 |
| Article by Peter Maguire |
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA — The trial of surviving leaders of the Khmer
Rouge will begin in Phnom Penh on Monday. The fact that the case has
even made it this far is a minor miracle to those of us who were in
Cambodia during the 1990s, when the defendants’ amnesties seemed secure.
The court — the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
(E.C.C.C.), better known as the “mixed tribunal” — has charged, with
various counts of war crimes, the former head of state, Khieu Samphan;
Nuon Chea, described as the movement’s ideologue; Ieng Sary, the foreign
minister; and his wife, Ieng Thirith, who was minister of social
affairs.
Even a longtime critic like myself must give credit to the court and the
devoted investigators who worked for decades to bring the Khmer Rouge
leaders to justice. But a conflict between an E.C.C.C. prosecutor and
the investigative judges over another possible trial is undermining the
case.
This is the court’s second case — and the most significant it will ever
try. After Prime Minister Hun Sen of Cambodia announced that this trial
would be the E.C.C.C.’s last, U.N. investigative judges seemed to lose
interest in a third case against other high-ranking Khmer Rouge members.
Internal strife ensued and some foreign members of the legal staff
resigned. Next week’s trial, known as Case Two, will now take place amid
accusations of political interference and of U.N. incompetence.
In the wake of Hun Sen’s declaration it was the British prosecutor
Andrew Cayley who challenged the U.N.’s investigative judges to be more
aggressive in pursing a third trial, and the fallout led to the
resignation of the staff members. Although the U.N. denies that politics
played any role in their decision, no amount of procedural correctness
can spare the Cambodian court from the inevitable pitfalls of political
justice.
Many in the United Nations and the human-rights industry would like us
to believe that a war crimes trial is a simple application of laws to
facts, but nothing could be further from the truth.
From Nuremberg to Tokyo to The Hague to Arusha to East Timor, political
justice was and will always be a strange admixture of law and politics
that is in a constant state of flux. Anyone with even a passing
knowledge of Cambodia knows that thousands of the Khmer Rouge’s killers
will never be brought to justice.
Neither the E.C.C.C. nor the U.N. has earned the right to act with
anything but humility, given their performances to date. Not only did
the U.N. allow the Khmer Rouge to hold Cambodia’s General Assembly seat
after it was ousted in 1979, during the 1992-3 occupation of the country
by the U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia, the organization failed
to end the civil war, capture the Khmer Rouge leaders, hold a credible
election or even mention war crimes in the final treaty restoring
Cambodian sovereignty.
The E.C.C.C. has not done much better: It has spent five years and
approximately $100 million to convict a single death camp commandant
named Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Brother Duch, in the simplest war
crimes trial since Einsatzgruppen leader Otto Ohlendorf was tried at
Nuremberg in 1947-8.
Although Duch freely admitted his guilt and there was a paper trail
linking him to the killings at Tuol Sleng prison, the trial still took
eight months and was grossly overcomplicated by a distraction called
“the victims unit.” In a country where thieves are routinely beaten to
death by angry mobs, many Cambodians were baffled when Duch’s sentence
was reduced to 19 years.
Because the E.C.C.C. and its many boosters promised things that no trial
could deliver and oversold the therapeutic benefits of war crimes
trials, they have run head on into the limits of the possible. There is
no empirical evidence to support the idea that trials lead to “truth,”
“reconciliation” and “healing.”
In the end, the most anyone can expect from a war crimes trial is that
the guilty will be punished and the innocent exonerated. As Otto
Kirchheimer pointed out in his classic study “Political Justice,”
“Circumstantial and contradictory, the linkage of politics and justice
is characterized by both promise and blasphemy” — precisely the place
where the E.C.C.C. stands today.
Even if the there is no third case, a credible trial of Khieu Samphan,
Ieng Sary, Noun Chea and Ieng Thirith, would make it possible to
overlook the court’s many failings. If Cambodia’s E.C.C.C. cannot try
the surviving Khmer Rouge leaders before they die, the “mixed tribunal”
should be considered an expensive farce never to be tried again.
Peter Maguire
is the author of “Facing Death in Cambodia” and “Law and War:
International Law and American History.” He has taught the law and
theory of war at Bard College and Columbia University.
The New York Times
The New York Times
Cambodia shocked Thailand recently, after owning the Preah Vihear temple
for 49 years. On April 28, 2011, Cambodia submitted a request to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an interpretation of the
Court’s judgment from June 15, 1962. After a month, the ICJ began
hearings at the Hague on May 30-31, 2011.
