Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Statements
BANGKOK — Southeast Asian lawmakers today called on the European Union (EU) to impress upon Laos the need for radical improvements to the human rights situation there and specifically raise concerns regarding the ineffectual investigation into the disappearance of civil society leader Sombath Somphone.
The call comes as a delegation from Laos is visiting Brussels on May 19–20 as part of the 5th Lao-EU Working Group on Human Rights and Governance. The delegation will also visit the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and the EU Parliament on Tuesday 20 May. The delegation is also expected to visit the UK Parliament in London later this week.
APHR has called upon representatives of the EU, including Members of the European Parliament and the EU Special Representative for Human Rights Stavros Lambrinidis to raise these and other concerns where possible during the Lao delegation’s visit to the European Union. It must be made clear to the Lao authorities that there is widespread dissatisfaction and anger with their handling of the investigation into Sombath’s disappearance as well as the overall human rights situation in the country, APHR said.
It must be made crystal clear to Vientiane that it risks its international reputation, which among other potential repercussions, could affect its access to development loans and aspirations to sit on the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2016, APHR said.
Within our own region APHR has been raising these concerns on a bi-lateral basis regularly, and across all levels of government. Recently, the Singapore government again reiterated its deeps concern and urged the Lao government to do all it can to expedite the investigation into Sombath’s disappearance.
The Lao authorities have been responding with the same frustrating answers since day 1 of Sombath’s disappearance on 15 December 2012, saying that they are taking the case seriously and the investigation is continuing but there is no new information to report. APHR questions the veracity of these statements and has deep reservations about the sincerity of the investigation to uncover the details surrounding Sombath’s disappearance and his current status and whereabouts.
“We remain extremely dissatisfied with the statements offered from the Lao authorities to date concerning the investigation into Sombath’s disappearance,” said Eva Sundari, Indonesian Member of Parliament and President of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
“How is it possible for an investigation to be going on almost a year and a half but no new information having been discovered? The response of the Lao government to date is frankly illogical and opens it up to suspicion regarding Sombath’s disappearance, particularly given the fact he was last seen being stopped by police at a police post, and taken away right in front of the police.”
APHR is also aware that a caller of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a call to the Singapore Embassy five days after Sombath’s disappearance indicating that Sombath would be released the following day. Subsequently, the caller denied he had ever made a call that Sombath would be released. The EU Charge d’Affairs and some other Vientiane-based Ambassadors were also aware of such a phone call.
APHR urges the EU to publicly offer the Lao authorities assistance in their investigation into Sombath’s disappearance, as nearly 18 months on, they clearly do not have the capacity or the will to competently handle the inquiry. APHR also calls on the EU to press Laos to establish a new, independent commission, with commissioners appointed from other ASEAN states, to undertake an impartial and thorough investigation into Sombath’s disappearance, in accordance with Laos’ obligations under international law.
“The government in Vientiane must be consistently reminded that this issue will not go away, and that they will be continually pressed on this wherever their representatives may go,” said Walden Bello, Philippines Congressman and Vice President of APHR.
The Lao government has a duty and a responsibility to pursue this case of enforced disappearance as it has signed the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and must be pressed to live up to that commitment.
APHR calls on the EU to press Laos to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, incorporate their provisions in to domestic law and implement them in policy and practice.
Currently in Laos, freedom of expression is restricted and civil society is subjugated. APHR urges the EU to back APHR’s calls for the Lao authorities to respect and protect the right of human rights defenders and other civil society actors so that they can carry out their work unimpeded. All restrictions in law and practice that are infringing upon the work of civil society organizations in Laos must be repealed and legal provisions on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association must be brought in line with international human rights standards.
Several APHR members were part of a delegation that visited the Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic to follow up on the investigation into the disappearance of Sombath in January 2013. These included Philippines Congressman Walden Bello and Malaysian MP Charles Santiago. The officials they met acknowledged that the disappearance of Sombath was a blow to the reputation of the Lao PDR, but the answers to their questions were far from satisfactory, and they let this be known.
