Yet Another International Co-Investigating Judge Bites the Dust: Part 2
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8e2ab/8e2ab5a9b1787f3a24dee1fa89a4892f75336a28" alt=""
The place once occupied by these two judges is
now wide open and the UN appears to be in no hurry to send in a replacement.
When it does, what will that person’s mission be? There are only two roads and
both of them have been explored by now. J. Blunk explored the road of
rubberstamping decisions made by the political arm of the Cambodian government
and J. Kasper-Ansermet explored the road of fighting tooth and nail against
those decisions. If these judges’ successor takes the former road it will
inexorably re-activate the watchdog machine the functioning of which will have
the same effect as it did for Blunk. If s/he takes the latter road, the outcome
will be the same as that in case of Kasper-Ansermet. The replacement – whoever
is crazy enough to take this job at this point – will be stepping into a highly
toxic environment which will require a full chemical suit as a mere gas mask
won’t do the trick.
The key question for the UN to answer at this
stage is how the chances of the successor can be improved. It is easy to single
out the core substantive issue at hand: the political branch of the Cambodian government
does not want Cases 003 and 004 to go forward and it has instructed its side of
the Court to act accordingly. What can an international investigating judge do
about this? Nothing. The executive routinely has broad discretion regarding
whom to prosecute. The international prosecutor of this Court has been leading
us to believe that he can prosecute as many cases as he finds sets of facts
which fit the ECCC law. This, of course, is wishful thinking either in Cambodia
or elsewhere. For the story that the international prosecutor has been telling
us to work his office would have had to have been given the status of ‘independent
prosecutor’. That status was deliberately not given and there is no reason to
relive the agony of lost battle by pretending it ended differently (although
the international prosecutor might find inspiration for this in fairly recent
Cambodian history when phony victories were celebrated in Phnom Penh when the
army was being decimated on the battlefield). The UN could have pushed for ‘an
independent prosecutor’ but instead it gave away the house to bring the
Cambodian government back to the negotiation table. Now is the time to face
that music that has been playing in the background for some time now but which
is filling up the hallways of the Court with its cacophony as I write this. The
UN allowed the flawed design of this project to go ahead and we have our not so
glorious negotiators to thank for it. But, what can be done constructively at
this point to make the successor’s mission at least a relative success? The UN
needs to sit down with the Cambodian government and discuss the matter. I am
not using the word ‘discuss’ to tone down my message but because ‘discussion’
is all that is left to do as it would be unfair of the UN to threaten a
withdrawal because the Cambodian government has not violated any of the
provisions of the ECCC Law or the ECCC Agreement but merely interpreted its
prosecutorial power differently. The UN needs to send in a high-level political
office holder to negotiate with the Cambodian government and David Sheffer is
not that person as his current position is very well-known to the Cambodian government
and it is also known that Sheffer does not hold an influential political office
within the UN. It needs to be a person who with enough political power for
Cambodia to see him as an equal interlocutor. Until this is done the only
reason to put yet another international investigating judge on the ground would
be to spend the budget allocated for this position and create more
international employment (come to think of it, why did Kasper-Ansermet stay for
almost 2 months after he resigned? Did the UN think there was a reasonable
chance of rapprochement after he called the practices of the Court ‘mafia-like’?).
If this issue is not resolved at the political level, all the successor will be
able to do is to possibly ruffle more feather on either side before s/he quits
and quitting is the only thing one can and should do when the conditions of
service degenerate to intolerable or undignified.