“Only the clarification of the verdict on June 15 from the ICJ can end the border dispute. The border conflict does not end with a ceasefire or the third-party observers, which can only help ease the tense situation for awaiting the border resolution,” Cambodian PM Hun Sen said at a graduation ceremony at the Royal University of Phnom Penh on Feb. 22, 2011.
“It’s impossible for the joint management plan for Preah Vihear temple with Thailand [to work],” Hun Sen reiterated recently.
Will the ICJ’s clarification bring peace and end the current Thai-Cambodian conflict permanently? Will the ICJ’s decision be good for ASEAN, as well?
Cambodia brought forth a legal petition to the ICJ merely to find legal justification to urge Thailand to withdraw its military from the sites, to ban all Thai military activities at Preah Vihear’s border and to stop acts that can be categorized by Cambodia as intervention.
To counter this, there are three basic arguments for Thailand that have been made against Cambodia, as argued by the head of the Thai delegation at the ICJ.
As Prof. Alain Pellet said, “Thailand believed the Temple case of 1962 was not related to the issue of the boundary line — and since Thailand had duly complied with the ICJ judgment, there would be no issue requiring interpretation.”
Furthermore, Prof. James Crawford said, “[The] ICJ had no jurisdiction and authority to make additional decisions for Cambodia, as the case was outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.” Prof. Donald M. McRae further added that Cambodia’s request for indication of provisional measures “did not satisfy the court’s criteria.
The ICJ had no urgency or imminence to justify the demand of Cambodia. Cambodia’s request was unbalanced and highlighted progress made on the ground, including on the issue of dispatching an Indonesian Observers Team to the Thai side of the border.”
Starting from those contrasting illustrations, the ICJ’s judgement will not be easily accepted or automatically put peace in place. In the next 45 days — around July 15, 2011, as promised, the ICJ will have an answer. Thai-Cambodian relations, in turn, will not be the same again, with the existing conflict prevailing and no immediate end in sight.
Whatever the ICJ’s statement, one of the conflicting parties will not be in favor nor want to comply. For example, no one will withdraw the soldiers from the borders as it will eliminate their own respective sovereignty.
The Thai-Cambodian dispute is at stand-still, and disagreement will continue. Peace is again at stake, but hopefully the ceasefire can still be controlled at the border.
As long as Thailand and Cambodia restrict their dispute to political parameters, they have a right to settle the issue at hand. However, when a war is declared, endangering the civil society and the stabilization of the Southeast Asian region, ASEAN has the right to find a solution. Indonesia, as the ASEAN 2011 chairman, did. Even the UNSC mandated ASEAN to find immediate political mechanisms to mediate the conflict through establishing a workable ceasefire.
The question is, why did Cambodia undergo a trilateral negotiation with Thailand and Indonesia on May 9, 2011, in Jakarta, and then, a week before the 2011 ASEAN summit, bring the case before the ICJ? Jakarta’s package solution from May 9, 2011, which had been agreed upon by Thailand and Cambodia, was the most realistic workable solution.
When Cambodia decided to bring the case before the ICJ, it ensured that peace would not be established immediately. Even in the case of no-compliance, the UNSC, if necessary, can send a peacekeeping mission to the Thai-Cambodian border during conflict.
As members of the ASEAN family — who expects peace — it is disappointing to see how Thailand and Cambodia irresponsibly and deliberately disregarded their previous commitment to implementing Jakarta’s May 9, 2011, package solution.
This is the clearest example of a broken commitment amid the ASEAN community-building process. The way that Thailand and Cambodia heve dealt with their border dispute is disgraceful.
It is more than a negative political lesson that is being learned and witnessed by our fathers, children and the younger ASEAN generation. The right to peace, security and stability in the Southeast Asian region is our ultimate goal for the future, not the past.
ASEAN’s sacred mission of achieving peace, stability and prosperity must be built and strengthened by our leaders’ true commitment and honesty — not by their empty promises.
“Only the clarification of the verdict on June 15 from the ICJ can end the border dispute. The border conflict does not end with a ceasefire or the third-party observers, which can only help ease the tense situation for awaiting the border resolution,” Cambodian PM Hun Sen said at a graduation ceremony at the Royal University of Phnom Penh on Feb. 22, 2011.
“It’s impossible for the joint management plan for Preah Vihear temple with Thailand [to work],” Hun Sen reiterated recently.
