The Globe as you know it is changing.
Coming June 2019

  • More thought-provoking stories that inspire
  • Independent, free and member-supported
  • Vote for, pitch and commission stories
  • Member engagement with our journalists

To understand more about why you are so important to our member-supported initiative, we encourage you to read the following from our managing editor ~ Read more

The Globe as you know it is changing.

Since 2007, Southeast Asia Globe has been a space for some of the region’s best writers and photographers to take our readers behind the headlines into the stories that shape people’s lives. Every month, you could expect to pick up our latest print edition and find high-quality journalism, analysis and artwork waiting on every page. And since 2007, we’ve fought to uphold our promise of quality and independence to you, our readers.

But, like we said, the world is changing. Print publications just aren’t reaching the audiences they need to fulfil their promise of informing, educating and entertaining the public. Advertisers continue to invest in digital platforms while printing costs creep ever higher. Print may not be dead, but it’s fighting for its life. And we’re tired of waiting by a sickbed for its condition to improve. We want to be present at the birth of something new.

That’s why Southeast Asia Globe is relaunching as a member-driven platform featuring daily long-form features combining world-class journalism with enthralling art design and data-centered tech. Through our core pillars – Power, Money, Life and Earth – we are focusing in on the central issues that our readers have always engaged with most, with the same in-depth coverage of politics, business, social affairs and the environment that you’ve come to expect since 2007.

But leaving print behind us doesn’t just save our backs from lugging stacks of magazines across Southeast Asia. It opens up a global readership who don’t just want to read the news, but have a say in the stories that we tell and the way that we tell them. We’re not asking you to take out another magazine subscription – our stories are open to all. What we’re offering our members is a space where they can pitch and vote on the stories that they think deserve to be told. We want to inspire an engaged and active community of members who vote for, comment on and contribute to the stories that matter most to them. We want to work with our members to curate the way they engage with the news – not just as readers, but as an active extension of our editorial team.

That’s how we’re changing to bring you great stories. Here’s how we’re not.

We’re independent. Always have been, always will be. We’re not owned by any corporation or aligned with any state. We choose the stories that we tell, and the way that we tell them.

We’re creative. We’re not interested in churning out breaking news stories on the hour, every hour. We believe that the best stories are the ones that come alive on the page, digging deeper into the issues that shape Southeast Asia – and bringing you along for the ride. From our dedicated designers to our new software development team, our commitment is to constantly challenge ourselves to find new ways of reaching out to our readers.

We’re open. Challenging governments, NGOs and businesses to be transparent with the public means nothing if we keep our own readers in the dark. That’s why we will be completely open about why we tell the stories that we tell – and how we pay for them. Work with us to build something that endures where many media fail, and decide with us exactly where that money is going.

Above all, we’re optimistic. And yeah, we know what you’re thinking. Faced with impending climate collapse, the rise of right-wing authoritarian governments across the world, widening wealth and income inequality and deepening divisions rooted in race or gender or creed, it’s hard not to open the papers and feel the weight of the world pressing down. But we wouldn’t be doing this if we didn’t believe that when people work together, they can make their little corner of the world a more just, open and equal place.

And that’s why we can’t do this without you. We believe that across the globe is a community of people who care deeply about social justice, environmental action and press freedom – and who will join in to help make those ideals a reality. We’re not just holding our hand out – we need your voice to play a vital role in building Southeast Asia Globe into a leading space for progressive causes in the region. Tell us what stories the mainstream media is missing. Share with us the causes that matter most to you, and how we can champion those causes not just across Southeast Asia, but the world.

Our vision is clear. By 2025, we want to be recognised for building a great space for outstanding journalists from across the region to explore new ways of telling Southeast Asia’s most vital stories. Let’s bring together a community of engaged and loyal members who want to help reshape the media rather than just read it. And we want to reach a point where our readers, not advertisers, are the ones working to support our shared vision of an inclusive media.

We can’t do this without you. Let’s get together and build something that we all believe in.

If you’re interested in joining us, sign up to our newsletter, like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter. And watch this space.

Khmer Rouge tribunal / ‘Astonishing failure’ or ‘justice for millions’?

By: Charles Dunst - Posted on: December 14, 2018 | Cambodia

The ECCC landed its first genocide conviction of high-level officers in the Pol Pot regime, but only after nearly 20 years and $300m in costs. A looming judicial stalemate on the fate of two more cases could lead to the ECCC’s termination – which might be welcomed by a nation grown weary of dwelling on its dark past

The remains of victims who died during the Khmer Rouge regime are on display at the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre, on the outskirts of Phnom Penh Photo: Mak Remissa / EPA-EFE

On 16 November, the Khmer Rouge tribunal, officially known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), pronounced senior regime leaders Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea guilty of genocide. In the wake of this landmark ruling – the tribunal’s first genocide conviction of former Khmer Rouge officers 40 years after the fall of the regime – commentators and diplomats are growing increasingly confident that the ECCC’s operations will soon terminate, despite the fact that additional cases remain on its docket.

This pessimism is largely a reaction to years of Cambodian political opposition to the ECCC’s pursuit of cases beyond those completed in mid-November. Prime Minister Hun Sen – himself a former Khmer Rouge commander who defected from the group in 1977 to join the Vietnamese-led push to overthrow Pol Pot’s regime – objects to the ECCC’s prosecuting of these additional cases, which are aimed at lower-level Khmer Rouge cadres. Hun Sen has claimed that doing so would ignite “a civil war” that would kill “200,000 to 300,000 people.” Minister of the Interior Sar Kheng, in a November speech to a crowd that included some former Khmer Rouge soldiers, proclaimed, “There will be no more investigations taking place, so you don’t have to worry” and that “the process has ended”.

Asked how the ECCC will proceed amidst this government pressure, tribunal spokesman Neth Pheaktra responded opaquely: “No comment”.

On 28 November, the ECCC’s co-investigating judges announced that they were split on one of these remaining cases, that against Meas Muth, who is alleged to have been the Khmer Rouge’s naval commander. His case will now proceed to the Pre-Trial Chamber, where it is likely to reach a deadlock unanticipated by the ECCC’s founders. The tribunal, despite this likely coming stalemate, plans to operate through 2020, further adding to its current estimated $300 million in costs. Some Cambodians and international commentators are questioning if this pursuit of belated and perhaps unobtainable justice is worth the price.

Bin Chhin (C), Cambodian permanent deputy prime minister, and Miguel de Serpa Soares (R), legal counsel of the United Nations, under-secretary-general for Legal Affaire, attend a press conference at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) in Phnom Penh, after the convictions of Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea

An unforeseen impasse

The ECCC’s Pre-Trial Chamber requires a supermajority – agreement from at least four of its five judges – to overturn a co-investigating judge’s order. The Cambodian co-investigating judge refused to indict Muth on 28 November; his international counterpart indicted the regime’s former naval commander. The Pre-Trial Chamber Cambodian judges cannot overturn Muth’s indictment without international support due to the chamber’s supermajority requirement.

Both the Cambodian and international Pre-Trial Chamber judges are likely to support the rulings rendered by their co-investigating counterparts, according to Craig Etcheson, who previously worked as both an ECCC investigator and director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia. This predicted support would leave both sides without the necessary supermajority to proceed, effectively deadlocking the chamber and closing off any clear path forward.

Etcheson said there would be a problem if neither side secures a supermajority: “We would be left with two standing contradictory judicial orders. The ECCC Internal Rules do not contemplate such a stalemate, or offer any guidance on how it might be resolved”.

Tribunal spokesman Neth Pheaktra offered little clarification on this front.

“In case the required vote cannot be reached, the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber will decide how to proceed further,” he said. It is unclear what this decision will look like.

The tribunal instead appears to be careening towards “an impasse which was anticipated neither by the drafters of the UN-Cambodia agreement nor by the designers of the ECCC Internal Rules”, as Etcheson put it.

There’s no clear answer on what happens if the Pre-Trial Chamber is split. It’s a big hangup

Priya Pillai, an international lawyer who worked on the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and now consults in Southeast Asia, described the ECCC’s current struggles as largely a result of its institutional susceptibility to political pressure.

“The ability to in effect stymie the proceedings unfortunately emanates from the structure and functions of the court as a result of the agreement between the UN and the government of Cambodia, which includes provisions for a split between national and international prosecutors and judges,” said Pillai. “While there are provisions to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings… these are clearly insufficient.”

One senior tribunal official, speaking on condition of anonymity, echoed concern over this potential coming deadlock.

“There’s no clear answer on what happens if the Pre-Trial Chamber is split,” the official told Southeast Asia Globe. “It’s a big hangup.”

The cost of justice

 Muth’s case is nearly identical to that of Ao An, the alleged deputy secretary of the Khmer Rouge’s Central Zone. “[It] is the same situation as with Ao An,” said Pheaktra, the tribunal’s spokesman. An’s case is currently also at the Pre-Trial Chamber, and the ECCC expects to announce its decision – likely to also be a stalemate – by the end of the second quarter of 2019. Yim Tith, another accused mid-level Khmer Rouge cadre, is awaiting closing orders from the co-investigating judges, which the ECCC also expects to come by the end of the second quarter of 2019. Beyond these cases, the tribunal expects appeals by Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea of their most recent genocide convictions to continue through the end of the third quarter of 2020. The ECCC, therefore, plans to remain in operation for at least the next 22 months.

The tribunal has already cost over $300 million, most of which has been provided by Japan, the US and Australia. China, Hun Sen’s new main ally, has given nothing. Cambodia contributes considerably to the ECCC and provided $12.92 million of its $58.80 million 2016-17 budget, which included $6.73 million for employee salaries and $1.61 million for non-staff compensation. Cambodia is set to provide $11.16 million of the tribunal’s $46.12 million estimated 2018-19 budget.

Given the Pre-Trial Chamber’s likelihood to be deadlocked in An and Muth’s cases – and without a clear mechanism through which to proceed ­– some would prefer Cambodia no longer contribute these funds and instead allow the tribunal to cease operations.

A reenactment of what occurred at notorious killing fields under the Khmer Rouge regime, at the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre Photo: Mak Remissa / EPA-EFE

Ou Virak, founder of the Phnom Penh-based Future Forum think tank, recently suggested to Nikkei Asian Review that Cambodians are ready to move on, particularly given the continuing costs.

“Maybe people are fed up that Cambodia has been referred to as ‘the killing fields’ for the last 40 years,” he said. “Maybe Hun Sen is understanding his public a bit better, and I think he might get Cambodian support by saying: ‘Let’s close this chapter and move on.’”

But others believe the pursuit of justice is necessary – no matter how belated or at what cost.

 “Of course I really want the court to continue their work against lower Khmer Rouge officials,” Arun Sothea, 46, a survivor of the regime’s violence that left him an orphan, told Southeast Asia Globe.

The Khmer Rouge separated Sothea as a six-year-old from his family and forced him to live in a child labour camp. When he was sick and couldn’t work, labor camp officers refused to feed him. Sothea once gave in to his hunger and snatched a fish to eat from a pond; the Khmer Rouge punished this act with imprisonment and torture. “I was lucky to survive,” he said.

In late 1978, Vietnamese soldiers drove the Khmer Rouge out of Sothea’s village and, still a child, he began searching for his family.

“I ran to find my family immediately but the neighbors told me that all, about 36… of my family members were killed,” he recalled. “I [have] had to live alone as an orphan since.”

Sothea believes that the ECCC will help both him and Cambodia close this chapter in their shared painful history and educate young people.

“We want to see all [the] killers be [held] responsible for killing millions [of] people brutally. And we also want to see this court be [a] role model for others, especially this and [the] next generation”

He added: “The justice for millions [of] victim[s] should not be compared to any amount of court expenses.”

Cambodian-muslim men line up at the entrance of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) in Phnom Penh Photo: Mak Remissa / EPA-EFE

“It would not be an ideal solution”

There is a chance the ECCC will turn over its remaining cases to Cambodian courts, which would enable the tribunal to avoid the potential embarrassment of indefinite Pre-Trial Chamber judicial limbo. A senior tribunal official speculated that some within the ECCC may be considering such an option.

“Such a resolution was discussed among donors and the UN nearly ten years ago,” Etcheson said. “They envisioned that these final cases could be turned over to Cambodia’s national judiciary for final resolution, while the UN declares victory and heads home.”

Cambodia’s judiciary is deeply politicised, meaning that the cases against Muth, An and potentially Tith would likely be swiftly terminated, with the courts acquiescing to Hun Sen’s pressure. The Kingdom came in 112th out of 113 countries, and last in Southeast Asia, in the World Justice Project’s 2017-18 Rule of Law Index. The index deemed Cambodia’s civil justice system to be greatly susceptible to improper government influence and corruption.

“The national courts would undoubtedly make short work of the cases,” said Etcheson. “It would not be an ideal solution, but at least it could be framed as a judicial solution.”

While this judicial solution would likely be deemed a failure by Western and democratic observers and benefactors, including the US and Japan, there is concern that deadlock at the Pre-Trial Chamber would do irreparable damage to the ECCC’s reputation, and maybe hinder future similar tribunals in countries like Myanmar.

 On the other hand, Pillai, the Southeast Asia-based international lawyer, said the ECCC’s plentiful shortcomings are already well-documented.

“For any future tribunal contemplated, such as for Myanmar, the lessons would be clearly to learn from the ECCC – and to avoid duplication of the same model,” she said. “There are other models to choose from – the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, among others – all with their own problems and also not perfect, but not to the extent of the ECCC.”

 Still, Etcheson and others worry that a Pre-Trial Chamber stalemate would permanently tarnish the tribunal’s reputation.

“If these cases… are not resolved judicially, and instead are left hanging in limbo in some sort of legal purgatory, it will represent a complete collapse of the court’s machinery and constitute an historic blemish on the legacy of the ECCC,” said Etcheson.

A senior tribunal official who wished to remain anonymous expressed similar thoughts: “If the will cannot be mustered to see these cases to the trial chamber, it will be an astonishing failure. If something isn’t done, it will reverberate. Why’d we even go this far?”