-
34. Human Security in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Human Security in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia 161 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville 34. HUMAN SECURITY IN VIETNAM, LAOS, AND CAMBODIA PIERRE P. LIZÉE Reprinted in abridged form from Pierre P. Lizée, “Human Security in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia”, Contemporary Southeast Asia 24, no. 3 (2002): 509–527, by permission of the author and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. TOWARDS HUMAN SECURITY IN VIETNAM, LAOS, AND CAMBODIA? What, then, of the development of human security in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos? Cambodia is now, at long last, a case for guarded optimism. The logic underlying the organization of elections in the country has the intention to bring about social and political commitment to the construction of the rule of law and representative democracy, which is at the heart of human security. The issue for CSOs in the country, in terms of the growth of human security, is thus the need to give to these efforts a synergy which will allow them to sustain each other over the long term, and also to defeat the resistance they are likely to encounter, either from the force of inertia exercised by weak or non-existent political and administrative structures able to support the movement towards a rightsbased social contract, or from the more active resistance of those who see their power threatened by such a change. The succession of agendas linked to the construction of human security provides, in that perspective, a framework from which to consider in an integrated fashion the different aspects of the process of transition towards a rights-based political system under way in Cambodia, and a way of measuring, so to speak, what has been done, and what remains to be done, to attain that objective. The human security agenda also shows that, beyond the manifold party politics likely to favour, in the last analysis, Hun Sen and his close associates, the electoral process opens up a space where other groups — NGOs and the like — can attempt to promote a deeper agenda of change and democratization. One of the central components of the strategic agenda entailed by the construction of human security — the creation of spheres of autonomy for the individual from which to consider and critique the role and power of the state — is certainly linked, above all, to elections in the country. The 034 AR Ch 34 22/9/03, 12:45 PM 161 162 Pierre P. Lizée By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville mechanics of voting are often presented by NGOs, working in some sort of support capacity in the electoral process, as the opening up of space where individual power can emerge and be leveraged against that of the élites in place. This points to a need for vigilance during the 2003 elections, which has often been affirmed in international and domestic NGO circles. There is another central issue: how should the sense of individual empowerment be sustained between elections through new habits of interaction with the different levels of government in Cambodia? On that basis, there is undoubtedly a case to be made for the development of an infrastructure in Cambodia allowing regional and domestic track-two and trackthree actors to weigh in on post-election politics in the country and attest to the degree to which these politics uphold the ideals of democracy and personal emancipation set forth and monitored by the international community during the elections themselves. The most progressive work at that level has undoubtedly been done so far by the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace (CICP), under its director, Kao Kim Hourn. The CICP has held seminars involving members of CSOs and government agencies, where issues of international norms of good governance are central. The Institute’s participation in the ASEAN-ISIS network provides a bridge, in that context, between these domestic actors and unofficial regional diplomatic circles devoted to issues of change and security in Southeast Asia.1 The development of this type of infrastructure beyond what is done at the moment would not resolve by itself the issue of a sustained empowerment of the individual, nor would it have the power to force local and national governments to respect the wishes of the electorate. It could provide, however, a continuous examination of these issues beyond electoral periods, and while doing so, it would bring to bear on the different levels of government in place...