Will the ICJ’s clarification bring peace and end the current Thai-Cambodian conflict permanently? Will the ICJ’s decision be good for ASEAN, as well?
Cambodia brought forth a legal petition to the ICJ merely to find legal justification to urge Thailand to withdraw its military from the sites, to ban all Thai military activities at Preah Vihear’s border and to stop acts that can be categorized by Cambodia as intervention.
To counter this, there are three basic arguments for Thailand that have been made against Cambodia, as argued by the head of the Thai delegation at the ICJ.
As Prof. Alain Pellet said, “Thailand believed the Temple case of 1962 was not related to the issue of the boundary line — and since Thailand had duly complied with the ICJ judgment, there would be no issue requiring interpretation.”
Furthermore, Prof. James Crawford said, “[The] ICJ had no jurisdiction and authority to make additional decisions for Cambodia, as the case was outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.” Prof. Donald M. McRae further added that Cambodia’s request for indication of provisional measures “did not satisfy the court’s criteria.
The ICJ had no urgency or imminence to justify the demand of Cambodia. Cambodia’s request was unbalanced and highlighted progress made on the ground, including on the issue of dispatching an Indonesian Observers Team to the Thai side of the border.”
Starting from those contrasting illustrations, the ICJ’s judgement will not be easily accepted or automatically put peace in place. In the next 45 days — around July 15, 2011, as promised, the ICJ will have an answer. Thai-Cambodian relations, in turn, will not be the same again, with the existing conflict prevailing and no immediate end in sight.
Whatever the ICJ’s statement, one of the conflicting parties will not be in favor nor want to comply. For example, no one will withdraw the soldiers from the borders as it will eliminate their own respective sovereignty.
The Thai-Cambodian dispute is at stand-still, and disagreement will continue. Peace is again at stake, but hopefully the ceasefire can still be controlled at the border.
As long as Thailand and Cambodia restrict their dispute to political parameters, they have a right to settle the issue at hand. However, when a war is declared, endangering the civil society and the stabilization of the Southeast Asian region, ASEAN has the right to find a solution. Indonesia, as the ASEAN 2011 chairman, did. Even the UNSC mandated ASEAN to find immediate political mechanisms to mediate the conflict through establishing a workable ceasefire.
The question is, why did Cambodia undergo a trilateral negotiation with Thailand and Indonesia on May 9, 2011, in Jakarta, and then, a week before the 2011 ASEAN summit, bring the case before the ICJ? Jakarta’s package solution from May 9, 2011, which had been agreed upon by Thailand and Cambodia, was the most realistic workable solution.
When Cambodia decided to bring the case before the ICJ, it ensured that peace would not be established immediately. Even in the case of no-compliance, the UNSC, if necessary, can send a peacekeeping mission to the Thai-Cambodian border during conflict.
As members of the ASEAN family — who expects peace — it is disappointing to see how Thailand and Cambodia irresponsibly and deliberately disregarded their previous commitment to implementing Jakarta’s May 9, 2011, package solution.
This is the clearest example of a broken commitment amid the ASEAN community-building process. The way that Thailand and Cambodia heve dealt with their border dispute is disgraceful.
It is more than a negative political lesson that is being learned and witnessed by our fathers, children and the younger ASEAN generation. The right to peace, security and stability in the Southeast Asian region is our ultimate goal for the future, not the past.
ASEAN’s sacred mission of achieving peace, stability and prosperity must be built and strengthened by our leaders’ true commitment and honesty — not by their empty promises.
Opinion by P. Ma
The following is Mr. Pretty Ma's opinion regarding the VOA's article "Analysts See Political Maneuver in Hun Sen Speech "
 |
| HERO (left) VS ZERO (right) |
It could be a political backfire for the PM.
While political analysts see things somewhat differently out from revelation of HUN-KEM affairs, I think it is actually enhancing the prospect of merging between SRP and HRP. But, the ball is now in HRP's court corner. It has two choices to make, not much left though. It could join SRP as a winning partner or reducing itself to the state of irrelevancy, after the next election. The good people of HRP abroad are truly devastated by the tape leak. Most felt deeply betrayed while others just went numb and speechless. They just could not believe what they were hearing. They are nationalists and they were not in any mood, shape or form to be stained with a party that collaborated in a sub-servient state like to Hun Sen. I am sure, there are plenty of soul searching among our HRP compatriots, and that is why, I think it will probably surprise Hun Sen and many who thought on the contrary. The desire to merge and to even the score with the PM could happen, finally. HRP realizes fully that with this damaging revelation, its funding source has quickly dried out. Financial aspect will become a major issue going forward for the party. It would be very challenging for anyone to try to organize a public event for Mr. Kem Sokha's next visit to North America. That is a sad reality, but that is the reality of today.
As for Mr. Hun Sen, he can twist and turn in any directions he wishes. Cambodia people are getting a whole lot wiser now, and this old trick of his could become a political liability. The PM might be successful in destroying his old ally, Kem Sokha and HRP, but he won't be able to convince the Cambodian people at large against Sam Rainsy. Sam Rainsy has stood up to Hun Sen on all national issues in defend of his people and the nation's interests - something other political parties would not ever dare touching for fear of political reprisal. Just look at the case border encroachment, removing marker planted deep inside farmers' land which forced Vietnam to removed other illegal markers along that line. Defending Cambodia's interests, this is where Sam Rainsy knows best and has never been afraid to act upon when situation called for. Hun Sen and Sam Rainsy are two completely different individuals, with different values, principles and mindset. KI-Media has a pretty clear definition of the two men, I don't have to add anything. You'll be the judges.
The only political opponent that Hun Sen fears most, is Sam Rainsy. Why? because Sam Rainsy can't be bought, bribed or intimidated - a fierce opponent who refuse to go down regardless how hard you try.
We know who Sam Rainsy is. What he stands for? What he has given up in his most successful life? What he has done? And where he wants his country going forward? He is not a leader who is taking order from Hun Sen, or fearful of the man, or even reducing himself to being a "yes, Samdach here" , "yes Samdach there". He is not the type of leader who will compromise on selling out his nation bit and pieces for the benefit of his own pocket. He is Sam Rainsy, a true living hero of Cambodia.
Yet Cambodians, in general, are not united or unified; democrats have difficulties finding a common voice, conflicts of personality and among groups are commonplace.
To save Cambodia, Cambodians call for "reactivation" -- implementation -- of the 20-year-old Paris Peace Accord, signed by 18 governments and the four warring Cambodian factions, with the United Nations bearing witness.
But the accord is a dead paper. The best stipulations are only as good as the effectiveness with which they are implemented. There's no world guardian of individual rights, freedom and the rule of law coming to the rescue.
Foreign governments watch the Hun Sen regime violate rights, freedom and the rule of law; the neighbors to the east and the west encroach on Khmer territory. Aid donors even provide annual funds to keep the regime afloat.
Let's face reality: Democrats are on their own. National interest dictates the actions of foreign governments, who deal with Hun Sen, as they needed a sense of stability and security (through oppression) to produce other activities, political and economic. They aren't blind to Hun Sen's autocracy or ignorant of what it does to Cambodia.
But they don't see a credible alternative.
Frustrated Cambodians say they don't need preachers behind a keyboard; they need people who can make things happen. But if each Khmer does something, things will happen.
Hun Sen loves the situation. With the help of his "willing executioners" and his party machine, he perpetuates it. Sadly, some regime opponents fall for his invite to be distracted from fighting autocracy and involve themselves in wasteful infighting. Doubts and suspicions are sown, gossip and rumors spread to stir and divide opponents.
A week ago, a tape-recorded message of a 2007 telephone conversation between Kem Sokha, head of the Human Rights Party, and Hun Sen created an uproar amongst democrats. Radio Free Asia's May 29 report quoted Sokha's allegation that Hun Sen's ruling Cambodian People's Party destroyed the royalist FUNCINPEC party and the Sam Rainsy Party, and "now they want to destroy the Human Rights Party." Sokha denied he was ever a CPP puppet.
The conversation lent credibility to the assertion that the HRP was created by Hun Sen to undermine the SRP. On the recording, Hun Sen praised the HRP's success through his financial support and by allowing it to use the Olympic stadium to hold its congress.
In yet another illustration of the self-destructive tendencies of the democratic opposition parties, the Khmer People's Power Movement chairman, Serey Ratha Sourn, circulated a letter SRP president Sam Rainsy wrote to present his "utmost sincere greetings" to the new General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyen Phu Trong, with the wishes for "friendship and brotherhood" between Cambodia and Vietnam "based on mutual aid and mutual respects."
