and enthusiastic lawyers. At the very least, I expected their argument to be smart and convincing. Instead, the lawyer spent almost five minutes elaborating on a figure of speech adopted by the prosecutors. Apparently, one of the plaintiff lawyers described the genocide as ‘an ocean of blood’ during the opening speeches. However, the defense lawyer didn’t think this was a suitable definition. He gave the example of Tuol Sleng and discussed that 30,000 deaths would not constitute an ocean of blood. A lake of blood, or a pool of blood might do, but not an ocean of blood. It was indeed very informative to listen to this argument on how many human lives should have been taken to justly mention an ocean of blood. He then went on to compare the Cambodian genocide to hurricane Katrina. I was at awe with the comparison of genocide –where intention plays a critical role- with a natural disaster. The lawyer asked whether it was fair to expect from the Khmer Rouge to have control over the entire country after a civil war, considering how difficult it was even for the US government to deal with chaos in the 21st century. Obviously, the underlying assumption here is that none of the Khmer Rouge leaders ordered mass killings or were aware of their presence. At this point, I was already extremely disappointed. To my surprise, the French defense lawyer managed to disappoint me further. He was crafty and creative and enthusiastic. But defining the evidence as ‘vane’ does not make any sense to me. In the middle of Phnom Penh is the Tuol Sleng museum. A few kilometers later are the Killing Fields, and there are many more such fields in the country. There are the accounts of a 1,000 Khmer Rouge perpetuators at Documentation Center-Cambodia. Yet, the defense attorney can still state that ‘the evidence is vane’. Perhaps this is why the ECCC is perceived as a joke.
Since the arguments of the defense attorneys were so poor, I expected the prosecutors to demonstrate some wit. Again, I was let down. When asked to respond in a few sentences, one of the defense attorneys stated that if the Khmer Rouge leaders decided to use their right to remain silent, this would mean accepting their guilt. This statement goes against everything taught in even a Law 101 class. Obviously, the defense attorneys benefited from the opportunity to challenge this statement. They had every right to do so.
Overall, even though I wasn’t expecting much from the ECCC, I was extremely disappointed by the lack of intelligent discussions. The efforts of the former Khmer Rouge leaders to demonstrate their poor health condition in an attempt to gain sympathy from the public bothered me. Even though I respect everyone’s right to a fair trial, I was still disappointed to hear lawyers undermining the pain and suffering millions of Cambodians have been through. After today, when I think of the ECCC, I will remember three old men –responsible for the wildest of crimes- trying to shape public opinion, and doing so with utmost disrespect to the sensitivities of their own victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment