[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
CAMBODIA'S LOOMING POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-869 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
MATT SALMON, Arizona Samoa
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
LUKE MESSER, Indiana WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. John Sifton, director, Asia Advocacy, Human Rights Watch..... 6
Ms. Evi Schueller, legal consultant, Cambodian League for the
Promotion of Defense of Human Rights........................... 15
Mr. Patrick Merloe, director, Election Programs, National
Democratic Institute........................................... 26
Mr. Daniel Mitchell, chief executive officer and managing
director, SRP International Group.............................. 38
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. John Sifton: Prepared statement.............................. 9
Ms. Evi Schueller: Prepared statement............................ 17
Mr. Patrick Merloe: Prepared statement........................... 28
Mr. Daniel Mitchell: Prepared statement.......................... 40
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 62
Hearing minutes.................................................. 63
The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific: Material submitted for the record..................... 64
CAMBODIA'S LOOMING POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CRISIS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. Good afternoon, the committee will come to
order. I understand the ranking member will be here in just a
moment, but rather than keep everyone waiting I will go ahead
and give my opening statement. We welcome our colleagues, as
well as our distinguished witnesses, to the Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific hearing this afternoon.
There is no doubt that today the Cambodian people are
better off than they were in the late '70s under the Khmer
Rouge when as many as 2 million Cambodians were murdered. But
while the region has significantly changed since the days of
the Cold War, Cambodia has taken very few steps to open its
political system and move toward a more transparent and
responsive regime. The past 30 years have shown that Cambodia's
dictator, Prime Minister Hun Sen, has not and will not tolerate
real political debate. The upcoming national elections have
only underscored the deterioration of the human rights
landscape in Cambodia over the course of the past few years.
On October 23, 1991, 19 countries joined together to sign
the Paris Peace Agreements which offered a political settlement
aimed at ending the tragic conflict and continuing bloodshed in
Cambodia. It also laid out the process for building a just and
democratic Cambodia anchored in human rights and the rule of
law. The United Nations maintained a mission in the country
until 1993 to supervise the ceasefire, prepare Cambodia for its
new constitution, and help ensure that its first general
elections were free and fair.
It was this agreement that planted the seeds for an
environment in which the respect for human rights could be
protected and could grow. Twenty years have passed since
Cambodia held its first national elections, but the vision for
the Cambodian people that the international community put in
writing is not yet a reality. Cambodia remains consumed by a
corrupt political system that is becoming more authoritarian
with each passing day. Hun Sen and the ruling Cambodian
People's Party do not foster democratic discourse or respect
the fundamental freedoms that will allow the Cambodian people
to live more prosperous and fulfilling lives.
Despite the large amount of foreign aid the U.S. and
international community has provided to the Cambodian
Government and its people for the purposes of promoting human
rights, civil and political liberties, improving educational
standards, combating health risks and increasing food security,
Hun Sen is taking every action to make it nearly impossible for
this aid to be effectively used in a political and social
structure that is mired in corruption.
On July 28, Cambodia will hold its fifth election behind a
false veil of democracy during which Hun Sen will win his
fourth term as prime minister through the incitement of
political violence, corruption and nepotism. This victory will
only ensure a political, social, and economic future for the
Cambodian people that is both uncertain and dire. The list of
intimidating and repressive actions taken by the CPP is long.
Last month they expelled 27 elected opposition legislators from
the National Assembly and attempted to prohibit radio stations
from broadcasting all Khmer-language foreign news. It also
refuses to allow opposition leader Sam Rainsy from running in
the upcoming election, has made death threats to human rights
activists and organizations, and inhibits other opposition
party members from running effective campaigns. In addition to
severely restricting freedom of speech and association, Hun Sen
has warned the Cambodian people that if they do not reelect
him, civil war will return.
I commend the international community for its decision to
not send election monitors to Cambodia and legitimize Hun Sen's
illegitimate victory, but declaring the election not free or
fair is not enough. U.S. policy toward Cambodia needs to change
and the Obama administration needs to take a much tougher
approach to Asia's longest ruling dictator. I intend to
introduce legislation which complements a bill Senators Graham
and Rubio introduced last month, urging the State Department
and USAID to not support the national elections if the U.N.
recommendations made in July 2012 by the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia are
ignored, and political opposition parties and leaders are
excluded from the election.
So far neither has happened. The legislation also calls for
the U.S. to withhold foreign assistance to the Cambodian
Government if the elections are not judged credible and
competitive. Cutting off direct aid to the Cambodian
Government, specifically foreign military financing and
international military education and training funding, is a
tangible action the U.S. can take to show its condemnation of
the upcoming fallacious and undemocratic election. I also urge
Secretary Kerry to issue a condemnation of the elections. A
Department press release is not enough and will only highlight
the Administration's indifference toward Hun Sen's actions and
the human rights of the Cambodian people.
Today, the real question is how much leverage does the U.S.
still have in Cambodia and with Hun Sen, and how can the U.S.
leverage its assistance to better address the growing human
rights abuses in Cambodia at a time of incredible political
instability? We have seen Cambodia's political and economic
ties with China significantly grow, which has impacted the
effectiveness of U.S. assistance to advance the rule of law,
democracy and human rights. Chinese loans, infrastructure
development, investment, and aid has grown alongside Cambodia's
resistance to address these abuses, which calls into serious
question the Administration's decision to increase military
financing to Cambodia and our overall aid strategy.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon
regarding all the issues that I mentioned. I now yield to my
good friend from the American Samoa, the ranking member, Mr.
Faleomavaega, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also would
like to offer my personal welcome to our distinguished
witnesses here this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, lately our country seems to be on a mission
to stir up discord here, there and everywhere in parts of the
world where we could use our allies and partners. It is my hope
that in the case of Cambodia we will proceed more cautiously.
When I served as chairman in this subcommittee I held two
hearings about Cambodia because I believe the United States
needs to make right what we have done wrong in Southeast Asia.
History shows that the United States failed Cambodia miserably,
yet the title of today's hearing presupposes that Cambodia is
to blame for not being democratic enough for our liking. In
their testimony, however, I am hopeful that our panel of
esteemed human rights witnesses will advocate more for and on
behalf of Cambodia in calling upon the United States, for
example, to forgive Cambodia's debt.
During the Lon Nol period from 1970 to 1975, Cambodia
incurred a debt of about $276 million through the provision of
the agricultural commodities from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. As of December 2011, with accrued interest applied
to successor governments in Cambodia, the amount of debt now is
over $460 million with about $437 million in arrears. Yet,
Marshal Lon Nol seized power in 1970 in a military coup against
Prince Sihanouk with the encouragement--with the
encouragement--of the United States in order to create a buffer
state for the United States forces then engaged in the war in
Vietnam.
Lon Nol's government, the Khmer Rouge Republic, was
chaotic, dictatorial and corrupt and dependent upon large
quantities of U.S. financial assistance, including the loans
which created the current debt. Marshal Lon Nol's regime was
overthrown on April 1, 1975 when he fled into exile, and the
United States abandoned, Mr. Chairman, abandoned Cambodia and
its people. The Khmer Rouge Republic was followed by the coming
to power of the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot, also known as
Brother Number One. The Khmer Rouge was one of the most brutal
regimes of the 20th century, responsible for the deaths of an
estimated 1.7 million people out of a population of only about
7.5 million. Its heartless motto was, and I quote, ``To keep
you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.''
As chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee I
visited Cambodia twice. No one came away from that experience
without wanting to lend a helping hand. To this day I cannot
erase from my mind the images of Tuol Sleng or the killing
fields where babies were torn out of wombs or beaten against
trees until their skulls cracked open, where men, women and
children, families like yours and mine were tortured,
suffocated, skinned alive and buried alive. I am sickened by
the reminders of genocide, of shoes and shirts soaked in blood
that are still scattered in the killing fields of Cambodia.
According to his Excellency Cham Prasidh, Cambodia's
Minister of Commerce, whom I have had the privilege of meeting,
who lost both parents to the Khmer Rouge, only 69 intellectuals
survived the genocide. From ashes, Cambodia has been forced to
rebuild and has looked to anyone for help. In my discussion
with Minister Prasidh, I was particularly struck by his words
when he said to me, Eni, when you are drowning you do not care
about the color of the hand that is saving you.
Sadly, history suggests that the U.S. played a role or a
part in Pol Pot's rise and these days now China, not the United
States, is one of the largest sources of foreign assistance to
Cambodia, lending a hand of some $800 million in aid and loans
in 2006 to 2007. The United States provided a little over $100
million in the same period. While China continues to assist,
even announcing that it will spend $9.6 billion building a
brand new seaport in Koh Kong Province and a 400 kilometer
railroad connecting it to a steel mill in Preah Vihear
Province, and here we are pointing fingers at Cambodia.
When will we realize that Cambodia is important to U.S.
security interests? When will we approach the U.S.-Cambodia
relations a little more responsibly? If we are serious about
human rights in a country that we failed--we failed--Mr.
Chairman, so miserably, we should consider these remarks from a
member of the American Chamber of Commerce who recently said,
and I quote, ``One way of addressing the human rights issues is
to promote the investment of responsible capital.''
I agree this is the way forward. I commend Chevron, Dairy
Queen, ConocoPhillips, Prudential, Caterpillar, and other
United States firms for the role they are playing to better
Cambodia's economic lifestyle. I also commend the Bush
administration for lifting a 10-year ban on direct bilateral
aid to Cambodia in February 2007. And I thank U.S. State
Department Special Representative for telling reporters in
Phnom Penh this year, in January, the pivot to Asia is not only
security focused, it is an economic focus. Because in order for
us to be successful in the long term we have to be economically
involved in this region.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we get economically
involved by forgiving and recycling Cambodia's debt. The United
States has a history of forgiving debts by countries in which
there was past U.S. military involvement including some $4.1
billion--billion--of Iraq's debt in 2004, $24 million
forgiveness of Bosnia-Herzegovina's debt in 1999, $538 million
of former Yugoslavia's debt in 2002. The United States also has
a long history in Asia of using incurred debt to fund U.S.
assistance programs. We forgave Jordan some $500 million of
their debt. So it is my sincere hope, Mr. Chairman, that our
human rights activists will speak more for recycling or
forgiving Cambodia's debt, as I believe this course of action
will lead to the outcome for a better results in the economic
needs of the people of Cambodia.
I welcome our witnesses, especially Mr. Dan Mitchell who
traveled all the way from Cambodia as a member of the American
Chamber of Commerce so that he could share with us his
perspective about how important it is at having an economic
relationship with Cambodia. It seems to me that we talk about
human rights, these people have got to be fed. Human rights
violations according to the Chinese outlook about human rights,
I remember President Zemin when we visited him in Beijing and
said, oh, it is very fine you talk about human rights. You know
what human rights is to us? If I don't put food on the table of
that family I have violated their human rights. That just in
terms of somewhat of a different interpretation what human
rights means to some people in other parts of the world.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have taken too much of your
precious time, but I do thank you for the extra minute that you
have given me. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Faleomavaega. We will
now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding,
for the purpose of making an opening statement.
Mr.Holding. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have a brief
statement. With the national ``elections'' in Cambodia slated
for the end of the month, this hearing is timely to examine our
involvement in the country in terms of both foreign and
military assistance, and to examine the multitude of human
rights concerns that have been widely reported on. And as you
pointed out, Mr. Chairman, much of Cambodia's budget is funded
by foreign assistance from a few nations, obviously including
the United States, and what have we seen in return for all of
this international investment? We see a government that has
been tightening their control over the country, a rule of law
that is now nonexistent, a human rights record that has been
widely and justifiably criticized, and elections put on merely
to placate the international community.
So I hope that the witnesses can outline today how we can
more effectively leverage the dollars we provide and if we
should be increasing our military assistance to Cambodia like
the State Department has requested in Fiscal Year 2014, or if
we should be conditioning our aid until we see progress in
terms of freer elections, movement to address human rights
concerns, and an increased emphasis placed on improving the
rule of law. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time is
expired.
I would now like to introduce our very distinguished panel
here this afternoon. I will begin with John Sifton who is the
Asia Advocacy director at Human Rights Watch where he works
primarily on South and Southeast Asia. He previously served as
the director of One World Research, a public interest research
and investigation firm. Prior to that he spent 6 years as a
researcher in the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch. Mr.
Sifton has also worked for the International Rescue Committee
on Afghanistan and Pakistan issues, and at a refugee advocacy
organization in Albania and Kosovo. He holds a law degree from
New York University and a bachelor's degree from St. John's
College in Annapolis. We welcome you this afternoon.
Our next witness will be Evi Schueller who has been a legal
consultant for the Cambodian League for the Promotion and
Defense of Human Rights in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, for over 2
years. Her primary focus is on rule of law issues and on the
related harmful impact of improper land concessions on land
rights. Before working for LICADHO she was counsel to the
Assistant Attorney General Civil Division for the United States
Department of Justice and a litigation associate with Morrison
& Foerster LLP in San Francisco. We welcome you here this
afternoon, Ms. Schueller.
Our next witness will be Patrick Merloe who is a senior
associate and director of Electoral Programs at the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs and has over 30
years of experience in promoting citizen empowerment,
governmental accountability, and public policy advocacy. He
oversees the Institute's programs concerning nonpartisan
citizen election monitoring and advocacy for electoral
integrity, political party electoral integrity activities,
constitutional law reform efforts and international election
observation. Mr. Merloe has worked in more than 65 countries
for NDI, focusing on conflict-sensitive states and countries
that are vulnerable to authoritarian tendencies. He is a
frequent public speaker and has worked with the United Nations
and other governmental organizations dealing with human rights
and rule of law issues. Mr. Merloe has a J.D. from the
University of Pennsylvania, and completed his undergraduate
education at Temple University. We welcome you here, Mr.
Merloe.
Our final witness here this afternoon is Daniel Mitchell.
He is the CEO and managing director of SRP International Group,
an investment and advisory firm focused on developing
opportunities in Asian emerging markets. Prior to joining SRP
International, Mr. Mitchell was head of Strategic Planning and
Mergers & Acquisitions for Ford Motor Company's Automotive
Components Division, and a manager in charge of Strategic
Planning for Mitsubishi Motors. He sits on the American
Cambodian Business Council's Board of Governors and is the
founding member of the AMCHAM Corporate Social Responsibility
Committee. Mr. Mitchell holds an MBA from Miami University of
Ohio, which is very close to my district, but is actually in
Speaker Boehner's district. My staff director, brother, and my
son graduated from that institution. I almost went there
myself. I had a full football scholarship offered but went
somewhere else. Still a great university.