Reaction to more critical matters was eclipsed. For example, in April, leading international human rights groups urged foreign governments to oppose the Hun Sen regime's proposed law that would allow it to shut down any group considered opposed to the regime.
In early May, Christophe Peschoux, head of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, was forced to leave Cambodia: "When there is no more limit to executive power ... it becomes arbitrary and abusive," he said. "This is what is happening today."
A May 25 demonstration appealed to the regime to save the Prey Lang forest, home to fruit trees, wild animals and considerable biodiversity. It's a green space that covers about 3,600 square kilometers cross four provinces and the traditional home of members of the Kuoy ethnic minority. Some 700,000 people rely on the forest for survival.
In September 2009, Hun Sen approved a 70-year lease on the land to Vietnamese-owned CRCK Rubber Development Co. Ltd., which began land clearing early this year for a rubber plantation. On May 30, SRP lawmakers asked Hun Sen to cancel all economic land concessions in Prey Lang. A CPP governor blasted SRP lawmakers for playing politics while the concessions bring development.
Of no less importance was a Khmer poem on the Internet about Khmer soldiers at the Khmer-Thai border. It asked why the soldiers are being abandoned with insufficient food, water, medicine, clothing, blankets and mosquito nets while Hun Sen's security guards are well taken care of.
At the same time, the Bangkok Post ran a story about Thai soldiers, whose "effective weapon" is the "Fresh meals, better living conditions and support from locals (that) are all part of the psychological war. ... During a break in the clashes, Thai troops often invite Cambodian soldiers for a meal." What's wrong with this picture?
Lost in cyberspace was the story of SRP lawmaker Mu Sochua and her team on the "campaign trail" in northwestern Cambodia, visiting one village at a time. In the May 31 posting, Sochua and her team were "surrounded, harassed and threatened" by village authorities and CPP youth members as she told villagers of their rights to free public health care and education.
Cambodians must help themselves more for others to help them. Their journey to rights, freedom and the rule of law is a human rights issue that deserves more international help. Still, the democratic opposition must focus its energy and activity on the problem they all hope to solve, not on each other's shortcomings.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D.,is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
Living in Cambodia for the past year, I'd be lying if I didn't say
I've become a bit desensitized to a lot of what you might consider
absurd or socially abnormal at the very least.
Front-page crimes are back-page news, human rights violations are the norm and corruption complacency.
Yet some things still manage to shock even the most hardened Third World veterans.
Case in point -- last month, Prime Minister Hun Sen announced a new law, which was put forth as an effort to shake the country's notorious pedophiliac reputation.
Case in point -- last month, Prime Minister Hun Sen announced a new law, which was put forth as an effort to shake the country's notorious pedophiliac reputation.
No foreigners over the age of 50 can marry any Cambodian women, even
if they were both consenting adults... the same age or older. That means
if a 50-year-old man were to meet a 60-year-old woman and fall in love
(I'll admit, it's not likely to happen in this country) they would be
legally forbidden from tying the knot.
If that weren't enough, foreigners who make less than $2,500 a month
are forbidden from getting hitched with Khmer women. This equates to
about 10 times the national Cambodian salary, in a country where police
make $25 a month, and a hell of a lot more than anyone I know earns, as
English teachers are lucky to crack $1,200 per month.
That would be comparable to making about $400,000 as a foreigner to legally marry a Canadian woman.
If that weren't discriminatory enough, the law flat out does not
apply to foreign women, who could marry a 15-year-old if they damn well
felt like it without taking any flack from the government.
Not to mention the fact that the prime minister declared his assets
for the first time in the country's history last month -- at a laughable
salary of just over $1,400 a month. Comparably, Barack Obama pulls in a
comfortable $400,000 a year.
Yes, that's right you read that correctly. To marry a Cambodian woman
as a foreigner you now have to make almost double what the Prime
Minister makes.
And if that weren't enough, the King of Cambodia continued to royally
fuck the institution of marriage -- by being the only royal family
member in the world to not even bother RSVPing to the wedding of Prince
William and Kate Middleton.
This effort to combat the standard sight of grandfather-esque men
trolling the streets for girls barely out of high school is somewhat
admirable in theory -- but in practice it does nothing to reduce this
accepted, never-ending conveyor belt of white-bread-ophiles.
It only allows, nay encourages, this sexual oppression by the rich
and powerful -- quite possibly the worst breed of this predator class.
Instead of scrutinizing foreigners' intentions with the often
vulnerable and desperate women of this country on a case-by-case basis,
if they were really concerned about this problem at all, the Cambodian
government has taken the lazy route (as is the norm) by casting a
stereotypical net over the problem.
