VZCZCXRO1301
OO RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHPF #0075/01 0291010
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 291010Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1632
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PHNOM PENH 000075 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS, DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/29/2020 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KTIA KJUS CB
SUBJECT: RAINSY CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS FOR 
BORDER STUNT 
 
REF: A. PHNOM PENH 16 
     ¶B. 09 PHNOM PENH 949 
     ¶C. 09 PHNOM PENH 847 
 
Classified By: DCM THEODORE ALLEGRA FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY:  Opposition party leader Sam Rainsy was 
convicted in absentia January 27 on charges of destroying 
public property and inciting national discrimination for his 
role in removing temporary markers delineating the 
Cambodia-Vietnam border; he was sentenced to two years in 
prison and a fine of 8 million riel (approximately $1,950 
USD).  Two villagers who participated in the October 25 
events were convicted and sentenced to one year in jail each. 
 In addition, the three defendants were ordered collectively 
to pay 55 million riel (approximately $13,400 USD) in 
compensation to the provincial government.  SRP insiders 
confirm that Rainsy will appeal the decision to keep his seat 
in parliament, though some SRP members admit that Rainsy 
"probably stepped over the line" by inciting or abetting 
interference in the border demarcation process with Vietnam 
-- a divisive political and social issue.  They acknowledge 
that Rainsy's continued absence from Cambodia will affect the 
party's ability to rally and unite its electoral base, but 
have formulated a strategy for Rainsy to give digital video 
conferences.  In the meantime, the SRP continues to attack 
the government on the border issue using anti-Vietnamese 
rhetoric. END SUMMARY. 
 
----------- 
The Hearing 
----------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) On January 27, the Svay Rieng Provincial Court held 
a five-hour closing hearing for Sam Rainsy, leader of the 
opposition Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), and two farmers on charges 
of destroying public property and inciting national 
discrimination (Ref C).  Rainsy and his supporters had 
publicly announced he would remain in France and would not 
attend the hearing (Ref A).  Typical of Cambodia's civil code 
system, the court proceeded with the hearing in absentia. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) According to observers, police surrounded the 
courtroom long before the 8:00 a.m. start of the hearing. 
Besides the parties and witnesses, a staff member from the UN 
Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported 
that the police allowed only he and three SRP Members of 
Parliament to access the courtroom.  Provincial police 
officials reportedly constituted the remainder of the 
audience inside the courtroom. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Rainsy's attorney, Choung Chou Ngy, described the 
environment outside the courtroom as "intimidating," and 
stated his belief that even if the judge wanted to acquit 
Rainsy, he would not do so for fear of being arrested.  That 
said, he reported that the environment inside the courtroom 
was calm, and that the hearing followed correct procedure. 
Rainsy's lawyer pronounced his satisfaction with the hearing 
process and commended Judge Kim Chhean for his conduct of the 
hearing by allowing all the lawyers and witnesses sufficient 
time to speak and present evidence.  The lawyer noted that 
the majority of witnesses called were police officials. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Following a recess, the judge announced guilty 
verdicts against Rainsy and two other villagers, including 
Meas Srey, the woman who owns the rice field where border 
marker 185 was removed on October 25.  The judge sentenced 
Rainsy to two years in prison and a fine of 8 million riel 
(approximately $1,950 USD).  The two villagers each received 
a one-year jail sentence.  In addition, the three defendants 
were ordered collectively to pay 55 million riel 
(approximately $13,400 USD) in compensation to the plaintiff 
- 50 million riel for the removal of the border posts and 5 
million riel for incitement.  The judge dismissed the charges 
against three additional defendants who went into hiding 
after officials detained the two farmers on December 23. 
 