Again, I want to thank the panel for being here this
afternoon. We will begin with Mr. Sifton. The same rules will
apply to all; we have a 5-minute rule. There is a lighting
system. The yellow light will give you a warning that there is
1 minute to wrap up. When the red light comes on, we would
appreciate it if you wrap up your testimony. Mr. Sifton, you
will be our first witness this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SIFTON, DIRECTOR, ASIA ADVOCACY, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH
Mr. Sifton. Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
Many of us in the human rights community really appreciate your
attention to Cambodia which is an all too often overlooked
country, seen by many to lack geostrategic significance.
Mr. Chairman, as you suggested yourself just now, Cambodia
at this moment is standing on a precipice of sorts. Over 20
years after the Paris Peace Agreements, over 30 years since the
mass crimes against humanity and genocide that occurred, the
country's civil and political situation remains highly
problematic. Human rights, democracy, the rule of law--things
that were promised in the 1991 Paris Agreements remain
troublingly elusive. The problem here isn't inertia or habit,
it is the result of a set of particular political facts, a
particular person, in fact, and a particular party--Cambodia's
ruler Hun Sen and his party, the Cambodian People's Party.
Hun Sen and the CPP control almost every aspect of
governance and civil life in Cambodia including the military
and police forces. All of Cambodia's top military and police
commanders sit on the CPP's central committee. Hun Sen, in
power since 1985, has consolidated his CPP based rule so that
he controls almost every lever of power in Cambodia, and no
decision of any significance is made without his or his party's
consent. One of the results of this situation is that
Cambodia's supposed democratic governance is not, in fact,
democratic.
Now given that Cambodia is set to hold elections less than
20 days from now, I thought it would be useful to provide a
quick review of the last four elections to explain the context
and the reality of this upcoming one, and that is what I have
done in the written version of my testimony which is submitted
for the record. I would note here that in the first election
after the Paris Agreements in 1993, Hun Sen and his party
actually lost and yet, unwilling to accept the results of the
elections, he threatened to go to war with the opponents to
ensure his continued leadership.
I also note the major violence in the run-up to the
country's second elections in 1998, including a March 30th,
1997 grenade attack on opposition leader Sam Rainsy across the
street from the National Assembly, an attack in which the FBI
concluded that Hun Sen's bodyguard unit was actually
implicated. And I note that in July 1997, Hun Sen carried out a
coup against his co-prime minister and installed a pliant
politician in his place. Do you remember this Newsweek cover
from 1997? Perhaps you don't. But this is the vision of Hun Sen
that we had at that time, 15 years ago.
His forces in the wake of that coup carried out a wave of
violence and summary executions that led to congressional
hearings like this one here in the United States, international
condemnation and a disruption of aid to Cambodia. That was 15
years ago. A lot of blood was spilled, people were killed and
images of bodies floating down the Mekong River were carried by
media services around the world. In 2003 and again in 2008, Hun
Sen and the CPP again dominated the electoral process. Then as
now, they controlled the appointments, the membership of the
national election committee as well as the courts. That was how
it was then and that is how it is today.
At this time, the leader of the opposition, Sam Rainsy, is
not even able to campaign. He has been living in exile,
convicted in absentia in a politically motivated case, and he
is not even on the ballot as a candidate. And notably, the
small slate of standing opposition candidates were, as you
said, kicked out of the Parliament last month for spurious and
politically motivated reasons. Although Sam Rainsy recently
announced that he plans to return to Cambodia in 10 days' time
to campaign for his party's candidates, he is likely to be
arrested and jailed upon return.
The United States has already told Hun Sen and his
colleagues that an election with a leader of the opposition
banned from the contest and small the opposition dispersed, the
legitimacy of such an election is in question. If Sam Rainsy is
actually put in prison when he returns, the question is
essentially answered. The election will not be a legitimate
democratic exercise. What will occur on July 28th and what is
occurring beforehand is an illegitimate theatrical enterprise
aimed at appeasing the international community.
So the main question for the United States now is not what
the Administration can do or demand in the next 19 days, but
what the United States will say and do after the election. What
will the United States do to address this and will they again
condone what amounts to fake democracy? That is the question
before us now.
I will end by essentially saying that Human Rights Watch
believes that it is time for a stronger U.S. policy on
Cambodia. There is a great deal that can be done to improve the
situation there. The United States can use its empowerment of
groups in Cambodia through USAID funding who serve as a check
on Hun Sen's power. They can stand more visibly with dissidents
and activists who seek to expose government abuses. And the
United States can disassociate itself from Hun Sen. Cutting aid
to military assistance, IMET, FMF, is a given at this point in
our view. There are several other ideas that I would like to
run through in the question period, but we are hopeful that
Secretary Kerry, as you said, will speak himself after the
election and condemn the exercise, and not just leave it to
State Department spokespersons. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sifton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Sifton.
Ms. Schueller, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. EVI SCHUELLER, LEGAL CONSULTANT, CAMBODIAN
LEAGUE FOR THE PROMOTION OF DEFENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Schueller. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense
of Human Rights, LICADHO, to participate in this important
hearing. My testimony will summarize key points from LICADHO's
written statement.
The past couple of years have seen a deterioration of the
human rights landscape in Cambodia. Much of this trend can be
linked to the significant acceleration and the issuance of long
term, large scale land leases through 2012. As of May 2013,
over 2.2. million hectares have been granted to private firms
in the form of such leases, the vast majority of which have
been issued in disregard of safeguards expressly provided for
in the Cambodian land laws. Since 2003, over 400,000 Cambodians
have been affected by land disputes.
Human rights defenders, particularly those working in land
rights, have been targeted for harassment, threats, unjustified
criminal charges and violence. State forces including the
military continue to provide assistance and protection to
private companies involved in land disputes with villagers, as
well as taking part in forceful and occasionally lethally
violent evictions. The following is a non-exhaustive list of
recent violence perpetrated by members of the military.
On December 12th, 2011, a commanding military officer
acting as a security guard for a private company shot at a
group of villagers injuring three. The villagers had been
demonstrating against the clearing of farmland by the company.
On January 18, 2012, military personnel acting as security
guards for TTY Company opened fire on a group of civilians who
had gathered to prevent clearing of their farmland by the
company's excavators. Four villagers were injured by bullets.
Four men were eventually convicted and sent and sentenced to a
paltry 2 to 3 years with each sentence also significantly
suspended.
On April 26, 2012, well known environmental activist Chut
Wutty was shot dead in a remote corner of the Cardamom
Mountains while investigating illegal logging. Military police
officer In Rattana was also killed by gunfire and two other
members of the military were present. Government officials put
forward an array of bizarre and contradictory explanations for
the death before finally pinning the shooting on Rattana, based
on an implausible scenario which was never substantiated with
credible evidence. And on May 16, 2012, a large military
operation saw hundreds of soldiers, military police and police,
aided by a helicopter, storm a remote village in Kratie
Province. Authorities claim the operation was organized to
arrest three ringleaders in an alleged succession plot.
Villagers, meanwhile, say that the attack was motivated by an
ongoing land dispute with Casotim, a firm that claims villagers
are infringing on its large land concession. The operation
resulted in the shooting death of a 14-year-old girl, Heng
Chantha. There has been no indication of any investigation into
the shooting, nor have there been any arrests.
Events over the past month have also significantly
undermined Cambodia's upcoming national election and are
threatening its legitimacy. LICADHO has investigated numerous
attempts to intimidate or obstruct members and supporters of
opposition parties at the commune and village levels. In the
first 5 months of 2013, a total of 18 cases of politically
motivated intimidation were documented.
In June of this year, the National Assembly's Permanent
Committee, which is comprised entirely of ruling Cambodian
People's Party members, stripped all opposition party members
of their parliamentary status as noted. This left the
legislative body with an unconstitutionally small membership of
just 94. Regardless, the body has continued to pass politically
motivated legislation and to begin consideration and debate of
the country's 2014 budget. The removed Parliamentarians have
also been stripped of their parliamentary salaries and
immunity.
In late June, the government also issued two separate
orders seeking to drastically censor the media. The more
expensive of the two orders was revoked on June 29th, following
loud public outrage. We are extremely grateful to the United
States and its Ambassador to Cambodia, William E. Todd, for
taking an immediate and firm public position against the ban,
an act which no doubt played a large role in the ban's
reversal. The earlier order, however, issued on June 21, also
bans all media from broadcasting foreign reports regarding
opinion polls, surveys and election results. This ban remains
in place and will take effect on July 23, 5 days before
election day.
In light of these and other abuses as described in our
written statement, we respectfully suggest that the United
States review its military aid and cooperation with the
Cambodian military to take into consideration the deteriorating
conditions of human rights in Cambodia. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schueller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Merloe, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. PATRICK MERLOE, DIRECTOR, ELECTION PROGRAMS,
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
Mr. Merloe. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the conditions in
Cambodia leading up to the crucial July 28th elections. I will
briefly summarize my written submission to the committee and
ask that it be included in the record.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered. Please pull the
microphone a little bit closer too, just to make sure everybody
in the room can hear you.
Mr. Merloe. Thank you. Since the beginning of Cambodia's
1992 transition, NDI has been involved in a series of programs
that covers a range of issues with activists, political
parties, and institutions in Cambodia to help create democratic
governance and respect for human dignity. Though there has been
progress in some areas, Cambodia's government is mired in a
corrupt, semi-authoritarian political system, while Hun Sen and
the ruling CPP have stunted Cambodia's democratic development
even though they receive large amounts of international aid.
The international community in our view therefore needs to
intensify support of Cambodians who are seeking and striving
for democracy and human rights, while making it clear that a
Cambodian government that lacks democratic legitimacy is a
threat to nation's stability and cannot be treated as a
reliable partner. Otherwise, the spirit as well as the
provisions of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements will ring hollow.
Mr. Chairman, Cambodia's electoral process again is not
measuring well against international standards. Cambodia's
National Election Committee, the NEC, is not an independent and
impartial body. Recommendations put forward last year by the
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Cambodia, as you noted, are
important for ensuring democratic elections but have largely
remained unaddressed, which casts a shadow across the upcoming
polls. While violence is less of a factor and concern than it
has been in past Cambodian elections, the threat of violence is
still a factor.
That Prime Minister Hun Sen threatens civil war and the
return to a Khmer Rouge-like era if citizens vote for members
of the opposition is an illustration of this. He has repeatedly
attacked CNRP vice president Kem Sokha, even accusing him of
pedophilia and statutory rape, while among other things, Sokha
faces charges of defamation for calling the CPP's campaign
dirty, an ironic and illuminating fact. The CNRP president, Sam
Rainsy, as you have noted, is forced into self-imposed exile in
the face of a politically motivated prison sentence.
Nonetheless, he has recently pledged to return to Cambodia.
In June, as was noted by my colleague, an all-CPP
parliamentary committee voted to remove all opposition members
from the National Assembly. That is the antithesis of an
inclusive political process and reflects on the electoral
environment. All television stations are affiliated with the
CPP, while the opposition's media outreach is limited to a
small number of independent radio stations, and these too are
under threat.
Mr. Chairman, serious flaws in Cambodia's voter registry
create real potentials for both illegal voting and
disenfranchisement of a large number of qualified voters. In
February, NDI and two Cambodian civil society organizations
known as NICFEC, and the Centre for Advanced Studies, conducted
an impartial, systematic audit of the voter registry. The voter
registry audit found that the registration rate has decreased
by 5 percent since 2008, which contrasts starkly with the NEC's
claim that 101.7 percent of the eligible population is on the
voter roll, a dubious statistic.
While approximately 81 percent of the people on the roll
are valid, about 18 percent of the names are invalid. That
creates the potentials for ghost voting, that is, using the
invalid names to cover for manipulated, illegal voting or for
underage illegal voting and other impersonation. In contrast,
NDI found that 10.8 percent of the eligible citizens who think
that they are on the registry are not. That creates the
potential for significant disenfranchisement. And in addition,
the voter registration audit found that numerous polling
stations in which more than half of the voters have been
deleted from 2012; the over-deletion itself creates the
possibility for significant disenfranchisement that could
undermine electoral integrity. Rather than using this
information from the voter registration audit and other
independent sources, the government has reacted hostilely.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of sustained resistance to reform
by the ruling party, supporting Cambodians who are seeking
democracy and human rights and a better material life is all
the more important. The current political situation calls for
the redoubling of such efforts going forward. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merloe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mitchell, you will be our final witness here this
afternoon. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL MITCHELL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRP INTERNATIONAL GROUP
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee
members, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing today.
By way of background, I am a native of Illinois. I have
served in the Army Reserve and National Guard to include the
Ohio National Guard. I worked for several large manufacturing
companies including Ford and Mitsubishi. I founded SRP
International Group and have been involved in agriculture,
forestry and manufacturing in Cambodia over the past 13 years.
I am a member of the Board of Governors of the American Chamber
of Commerce in Cambodia, AMCHAM, and the founding member of the
Corporate Social Responsibility Committee.
My objective here today is neither to attack or defend the
current government of Cambodia. There are human rights and
corruption issues. The country's dynamic NGO community and
press regularly report and document these issues. The issues
presented are serious and some of them are acknowledged by the
government. My effort here today is to provide objective
information and reasoned assessments based upon my experience
on the ground. I believe it is essential that the policy
initiatives by the United States to deal with each challenge be
informed, look to the future and remain engaged.
The AMCHAM has played its role through workshops over the
past several years that began with USFCPA compliance and have
expanded to include the U.N. Guiding Principles for Business
and Human Rights. Positive government actions have included
government land titling program that has issued over 3 million
land titles to villagers. Additionally, management of ACLEDA
Bank, holder of over 90 percent of bank loans in Cambodia,
reports that one-third of their new loans are using these new
land titles as collateral. This is progress. A lack of
consistency, however, on the government's implementation of
their other programs have frustrated both the informed business
community and the population at large.
But tangible progress has been made. In this context, I
would argue that while Prime Minister Hun Sen may be a strong
man he is not a dictator, neither is his party monolithic.
Consequently, the prime minister must have consensus backing
for his initiatives from a variety of constituencies. Since the
late 1990s, Cambodia's progress has been significant and
sustained. I was fortunate enough to be a founding partner in
an enterprise that was the first large scale investment of
institutional financial capital in Cambodia, in this case,
European pension fund money. We were only able to reach this
milestone within the requisitely international legal
compliance, social and environmental responsibility criteria
they mandated. We demonstrated that it is possible to meet
these criteria in Cambodia.
As an entrepreneur I became interested in Cambodia because
of its tremendous untapped human potential, but this is also
one of the country's greatest challenges. Cambodia faces major
demographic issues with over 50 percent of its population under
25 years old, and an estimated 300,000 new entrants to the
workforce annually. Absorption of these new workers and
increasing the overall population standard of living will
require a real GDP growth of 7-8 percent. That growth requires
significant capital investment. This must be socially and
environmentally responsible investments and address the gaps
and the skills of graduates of Cambodia's education system. The
issue of youth skills and employability is of increasing
significance and has greater long term social crisis potential
than the current human rights issues capturing the headlines.
Economic security is the most basic of human rights.
American companies and those from other developed countries can
lead by example in the area of fair labor practices,
environmental sustainability, and corporate social
responsibility. Our behavior sets the standards in marked
contrast to experience with Chinese investors who have created
serious issues for local population. But in our absence the
Chinese stand ready with both investment and aid. We can be
sure that human rights and corporate social responsibility are
not discussion points in these negotiations. Rather than
withdrawal of U.S. aid, I would advocate reallocation of
portions to programs for the development of democracy.
Cambodia-U.S. relations are at a crossroad. History has
provided the leadership of both countries with the opportunity
to work together to achieve common objectives that are of
universal appeal. I will look forward to your questions in
further discussions. This is a summary of a longer written
statement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Thank you very much to all the witnesses. We will now ask
questions and I will begin with myself for 5 minutes.
The subcommittee hosted an event last month to screen the
award-winning documentary, ``Even a Bird Needs A Nest,'' which
depicts the scourge of forced evictions in Cambodia perpetrated
at the hands of the government. I reviewed the tape last night
myself. Unfortunately, the people were speaking Cambodian and
it had French subtitles. I have not taken French since college.
I got the gist of it, but a lot of it went beyond.
Mr. Mitchell, in the past you said that U.S. investment
will help the human rights situation and difficulties over land
disputes in Cambodia because it is subject to higher standards,
such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. As you are aware,
land grabs have become an enormous problem throughout the
entire country and nearly 1 million people have been forced out
of work or have no home to go to due to these forced evictions,
which have not ceased despite Hun Sen's promises.
One of my concerns regarding this issue is whether or not
U.S. companies are involved in these land evictions. How is
Cambodia implementing the standards established under the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and how has your work helped set
the standards in Cambodia? Also, you stated in your testimony
that Chinese investments in Cambodia have made it increasingly
difficult for U.S. companies to promote human rights, and at
the same time, compete for business. How are you, through the
businesses you represent, effectively helping the human rights
situation in Cambodia and conducting responsible business
despite the country's corruption and lack of rule of law. Also,
what are you specifically doing to help stop these land grabs
and help the Cambodian people?
I would be happy if Ms. Schueller might want to comment on
the land grabs, as well. So Mr. Mitchell and then Ms.
Schueller.
Mr. Mitchell. That is a very long list of questions.
Mr. Chabot. It is. You have about 60 seconds to answer them
all.
Mr. Mitchell. Excellent. Forced land evictions at the end
of the day are just a bad business practice. The economic land
concessions involved are primarily agriculture, a few of them
are involved in plantations. There is a need for labor in both
in any economic land concession. As such, we advocate, we have
worked with the Cambodian Government, the Ministry of Land
Management, and the German development agency, GIZ, the
development of what is referred to as the leopard's skin
approach to concessions. It is effectively setting aside space
for existing occupants, not relocating them, working around
them and using them, or providing them labor and employment
opportunities at a livable wage. This has proven very, very
successful for Grandis Timber, which I was CEO of for 5 years,
and is cited in one of the U.N. reports on the land grab issue
as one of the best practices.
With regard to USFCPA issues, we at AMCHAM advocate this.
We hold basically annual seminars on this which has enjoyed the
support of, I believe it was the Treasury Department, and
additionally the Cambodian Government is sending senior level
officials. In my discussions with officials they know what the
USFCPA is and they know that I as a U.S. passport holder cannot
violate that or I run the risk of the penalties.
Chinese investment is a very real issue. Chinese investment
is not governed by things like USFCPA. The investors at their
institutional level are typically state-owned enterprises and
they do not have the social responsibility or the environmental
sustainability criteria that U.S. institutional and European
institutional investors mandate. The more money coming in from
those two areas in investment, the more competitive we are in
implementing programs where we are not asking the government to
hold us accountable, but rather our investors themselves are
holding us accountable.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Let me cut you off there because I
want Ms. Schueller to jump in with the short time I have left.
Ms. Schueller. I would add just that as Mr. Mitchell
mentioned there are a small handful of investors that perhaps
have obligations from outside investments to comply with
certain rules. But the fact is that Cambodia's 2001 land law
and its sub-decree on economic land concessions already
actually provides fairly stringent safeguards which are
routinely ignored. There are requirements for size limitations
which are ignored, prior environmental and social impact
reports, prior consultations and consent from affected
communities, transparency, fair and adequate compensation--
those have all been routinely ignored.
And these are, we are talking the vast majority are these
large agricultural, industrial land concessions which also have
not only past forced violation evictions but they have ongoing
rights violations as you mentioned. There has been crackdowns
on the demonstrations, arbitrary criminal prosecutions. There
has been no offers of compensation or legal remedies to assist
the hundreds of families that have continued to suffer as a
result of losing their homes or farmland.
And I would just want to quickly mention that in May of
last year, the government asserted that it had addressed many
of these issues through a directive suspending new land
concessions and mandating a review of existing concessions, and
also by the prime minister's June launch of an ad hoc land
titling program using thousands of student volunteers. Both the
directive and the privately funded titling scheme have been
highly problematic. A loophole in the directive allowed for at
least 16 new concessions to be granted afterwards totaling over
80,000 hectares, and LICADHO is unaware of any systematic
review of problematic concessions taking place.
And while the push to expedite land titling is laudable in
theory, the program completely bypassed established state land
titling, institutions set up to perform these duties, so the
program has been implemented in a secretive manner with no
provisions for independent monitoring, with civil society
organizations explicitly told to stay away, and numerous
credible reports from landholders, especially in indigenous
communities, being intimidated or tricked into accepting terms
dictated by volunteer students. Such individual titles
undermine these indigenous communities' communal land titling
efforts.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
I will recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thank the
witnesses for their testimony. And I know quite obviously we
have got some real good discussions here.
Mr. Mitchell, how is it possible for the business community
from the United States to survive if this is the kind of
atmosphere that the people of Cambodia face here? What I mean
is that we are not just using a pocket knife here, we are using
a sledge hammer to really tell the Cambodian Government and the
people that they don't know what they are doing. They are not
leaders because they don't come up to the standards that we
Americans expect them to be in forming a democracy. Sometimes I
think we have to understand that democracy means different
things to different people over different regions.
If we call ourselves a great democracy, how come we allowed
nine unelected officials to determine the results of a
Presidential election we had some years ago? How do we justify
to the Cambodians that that is a better form of campaign or
democracy when the majority of the people did not determine who
should be our next President? So I want to ask Mr. Mitchell,
all the presidents of these American companies I know, but we
haven't even discussed the garment industry problem fiasco with
Bangladesh, with India, with Cambodia, with Laos, with Vietnam.
What about the consistency, a sense of saying are we doing
the same thing? Are we pressing other countries about the
violations? We can talk about supply and demand. Eighty-five
percent of small arms sold in Mexico comes from America, and
the cartels and the drugs and all that goes into supply and
demand. So what happens is a tremendous demand for clothing and
garments to come out of Asia because of cheap labor.