In a country where 25% of the working class is illiterate (yes you
read that correctly as well), this law not only further oppresses women
who are longing for a way out of debilitating poverty -- but it also
stifles potentially uplifting relationships, as I have met a growing
number of foreign men and local women, who have to flee the country to
marry the person they love -- or at least the person who will get them
out of this shithole.
This is just a taste of the misguided, hypocritical and dare I say
megalomaniacal government approach to skirting the real issue, by taking
an ass-backwards method of drawing attention away from easily ignored
issues such as economic land concessions -- where hundreds of thousands
of villagers struggle to figure out where the hell they're going to live
in the next decade while neighbouring countries develop rubber
plantations and tear down supposedly protected forests.
It's no coincidence that this marriage law issue has been picked up by the Economist,
Reuters and AP, while none of them have dare touch on the the selling
off of close to 10,000 hectares of a protected National Park last week- -
an issue that barely made it into the local media.
Come to think of it, this was a genius move on the government's part
-- who needs WikiLeaks when the government can fuck the local population
over without even attempting to hide it's motives?
Adam Miller
Canadian journalist living in Cambodia
To quote a lyric from Pink Floyd’s The Wall, “Hello, Hello? Is there anybody in there?”
As predicted by those of us with more than two brain cells, the
Rapture did not arrive and the righteous (as if there are any) did not
vaporize and ascend into heaven, leaving the wicked behind to perish on a
burning earth.
Harold Camping, the prophetic (or is it pathetic?), wizened, decrepit dispensationalist whose mathematical findings concluded that billions of years on earth will somehow end on a Saturday… in Spring no less?!
Indeed, Camping (who looks more like a Bingo Caller than a prophet)
prophesied the world would end at precisely 6pm on Saturday, May
21st (God is a real anal-retentive, punctual supreme being) and the
“saved” (manipulated) would gradually ascend into the sky like
church-going projectiles. Meanwhile, the wicked among us would be left
to endure a series of earthquakes, floods, and war until ultimately
perishing in October. Well, it’s a good thing we already have all those
things.
Of course that momentous hour as now come and gone in Australia, New
Zealand, the Pacific Islands, and throughout East Asia, and there hasn’t
been a single report of any human being ascending into heaven.
Daniel Boerman tweeted: “I’m from New Zealand, it is 6.06pm, the world has NOT ended. No earthquakes here, all waiting for the Rapture can relax for now.”
So either Mr. Camping’s math is more questionable than George W.
Bush’s WMD intelligence, or the denizens of that part of the
world simply aren’t worthy. But which one of those conclusions could it
possibly be??
As May 21 drew nearer, donations grew, allowing Family Radio to spend
millions of dollars on more than 5,000 billboards plastered with the
doomsday message. In 2009, the non for profit reported that it received $18.3 million in donations, and had assets of more than $104 million.
Surely the criminally gullible, weak-minded fools who handily gave Camping’s Family Radio Network — a network with $72-million or more in assets, according to reports–
their hard-earned money on billboard advertisements and mass media in
order to warn the world population of the impending Rapture must be
livid over the Apocalypse Not. Then again, it’s safe to assume that
these miserably uninformed loons will make apologies for Camping and
rationalize some of the most preposterous reasons as to why it did not
happen. Maybe God was too busy trying to find Barack Obama’s real birth
certificate? More likely, god is working with a team of attorneys on
suing scare-mongering charlatans like Harold Camping for slander and
libel.
So where is the King of Hype himself?
The 89-year-old California evangelical broadcaster and former civil
engineer behind the ludicrous pronouncement has gone completely silent.
The Oakland, California, headquarters of the network of 66 U.S.
stations, which has international affiliates and had posted billboards
around the country warning of a May 21 Judgment Day, were shuttered with
a sign in the door that read “This Office is Closed. Sorry we missed
you!” In fact, Camping, whose deep voice is frequently heard on his
radio network expounding the Bible, could not be reached immediately for
comment on Saturday.
Perhaps he’s loading all of his money into his rocket ship and
preparing to depart earth to hoodwink the gullible extra-terrestrials of
nearby Mars?
Mr. Camping is no stranger to making transparently false religious
pronouncements about the demise of the plant. In 1994, Harold Camping
first made his patently false eschatological tendencies known by
predicting that the world would end Sept. 6, 1994.