------------ 
The Reaction 
------------ 
 
¶6.  (SBU) At a January 28 press conference, SRP spokesman Yim 
Sovann condemned the hearing and verdict as "theater" meant 
to muzzle the opposition, and promised to release yet more 
documents to substantiate the claim that the Cambodian 
government is ceding Cambodian land to Vietnam.  In this 
context, SRP members are referring to "Yuon" encroachment on 
Cambodian land, using the derogative terms for the 
Vietnamese.  SRP literature and opposition news articles also 
 
PHNOM PENH 00000075  002 OF 002 
 
 
provocatively accuse Vietnamese companies of "stealing" land 
by placing "invasion posts" on Cambodian farmers' rice 
fields, and accuse the government of being a puppet of the 
Vietnamese regime. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Ou Virak, Executive Director of the Cambodian 
Center for Human Rights (CCHR) adopted a similar line, 
criticizing the court for not attempting to determine the 
correct ownership status of land and the border marker 
placement.  Thun Saray, President of the Cambodian Human 
Rights and Development Association (ADHOC) told Poloff the 
conviction of the two villagers was unfair, and that he 
believed the villagers would never have taken such actions 
without the encouragement of Sam Rainsy.  He said ADHOC will 
continue to help the villagers with legal assistance, and 
that when the heat of the moment has dissipated, they will 
discuss the appeal or pardon process.  He told the Phnom Penh 
Post he expected Sam Rainsy and the government would likely 
reach a political settlement allowing Rainsy to return and 
avoid prison, as happened in 2006. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Tith Sothea, a spokesman for the Council of 
Ministers Quick Reaction Force, said that the courts must be 
allowed to do their work independently.  He stated that Sam 
Rainsy's approach was to "look down upon" the government and 
to "confuse the Cambodian people," and that Rainsy's 
presentations of the border situation continue to be 
inaccurate. 
 
---------------------- 
Next Steps for the SRP 
---------------------- 
 
¶9.  (C) The SRP Permanent Committee agreed January 28 to file 
an appeal later during the 30-day window, even though the 
initial public rhetoric will focus on the inability to secure 
justice and the futility of an appeal.  Among the core SRP 
leadership, there is a realization that the loss of Rainsy's 
charisma, his dramatic speaking style, and his ability to 
unite will be keenly felt in Cambodia.  A strategy to hold 
several digital video conferences with Rainsy from France and 
assurances of renewed commitment by the party faithful appear 
to be attempts to put a brave face on a serious setback. 
Some in the SRP worry that Human Rights Party (HRP) President 
Kem Sokha is already intent on stealing away SRP members to 
the HRP in an attempt to make HRP the "legitimate opposition" 
that the CPP knows that it needs.  Fissures in the SRP appear 
to be emerging with one group of accomplished and publicly 
popular parliamentarians such as Son Chhay and Mu Sochua 
potentially squared off against an inner circle close to 
Rainsy and Tioulong Saumura, Rainsy's spouse and fellow SRP 
MP.  Some observers see the Rainsy case as an old CPP tactic 
to divide and conquer the political opposition and suggest 
the CPP tactic is working. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) In both the prelude to the hearing and the 
reaction to the verdict, the SRP appeared uninterested in 
addressing the actual charges of Rainsy's role in property 
destruction and incitement, and instead focused on the larger 
issue of whether the border markers are improperly placed 
(Ref B).  Rainsy continues to claim sole responsibility for 
the removal of the temporary border markers, despite video 
showing he did not physically uproot them but brandished them 
for the cameras after others had pulled them up (Ref A). 
With the January 27 verdict, Rainsy cannot return to Cambodia 
unless he goes to prison or receives a pardon, which requires 
agreement of the government.  In the meantime, without a 
leader present in Cambodia able to project a confident image 
and articulate opposition perspectives, the SRP faces tough 
decisions about what to do next and the ultimate direction of 
their party.  In the end, most find it difficult to imagine 
how Rainsy's stunt will increase the SRP's political 
relevance in Cambodia, despite the headlines it attracted by 
Rainsy's very visible and vocal efforts to mobilize 
anti-Vietnam passion while most of Cambodia's population was 
focused on Thai border issues.  However the SRP emerges from 
this incident, it is clear that -- at least for now -- the 
playing field for opposition politics has been reduced as a 
result. 
RODLEY