Cambodia is one of the prime countries that produces
garment. Cheap labor, the wages that don't even come up to
standards with us. How do you reconcile that the major
difference, Mr. Mitchell, economically, to suggest oh, American
companies are doing very well there. Then when I hear our
friends, human rights activists say, oh, things are so terrible
there. Hun Sen is a dictator, is a terrible person. And we seem
to have forgotten what happened to the killing fields, what
these people have had to endure to go through in trying to
rebuild this country from ashes.
I am sure that all of you have been to the killing fields,
and I am telling you, Mr. Mitchell, it is not something that I
want to share with every American here, what it meant to be to
these people. And whether it was Hun Sen or Pol Pot or whatever
it is, the fact of the matter is Cambodia's history is quite
different. I would say 99 percent of the American people do not
know that Cambodia was a colony of the French for some 100
years, along with Laos and Vietnam, before we got involved. And
I can tell you, Mr. Mitchell, from what I visited and what I
saw, these people were treated like animals. And France is
supposed to be the source of enlightenment about democracy and
freedom? Give me a break. Mr. Mitchell, could you respond to my
question?
Mr. Mitchell. I will do my level best to respond without
any disagreement to your assessment.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And by the way, I have the utmost respect
for my friends here in human rights. I am a human rights
advocate. But you have got to put it in proper perspective. Let
us talk about human rights in the Middle East. Let us talk
about human rights in China. Let us not cherry pick. Let us be
consistent. If we are going to do this, let us do it with the
others too. I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I have
got 1 more minute left.
Mr. Chabot. Were you finished with your response, Mr.
Mitchell?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell. The United States does not use a consistent
yardstick with regard to evaluation of human rights. We don't
have the option of critiquing elections in China. We don't have
the option of critiquing elections in Lao or in Vietnam, yet we
do do business with those places. How do U.S. companies
survive? Because we set our own standards and they are higher.
And this isn't just the Americans, the Europeans. And that
provides a mechanism for weak institutions that are
characteristic of frontier markets that we, in fact, don't ask
what is legal, it is what is right. What are our customers and
our investors going to hold us accountable to?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Mitchell, I have got 6 more seconds,
just a note of interest. Hun Sen's son graduated from the
military academy at West Point. That is where Eisenhower
graduated. That is where Nimitz graduated. That is where
MacArthur graduated. Does that make him a bad person? And I
understand that his son is one of the most positive results of
the kind of advice it is trying to give them to make the
country better.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, my time is gone. I wish we were
at the third round already. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Holding, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Holding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sifton, you mentioned in your preliminary testimony
that cutting foreign and military assistance is a given, and
you alluded that you had other suggestions as to how the U.S.
could engage the Cambodian Government to seek reform. So I will
give you a minute or so to elaborate on that please.
Mr. Sifton. Thank you. I said it was a given because I
think there is an increasing realization in the State
Department and the Pentagon and the interagency dialogue that
it is time for a new approach to U.S. foreign policy to
Cambodia. These are four elections, 21 years since the Paris
Peace Agreements, and we have had five U.S. Presidents since
Hun Sen took power, seven U.S. Ambassadors. Whatever that
attempt has been has not promoted democracy and rights in
Cambodia. And so the thinking now is starting to tilt toward
realization that Hun Sen responds, if he ever responds, more to
tough talk than to diplomatic talk. Talk all the same, but
tough talk in the sense that a warning is put on the table.
The money is not so much the issue. IMET is small, FMF is
small, but it is symbolically quite potent. The real hurt
financially, I think, comes in infrastructure lending from
international financial institutions like the World Bank, the
Asian Development Bank, IMF and others. The World Bank has
currently pulled out of Cambodia because of concerns about,
well, many things, but it is currently not there. But the U.S.
can use its voice and vote on the World Bank, IMF, Asian
Development Bank, to vote against large infrastructure lending.
We can pull aid, direct assistance to the Cambodian government.
One thing that should not be on the table though is USAID
health programming, PEPFAR funding for HIV/AIDS. Pulling that
stuff will not hurt Hun Sen. It won't change anything. It will
just harm ordinary Cambodians.
Mr. Holding. If you pulled out the lending for
infrastructure, I assume that companies like what Mr. Mitchell
works with, I mean they would pull out as well. I mean that has
got to be an attractor to Cambodia that they have access to
infrastructure capital.
Mr. Sifton. A quick word about the economics. I mean the
problem, in my opinion, with the ranking chair and Mr.
Mitchell's suggestion about the role of economic investment is
one of cause and effect. I agree that corporate social
responsibility and responsible investment is to the good in
every country. But I think it is questionable at best to
suggest that these methods will actually promote democracy and
human rights. I mean even if we zoom out and speak in terms of
the macroeconomic situation, having a person in power for 30
years, which is what he will be after this election, is
ultimately a destabilizing factor in the country's future and
will lead to instability which will lead to serious economic
downturns far more serious than whatever is lost through the
loss of investment.
Mr. Holding. One other concern would be--well, first off,
China provides infrastructure loans to Cambodia as well the
other institutions that you talked about. So if we were to
block the International Monetary Fund from providing
infrastructure loans do you think it would drive them closer to
China? China would step in and provide whatever loans,
infrastructure loans that they needed, and so long term we
would lose any leverage that we might have in Cambodia?
Mr. Sifton. Well, there is two responses I would add to
that. One is that I have never quite understood why occupying
the space would lead China not to occupy the space or attempt
to, and China can make very good offers of its own and will,
regardless of how much U.S. investment is put in, first.
Secondly, after the experience in Burma, I don't think
anybody in the U.S. Government really has a problem driving a
country into the arms of the Chinese. I don't think the
Cambodian Government really wants to be in the arms of the
Chinese any more than any other government anywhere else in the
world. So driving folks to the Chinese to beg, hat in hand, for
infrastructure lending may be, in the long term interest, in
the sense that ruling a lead of Cambodia, undemocratic as it
is, may realize, like Burma did, that the future ultimately
will be predicated on opening up to the rest of the world and
not just depending on handouts from the Chinese Government.
Mr. Holding. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, who is also the subcommittee
chairman on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing. It is significant that we should actually
be looking at Cambodia after such a long time of ignoring
Cambodia. It is interesting that our ignoring Cambodia after
all of these years Hun Sen is still there. It is time for Hun
Sen to go. Hun Sen is a corrupt, vicious human being who has
held that country in his grip for decades. It is time for Hun
Sen to go.
We could talk all we want about theory. Let me ask the
panel. Is Hun Sen a wealthy man now after these decades, or is
he a committed public servant and thus has no outside wealth?
Can anyone answer that question for me?
Mr. Sifton. I think it would be difficult to estimate given
the lack of transparency in Cambodia just how wealthy he and
his family are.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Has anyone done any guesstimates as to the
wealth of Mr. Hun Sen? All right, let us just suggest that
knowing the Cambodian system and knowing his ability to silence
the opposition, let us say that it would really take a great
deal of integrity for him not to succumb to people who want to
give him money in order to do things. Let us go to our
businessman over here. Can people do business in Cambodia
without having to pay bribes and pay off the government?
Mr. Mitchell. Absolutely yes. It requires patience. It
takes longer. But absolutely yes, you can do business in
Cambodia----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So remember you are on the record now.
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And there is a lot of people around the
world who are going to say, here is this American businessman
who is now saying that Hun Sen is not corrupt when it comes to
business investments in his country. And if we----
Mr. Mitchell. That is not what I am saying.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh. What is it that you said? Excuse me.
Mr. Mitchell. I am saying that it is possible to do
business----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, I see.