Fortunately nothing happened, but more unfortunate is that Camping was
able to prepare to once again cause mass hysteria with his brimstone
rhetoric and, worse yet, rob the ignorant masses of their riches. This
type of posturing, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is without a
shadow of the doubt the most atrocious type of manipulation. Mr. Camping
and his followers might want to consider ‘refudiating’ their
post-millenial dispensationalism and– dare I say– actually heed Jesus’
teachings and try and make the planet a better place by working to
prevent global warming and the plundering of the planet by sinister and
greedy oil tycoons. But in the mean time, it might be best if Camping
and company seek out the biggest rock they can find (since that’s
probably what they can afford) and collectively crawl under it. The
adults of the world have work to do and can no longer be bothered by
such fantastical frivolity.
by Nobert Klein, the founder of The Mirror and Thinking21
Connect with Nobert Klein on FACEBOOK
When I tried again to access some websites with my Internet connection at Online this morning, I got this response on my screen:
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
Who is doing this? It does not only happen to me – and I was told it
happens at least on one more Internet connection: Metfone. I cannot
verify this information myself. And I do not know if Internet access is
hindered also on other systems.
But I had the Online connection checked now again: On the connection
to another Cambodian ISP – Cellcard – there is no restriction.
I share this situation, because what happens is a breakdown of law –
of blatant actions against government policy which has been stated by
two Ministers of the Royal Government of Cambodia.
The people who limit free Internet access are
- acting against fundamental rights: the access to information,
- they do things for which there is no legal basis,
- they make some ISPs supply deficient services to customers who have paid for full services.
Two Ministers of the Royal Government of Cambodia have spoken about government policy and common sense:
The Minister of Post and Telecommunication, H. E. So Khun, was quoted to have said in March:
“We don’t have any policy to shut down, to close the sites,” he said. “Sometimes … there is a problem with the ISP.”But a member of the staff of this Ministry had written to ten Internet service providers, using the name of the Ministry, urging them block the access to certain places on the Internet.
The Minister of Information, H. E. Khieu Kanharith, was quoted in The Cambodia Daily to have said on 3 May 2011:
But my own access to some sites is still blocked on my Online Internet access line. However, the Cellcard Broadband service is not restricted. There may be also others like that – I appreciate to get information which ISPs provide normal services, and which ISPs withhold the full Internet access contracted.
“The right to access to information is the key to good governance.” In his speech on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day on 3 May 2011 he referred also to the on-going blocking of some websites by some, not all, Internet Service Providers. “We don’t have any intention to block any websites, any, even a website where they put an obscene photo of the King – we never block,” he was quoted from an interview after his address to the meeting. “Shutting a communication system isn’t beneficial to the state,” he added. “The government does not have a policy to block this website. Even I myself need to access and read this website too.”
When I inquired with Online by phone, I was told: “We know there are problems, but we do not block!” So I wrote to Online:
More than one week later, and after a reminder was sent, the administration of Online did not care to respond. I am now considering to change to another ISP, one that provides the legally contracted services.
“Since several days, we experience that several web sites are not accessible… I am informed that the same sites which we cannot access with the Online connection are available through other ISPs in Cambodia.
As this situation continues now already for several days and you are aware of it, it is surprising that you did not rectify this irregularity.
Would you please inform us about your response to us, your paying customers, who suffer from problems at your company, with interventions that do not affect other ISPs in the country. Will you offer a financial compensation for service not delivered for the period of time of this blocking? When will you reestablish to deliver the proper service for which we are paying?”
On 6 March 2011 I had written:
It raises a similar question: Why do consumers maintain contracts with companies that do not deliver what they promised? It is, of course, understandable that there can be temporary unforeseen technical problems, where we as consumers have to wait until the problems are fixed in a timely manner. But when access is blocked for a long period of time by some ISPs and not by others, it is obviously not a technical computer or network problem.
Ms. Sok Channda, the CEO of Cambodia Data Communications, maintaining MekongNet and AngkorNet, said she had received the email, but no official letter from the government. “We work on letters, not email. If the government orders, they send us a letter. We do business under the government and the government allows us the license… We must follow but we cannot follow just email or phone call.”
This raises, of course, the question, why the leadership of other ISPs did not take the same stand, based on a clear application of principles of public administration.
Fortunately, consumers can make choices, by selecting ISPs that deliver reliable services within the framework of government policy and the law.
Source: Thinking21.org
