Phnom Penh (FN), Apr. 7 – Amnesty International, regarding the rehousing of squatters illegally occupying the protected area of the Angkor Temple Park, published a report in which the Cambodian Government was violently accused, in the most outrageous terms, of carrying out “mass forced evictions” which had “cruelly uprooted families who had lived in Angkor for several generations.”
In a country where, less than fifty years ago, a genocidal regime carried out real massive and cruel forced deportations, the expressions used are not innocent and intended to assimilate the current Government to that of Pol Pot.
And this is indeed the political intention of this NGO whose constant criticism of the Cambodian authorities aims to describe life in Cambodia as if it is similar to that we know in the worst dictatorships in the world. To achieve its goals, this NGO does not hesitate to lie and ignore anything that is likely to contradict its false assertions. It is necessary to respond to Amnesty’s false accusations.
This is what I did in a brochure which contains the proofs of what I assert and bears the same title as this article which summarizes my work. I want to underline that this NGO relies on the testimonies of a good hundred people, that is to say on 0,25% of all relocated people. And who are these witnesses? Illegal occupants of the protected zones whose activities are those which affect the special character of the site.
The Angkor site is not a gastronomic destination. Temples are not places to drink, eat or shopping. No more in Angkor than in Borobudur or Sukhothai. 1) Have there been forced evictions, as Amnesty states? Remember that the assertions of this NGO are based on testimonies from people in an illegal situation.
The fact that their situation has been recalled by the authorities cannot therefore be presented as a threat. No more than the mention of the consequences of a refusal. That the authorities made multiple visits to people who persisted in an illegal presence and with full knowledge of the facts on a protected site to remind them of this illegal situation is in no way comparable to “direct or subtle threats.
That the authorities have highlighted the advantages of this rehousing compared to their current situation is at most an incentive and in no way a threat. 2) Was it evictions, as Amnesty states? Not at all.
As with the creation, from 2010, of the Run Ta-Ek eco-village, people are relocated to land of which they become owners. What Amnesty remains discreet about, deploring that these people had to rebuild their homes themselves by exposing themselves to bad weather, is that these people had been able to build themselves, at their own expense, in the same climate conditions, their illegal housing while on the new site, the land, money and basic materials for the reconstruction of housing are offered to them.
This is in no way an expulsion, but rather a matter of rehousing. 3) Were the relocated people not adequately informed, as Amnesty states? For thirty years, the zoning of the protected site has been established.
For twenty years, people likely to benefit from long-term resident status have been clearly identified and their rights notified. For twenty years, the delimitation of zones and the rights and duties relating to them has been the subject of intensive information campaigns.
Warnings addressed to those who entered the protected site illegally were repeated ad nauseam by APSARA: “those who arrived on the site before 2004 are legal residents; those who arrived later are illegal residents.”
Amnesty lies. The displaced people were more than informed. 4) Among the people relocated, had some of them lived on the site “for generations”, as it is said by Amnesty? By quoting the testimony of a person “present on the site for 70 years”, Amnesty reproduces a lie because it is impossible for a person living on the site since 1953 to be rehoused. The families present on the site at the time of its inscription as World Heritage in 1992 and until 2004, who respected the rules, are protected, as has been specified in several UNESCO documents, in several Cambodian legal texts and in abundant documentation distributed by APSARA.
As is very often the case with Amnesty, this NGO cites “witnesses” whose status or motivations it verifies neither. 5) The rehousing would not be “voluntary”, as Amnesty states. There is no doubt that having to move is not necessarily a choice that we accept happily.
This is why the authorities argued and highlighted the advantages of leaving and the risks of staying. What’s more normal when speaking to people in an illegal situation? This is neither “threats” nor “intimidation” as Amnesty asserts, using deliberately excessive terms, but the duty of the authorities to provide complete information.
None of the witnesses quoted by Amnesty reported on the consultation organized by APSARA. Neither does Amnesty. Once again, Amnesty lends a sympathetic ear to people who have cheated, who lie and who present themselves as victims. But they are victims of their own faults. 6) According to Amnesty, rehousing would be undertaken to move people towards sites “lacking essential services”.
In this regard, there are two facts to remember. First, Amnesty, obviously, makes no mention that the equipment problem was taken into account by the Prime Minister who declared on 20 October 1922 – that is to say, two months before the start of the first transfers – regarding people to be transferred: “if the designated new area has not been completed and if they do not have any transportation yet, they can remain in their old place for the time being”.
Second, Amnesty ignores the important achievements made well before the publication of its report of November 2023. At the beginning of August 2023, the line of 165 km of road was completed and ready to be concreted or asphalted, the construction of the hospital including a maternity and that of a middle school and a high school, including a library with three rooms, were completed.
The primary school is operational. The drinking water distribution and electricity distribution networks are in place and 28% of the population was connected to drinking water as well as 97% to electricity.
The construction of an administrative center was 70% complete. The construction of a pagoda was 87% complete. 7) Finally, Amnesty systematically questions the reality of UNESCO’s demands.
All official documents show that UNESCO has not ceased to express strong concern about the protection of zones 1 and 2 and has not stopped to encourage APSARA to put an end to illegal housing and activities. To the point of even mentioning that “maintaining the exceptional value of the site” was at stake. In September 2023, in response to a letter from Amnesty International, UNESCO reiterated the reasons for putting an end to illegal settlements and illegal constructions.
Consequently, the World Heritage Committee took note that Cambodia “has been acting to enforce zoning regulations and has relocated families who settled illegally in the property, taking into account the threats that may be posed to the integrity and authenticity of the property and its Outstanding Universal Value.”
As usual, Amnesty is investigating and charging Cambodia, with a systematically complacent ear for those who oppose the authorities without verifying who its interlocutors are and what their motivations may be. Supporting and encouraging cheaters is not the best way to help a nation move towards the rule of law. With such a report, this NGO has itself demonstrated once again that it does not deserve the credit it receives.
By Raoul M. Jennar
=FRESH NEWS