Mr. Mitchell [continuing]. In Cambodia----
Mr. Rohrabacher. If Hun Sen's out of town for a week and
somebody sneaks in you mean?
Mr. Mitchell. No, that is not what I mean.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Mitchell. I mean that it is possible to meet the
standards of USFCPA and the international standards with regard
to avoidance of corruption. It requires patience but it can be
done.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that when someone says something
can be done, and you are trying to figure out what, really,
someone is saying, is if there is a 1-percent chance that it
can be done, it still can be done, which gives you the----
Mr. Mitchell. I did it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Mitchell. I did it with European pension fund money
behind me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Mr. Mitchell. If at any given day they had thought for a
moment that I was paying bribes, they would have shut down the
project.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Now let me ask you this. You
said it can be done, just to analyze your words here. It can be
done. Does that mean that it is commonplace that people can do
business without having to pay off the Hun Sen regime, or is
it----
Mr. Mitchell. American and Western European companies, yes.
Companies from developed markets, yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. I am happy you are on the
record as saying that. It does stretch my knowledge because--
and you may know, you are on the scene. My information about
Hun Sen indicates that that isn't the case, but I will have to
admit you are on the scene and I am very happy you have made a
solid statement on that.
Do you know Brett Sciaroni by the way?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, I do.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, send him my best wishes.
Mr. Mitchell. I will.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And a man----
Mr. Mitchell. I think, rest assured, Brett is probably
watching.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me ask you this. And let us
remember, Hun Sen would not be in power, Mr. Chairman, if it
wasn't for the cowardice of the United States. Let me just
suggest Hun Sen lost the election that was held after the peace
agreement in 1991. He lost the election. There was someone else
elected prime minister. We had 10,000 United Nations troops on
the ground at that time, and our Ambassador decided, well, a
compromise would be we will let there be two prime ministers.
No, the compromise was you should have followed what the
election was all about and had the person who was elected
become the prime minister.
So whatever problems we face right now with Cambodia can be
traced back to the cowardice of our government in making sure
that we stood tall for democratic principles at a time when we
could have enforced that adherence to the democratic process.
So now Hun Sen is still there and it is time for Hun Sen to go.
Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Will the gentleman yield to the ranking member?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would certainly be happy to, my good
friend.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman is given an additional minute to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to add a little bit to my
dear friend from California. Marcos of the Philippines took $8
billion of the Philippine treasury. Suharto of Indonesia took
$8 billion from the Indonesian treasury. Ho Chi Minh took
nothing. He died a simple man, and yet, boy, how we demonized
this nationalist leader among the Vietnamese people. And he was
the most evil person because he was a Communist. He was a
socialist. All he wanted to do was get rid of French
colonialism that existed among his people.
Hun Sen, that is a good question. I am going to help my
friend from California. My impression, Mr. Chairman, is that if
he was so rich I don't think Cambodia would be in the situation
it is now. And by the way U.S. laws do prohibit the kickbacks
or briberies of officials when our businesses go overseas to do
business. Am I correct in that, Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Mitchell. Absolutely.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. And I think there has been some
question too about the wealthier Members of Congress. How do
they get so wealthy since becoming members of this great
institution? I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. We will begin a second round now. The
Chair will recognize himself. First of all, I think as chair of
the subcommittee it is probably my responsibility to comment
that Ho Chi Minh was responsible for a tremendous number of
deaths and was a pretty dastardly person in many respects.
Despite the fact that Saigon is now named after him, at least
officially, even though a lot of the people there still call it
Saigon. I want to recognize the gentleman, the ranking member,
who actually served in Vietnam, wore the uniform of this
country and served there. We certainly respect him greatly for
that.
I would also note, relative to just a point of reference,
the gentleman mentioned corruption, and I think it certainly is
there. In fact, Cambodia is ranked 157th out of 176 countries
when it comes to Transparency International's Corruption
Perceptions Index for 2012. So it is ranked pretty darn low.
But also, Mr. Mitchell, the gentleman who is here--I don't want
to say defending business necessarily--but giving a business
point of view, I would like to think that our American
companies around the world, when faced with corrupt practices
in that country, do follow a higher standard.
I know Proctor & Gamble, for example, is headquartered in
my district and I have had lots of conversations about their
dealings all over the world. They have an absolute policy
against that. If a country doesn't cooperate, they will leave
in a heartbeat and there are a lot of jobs that leave with
them. They have high standards. GE Aircraft Engines is also
headquartered in my district and they have the same standards.
I would like to commend our business community for their
practices around the world. I wish other companies in other
countries always followed that and they don't always do that.
Some do. A lot don't. But I think most American companies do,
and if they don't, they could be prosecuted for it, as we are
aware.
I have used about half of my time in the second round
making these statements, but I thought they needed to be said.
As we look at what is happening in Cambodia, the
deteriorating human rights situation, the political oppression
of opposition parties, and restrictions on freedom of
expression to name just a few, what I would like to ask the
panel is, how much leverage does the U.S. still have in
Cambodia and with Hun Sen as well? How much of an impact do
American administrations, say press releases or pieces of
legislation that we pass here in Congress or hearings like we
are holding here today, to the extent that they are covered in
that part of the world, or potential action that we might have?
Cutting foreign aid has been discussed. Those types of things,
what actual power do we have to do some good in that part of
the world, and specifically in Cambodia? I will go down the
line if I can. Mr. Sifton?
Mr. Sifton. Yes, that is a great question. And I want to
emphasize----
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My staff wrote it.
Mr. Sifton. I want to emphasize that a very important thing
that the State Department and the White House can do is not
just what they say and what they do after the election, but
what they do with other capitals. What they do in Tokyo,
Brussels, and Paris, in particular, as well as in Australia and
some other countries, in terms of coordinating a coordinated
response to what is going on. If Tokyo and Brussels and Paris
and London and all the rest of them, together, make demands
about what needs to happen going forward toward the next
democratic exercise, if they make credible warnings to Hun Sen
about the price of not meeting those standards, he will cave.
He has shown himself again and again of a psychological profile
where when pushed against the wall he will deal. He is not a
particularly stable leader, but when pushed he does go back on
rationality and doesn't act crazy to the end of the line.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Sifton. Let me go to Mr. Merloe.
I had already asked Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Schueller my first
question earlier today, so I would like to turn to you as we
wrap up.
Mr. Merloe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is really
important to distinguish a few different ways the United States
can have influence in this circumstance. First, there is the
role of the U.S. Embassy and USAID on the ground in Cambodia,
and we have already heard from our colleague about the role of
the U.S. Ambassador in intervening, and the rolling back of the
ban on covering Voice of America and Radio Free Asia and so on
within the country. The help that has been given to human
rights defenders has been instrumental and invaluable within
Cambodia. There are many such things. The role of USAID in
giving funding to programs that help promote democracy and
human rights and human dignity within Cambodia are
instrumental, and those sorts of things should be continued.
Second, the role of Congress, the role of the State
Department and the White House, as has just been said by my
colleague: As you speak up the world listens, and that brings
to bear the whole weight of the international community. And, I
think we have to keep in mind that the new Cambodia was born
out of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements. In the annexes to that
agreement, Number 4 applied to the Constitution, calls for
democracy, pluralist political competition and the rule of law.
