Free Breaking News

Cambodia’s Closure as to its Past of Atrocities

Feb 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM

In the news U.N.-backed war crimes tribunal would  have to hand down a verdict in the first trial of a senior member of the Khmer Rouge regime that turned Cambodia into a vast killing field three decades ago. The  said court finds Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch guilty of the atrocities he was a part of in the past. In revisiting the tribunal that handed down the decision Jurisdiction for such crimes can be explicitly ceded to these tribunals. They are trying to achieve a justice and closure that will benefit that entire nation after such awful crimes have been committed. However, it is also argued that closure is the last thing brought by tribunals. They alienate large swathes of the nation, and turn people against the new government who are seen as “collaborators” with foreign imperialists. They exacerbate tension.

The Need for Closure

The decision reflects the idea that if you commit serious crimes you will be punished. If action is not taken against war criminals that gives a green light for more crimes to be perpetrated. In Cambodia we are certain that atrocities have grave consequences. Closure comes with the decision. But what is closure? It refers to a conclusion to a traumatic event or experience in the past. Need for closure is a phrase used by psychologists to describe an individual’s desire for a firm solution as opposed to enduring ambiguity. A nation is no different. For Cambodia the horror of its past has troubled it too long. And has hung like a great cloud barring its progress and the healing of the wounds inflicted upon its culture and national psyche.

Reaction to the Decision is Mixed

Reaction to the decision is mixed since the 35-year sentence given to Kaing Guek Eav – also known as Duch – had been whittled down to just 19 after taking into account time already served and other factors. That effectively means the 67-year-old could one day walk free. This validates the difficulty faced by war crimes tribunals that they are always torn between humanism for the accused and the cry for vengeance of the victims. A tribunal like this have to balance all concerned to genuinely attain justice. No one can dispute the enormity of such crimes.  Fetishising and symbolizing disapproval is damaging and will most likely reopen old wounds in societies. This is the consequence for all that have used Tribunals to deal with the atrocities in the past, including Cambodia. There is always a trade-off before justice and security; where peace can be secured by reconciliation rather than recrimination it should be.

There is always a backlash since some who have been more maligned would want harsher punishment but the court has to give a judgment that caters to all. An understanding of this fact would in effect make the decision more acceptable. This would of course necessitate that the emotions of victims that demand vengeance be first quelled.

September 10, 2010 - Posted by John Villager | News | Cambodia, Kaing Guek Eav, Khmer Rouge, killing field, U.N.-backed war crimes tribunal