APHR remains heartened by continued efforts and support from foreign missions in Vientiane, as well as governments and parliamentarians in Europe and elsewhere who have continued to raise these and other concerns with the Lao authorities. We ask you again to raise these issues with the visiting delegation to the European Parliament from the Lao People’s Democratic Republic this month.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Opinion Articles
By Walden Bello
Philippines Congressman
The state is a Janus-faced creature. On the one hand, there is its “soft face.” This is the set of institutions that provide representation and justice. Then there is the “hard face” of the state, the most important institutions of which are the executive, the internal security forces, and the armed forces.
This “deep state” is a highly contradictory institutional complex. On the one hand, it provides security and order. On the other, it poses the greatest threat to the human, political, and civil rights of citizens. For it is so easy to cross the very thin line separating the provision of public order and the violation of the rights of citizens in the name of order.
This is why it is important to hem in and envelop the security institutions with laws and rules that severely limit or prevent the use of force against citizens. This is the reason laws like Republic Act 10353, the Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012, are extremely important, for they restrain the constant institutional temptation of Leviathan to cross the line between the legitimate provision of public security and the illegitimate use of the power of the deep state to repress citizens. Republic Act 10353 was one of the historic triad of human rights laws passed by the 15th Congress. The other two were the Marcos Compensation Law and the Bill on the Rights of Internally Displaced Communities. Unfortunately, the last was vetoed by the president on very specious grounds.
The threat posed by the deep state is a permanent threat, and this is the case not only in the states of the developing world but also in the so-called mature democracies like the United States. We have only to call attention to the way the US government now violates with impunity the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy of its citizens through electronic spying by the National Security Agency (NSA), arguing that this total violation of privacy is justified by “national security” concerns.
In this part of the world, the threat posed by the deep state is illustrated not only by the numerous disappearances that have occurred in the Philippines but also in our neighboring states. The case of the disappearance of Sombath Sompone, a Ramon Magsaysay Prize awardee, in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has recently focused the attention of the world on this problem.
On December 15, 2012, Sombath was on the way home when his car was stopped at a police outpost. He never reemerged. Fortunately, the outpost had a CCTV surveillance camera, footage from which showed Sombath alighting from his vehicle, then someone else getting into it shortly thereafter and driving off. A few moments later, another vehicle left the police outpost.
Sombath Sompone was an activist who had tried hard through his work to serve as a bridge between the Lao state and Lao civil society. For this, he was admired by many, including people in government. He was not a threat to anybody and to public order. In mid-October last year, the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) that has been institutionalized as a civil society event paralleling the official Asia Europe Summit (ASEM) was held in Vientiane. Sombath served as the co-chair of the AEPF assembly in Laos. The AEPF provides a forum for voices from civil society, and in Vientiane, people from the Lao countryside voiced their concerns about the landgrabs that are now rampant in rural areas, many of them carried out by state officials in cahoots with foreign investors. The government was reportedly very upset at the free expression of grievances that took place, and there are many who feel that some factions within the state felt so threatened by free speech that they went to the extent of kidnapping Sombath Sompone to teach the people a lesson.
I was part of an ASEAN parliamentary delegation that visited Laos to inquire about Sombath’s disappearance about a month later. The other MPs in the delegation were Charles Santiago of Malaysia and Lily Wahid of Indonesia. We met with top officials of the Lao government, but all of them disavowed any knowledge of what happened to Sombath or his whereabouts. Their line was that all they knew was that investigation showed that the police was not involved in his disappearance.
Two other parliamentary delegations went to Laos after our visit. They were presented the same line: We don’t know what happened to Sombath. We are investigating the matter. But the only thing our investigation has yielded so far is that the police and the government were not involved.
The problem the Lao authorities face is that their story is not credible given the evidence from CCTV. Shui-Meng Ng, Sombath’s wife, had the presence of mind to go to the police outpost a few hours after Sombath disappeared and was able to convince the police to allow her to make a copy of the footage from the surveillance camera. Apparently, the Lao authorities forgot there was a CCTV in place, so their orders to the police outpost not to share the footage came too late. Clearly, the tale of the footage was that the police was involved.