It is not international standards or U.S. standards are foreign
or that are being applied or somehow imposed on Cambodia. These
are the things that the Cambodian people have been striving for
and risking their lives for even during the days of Pol Pot and
in the 30 years since. It is our role to support them, to come
forward, and it is your leading role, and the role of this
committee is instrumental in that respect. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I want to thank all the
panel members. I would like to recognize the ranking member for
5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We are dealing with a dilemma here in
terms of how do we go about enunciating our foreign policy, as
it may have been suggested earlier that we become consistent.
If we do it for Peter, we should do it for Paul. But when it
comes to the realities as far as diplomacy is concerned, issues
become gray and it becomes muddled because there are so many
other factors to take into consideration.
For example, let us talk about the rights of women. Let us
talk about the rights of women on a worldwide scale, although
we can't talk about it in Saudi Arabia because we import over
$700 billion worth of oil from the Middle East and other
countries. So which is more important, human rights of women or
the oil that we need to run our cars? That is where the problem
of being consistent comes in, not because diplomacy is bad but
the reality. It is the reality.
We never criticized the Russians for their elections. Oh,
we did kind of dabble a little bit on it, but has Putin given
in to the pressures from other democracies that say, hey,
Russians, you are not doing a democracy here. What are you
doing? Putin is a strong man. He is a dictator in the opinions
of some of our pundits and experts here.
I can talk to you about Indonesia. To a point, 2 million
West Papuans at the point of a barrel of a gun of the
Indonesian military under Suharto, you will vote for Indonesia.
One thousand West Papuan chiefs all voted 100 percent in
support of Indonesia's dictatorship. And guess who took a blind
eye to this whole thing? Our own U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations. Why? Because we needed Indonesia because we were
fighting the Cold War. We didn't care whether they were
dictators or whatever, as long as they were with us.
We can also talk about the CIA putting up the Shah of Iran.
That is another mess that we created and it has nothing to do
with democracy. So I say this, as I love my country, but
sometimes we do things. Look what we have done in Iraq and look
at Afghanistan. Look at all these areas. Have we really
produced the results that we wanted? Oh no, don't worry about
it. Well, Iraq has got all the oil in the world that will pay
back the $1 trillion that we fought for some 10 years that we
were there in Iraq. One trillion dollars, and guess what, ten
major oil companies put up a bid for the use of the Iraq oil,
guess which company won the bid. The Chinese, and they never
lifted a finger to help us fight Saddam Hussein.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up. I am sorry. I
apologize to my dear brother there, Dana, I know he wants to
ask some questions. But I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. All right. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from California is recognized to wrap up the hearing.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right, just a couple notes about Ho
Chi Minh. Let us just note, oh, he died a simple man, did he?
Ho Chi Minh died in a Presidential palace. He held power,
absolute power, with a terror in North Vietnam and he sent
millions of his people to their death. It resulted in 400,000
Vietnamese were killed in his desire, what, to create a
Communist state. And guess what? He was the head of it. He was
the one who wasn't going to have to worry about elections
because he was in power. No, he was a simple man, all right.
And then of course what you really have to--by the way, the
400,000 South Vietnamese that were killed, that is after his
troops took over South Vietnam. That is not during the process.
Not to mention I think a few people lost their lives in
Cambodia due to Mr. Ho Chi Minh and his desires and his
maneuvers for power in Southeast Asia. And yes, the United
States tried to oppose him and it was a bridge too far and we
walked away, and people who allied themselves with us were
slaughtered. And nowhere was that more evident than in
Cambodia.
But now back to where Cambodia is today as compared to
then--and by the way, all those people who died in Cambodia,
wasn't there a field commander of Pol Pot named Hun Sen? Am I
wrong about that? No. So when we are talking about atrocities
into millions, there is nobody who comes close enough to Adolph
Hitler and Joseph Stalin than Pol Pot, and Hun Sen was his
field commander doing his dirty work. And he ended up on top,
why? Because after he lost the election that was an honest
election back in 1991-92, the American Ambassador decided, my
goodness, Hun Sen will not give up even though he has lost the
election and even though we had plenty of U.N. troops in there
to see that that election was recognized.
Back to where we are today in terms of, I am sorry. I know
that Hun Sen has done right by your company and you are
protecting the interests of your company, but a lot of people
think it is very corrupt in Cambodia and that there might be a
possibility that someone doesn't have to get sucked into it,
but it appears by the analysis that actually most people think
they are going to get sucked into it if they go there to
invest. In that chart that we were just talking about, or the
chairman just mentioned, in terms of transparency and
accountability, yes, Cambodia comes in 157th out of 172
countries, and countries like Yemen, Angola, Paraguay, Syria,
they are all more honest than Cambodia in the analysis of this
organization that makes its living by trying to do an honest
analysis of what countries are human rights violators or not.
Let us put this way. I think that it is a very important
thing that we are drawing attention to Cambodia today. It is
important that these arguments get out. I do not blame our
business community for trying to get in and make a profit. And
I do believe what our witness said, in his case and in the case
of most American companies, because we have made it illegal for
them to actually, breaking our law for them to try to bribe
somebody overseas, these other countries don't have that. Now
correct me, am I wrong? Is there a large amount of Chinese
investment going into Cambodia? Am I wrong about that?
Mr. Mitchell. You are correct. There is a tremendous amount
of Chinese investment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So my guess is that the Chinese who
are going in are not going in with the same regulatory burdens
that our own companies have in terms of honesty and bribes and
paying people off. And what we have seen and what we have just
heard testimony, Mr. Chairman, is that the people of Cambodia,
some people may have owned land for hundreds of years, are
finding that their property is being taken from them and their
property is being stolen from them and often given to foreign
investors. And what could be more of an insult to your own
people than to be making a profit by selling out your people to
foreigners who are there of course taking advantage of the fact
that you can't have, without freedom of the press, which is
very limited there, that they are not going to be exposed.
So I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my good
friend Eni. And let me just note, this is a man who fought for
his country. I was in Vietnam in 1967 but I was not in the
military. But let me just note that when you said something
good about Ho Chi Minh, some people I worked with are dead
because of Ho Chi Minh and they were not bad people. They were
very good people.
And yes, sure, I would yield, yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield? Just for 30
seconds, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say I wish we had more
time so my good friend from California and I could debate Ho
Chi Minh and what he stood for.
Secondly, we talk about acquisition of lands. There is a
saying among the American Indians, yes, you stole our land fair
and square. I would like to talk about that in terms of what we
have done as a country for the last 236-37 years. It always
seems to be that if you don't remember the past you are
condemned to repeat it. I sincerely hope they will be fair in
the same way that the American Indians have lost their land.
What have we done about it? Oh, they are getting spots of it
here and there, but I wish it could have been more.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We let them open up casinos and take our
money, what do you mean?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Because it is the only means of survival
they have got----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. In terms of economic
opportunity. All the states continue their lotteries and their
bingos and casinos. Oh no, the poor Indians, that Congress has
got to see them make sure there is no mafia presence or
syndicates. No, they run the better gaming operations because
it is under the auspices of the Federal Government. I am sorry.
I didn't mean to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank my friend from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But of course.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The Chair would note that the U.S.
Native American policies are not within the purview of this
committee, but I am sure Congress does have committees that can
deal with that issue. We do have India within our jurisdiction
but not American Indians. I would also ask unanimous consent
that committee members be given 5 days to revise their remarks
or submit questions.
I want to thank the panel for their testimony. I thought it
was excellent testimony by all four. We also thank the members
of the committee for their spirited involvement here this
afternoon. If there is no further business to come before the
committee, we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\abt \
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Steve Chabot, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