The officials we met in Laos during our visit were probably telling us the truth when they said they personally did not know what happened to Sombath. These are officials that serve as the Lao PDR’s face to the world, people who project the image of a modernizing and liberalizing Lao state. This liberal face is important since Laos has joined or is seeking to join international institutions like the World Trade Organization, membership in which are seen as necessary to expand trade and attract foreign investment. They are probably embarrassed by Sombath’s disappearance, but they have to maintain a united front since the group that carried out the disappearance is much stronger than they are. In my view, this group belongs to the deep state, which in Laos is managed and monopolized by the Communist Party.
There are laws protecting human rights in Laos. Laos has even signed the Convention on the Rights of Disappeared Persons. People might say, what’s the use of laws if they are routinely violated? Those laws, however, serve as very important handles and yardsticks by which we make government ultimately accountable to the citizens. The strategic aim is to get state behavior to ultimately conform to the law. This may be a long and uphill struggle, it will have its ebbs and flows, but human rights laws and conventions are essential weapons in the effort to restrain Leviathan.
So let me end by saying by asking the Lao PDR on this day, August 30, 2013, the International Day of the Disappeared, please surface Sombath Sompone. We will not rest until you do.
Walden Bello headed an ASEAN Parliamentary Delegation that went to Laos to inquire about the whereabouts of Sombath Sompone in January 2012.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Statements
BANGKOK (October 28) — ASEAN Parliamentarians today called on a European Parliament delegation to Vientiane to persevere with collective efforts to secure the safe return of Lao civil society activist Sombath Somphone, the victim of an enforced disappearance last year.
CCTV footage shows Sombath was last seen with local police in the Lao capital Vientiane on December 15, 2012. He has not been seen since and ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) has expressed both publicly and privately over the past 10 months the perceived failure of the Lao authorities in their sincerity to properly investigate his disappearance.
A delegation from the EU Parliament travelled to Vientiane on October 28.
“This visit offers an important opportunity for EU delegates to clearly convey the same message that the Lao authorities have been hearing from many of us over recent months. They must ensure the safe return of Sombath and accept offers of assistance to help them investigate his disappearance. Such acts must and cannot be allowed to pass without effective and genuine response,” said Walden Bello, APHR Vice President and Philippines member of congress.
Walden Bello was part of an ASEAN parliamentary delegation that visited Laos to inquire about Sombath’s disappearance in January 2013. The other MPs in the delegation were Charles Santiago of Malaysia and Lily Wahid of Indonesia. They met with top officials of the Lao government who all disavowed any knowledge of what happened to Sombath or his whereabouts. Two subsequent parliamentary delegations have been to Laos since then, including one involving members of the European Parliament. On each visit the Lao authorities have insisted that, contrary to the CCTV footage, investigations to date have suggested no police or state involvement in his disappearance.
Sombath’s disappearance highlights the many struggles that people are facing in Laos today. The brazen abduction of one of the countries most respected civil society activists has compounded the climate of fear under which those seeking to help the marginalized and disenfranchised operate. It is of vital importance that those working with local communities and wider environmental and human rights issues in Laos are aware that the world is watching and that those responsible for Sombath’s disappearance cannot act with impunity.
APHR stressed that enforced disappearances and restriction of civil and political rights were not concerns particular to Laos alone; it remains a region-wide problem.
APHR believes the European Union along with countries in ASEAN can work together to support Laos’ efforts to open up and become a stronger voice both regionally and internationally; but this cannot happen unless the government lives up to its international obligations on human rights and justice.
Laos is a signatory to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance under which it has a responsibility to prevent and remedy any enforced disappearance and is bound under international law to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of this treaty.
Efforts to engage with Vientiane so far have however, received some positive responses from the Lao authorities, with government officials giving assurances that they are aware of the seriousness of the case and that no efforts would be spared in the ongoing investigation.
Nevertheless, APHR supports wider calls for the Lao government to establish an independent commission with international support or involvement to investigate the case and called on the EU to use its financial and political leverage to impress upon the Lao government the urgency and seriousness of this case and to clarify the many questions that surround Sombath’s disappearance and the ongoing investigation. Laos is the recipient of millions of dollars in international development aid annually, and the EU has provided general budget support to the Lao government of 12 million Euros over the period 2008–2012.
“Our European peers should support us and the many progressive elements in Laos in helping the Lao government open up and ensure a more enabling environment for civil society,” said Eva Sundari, APHR President and Indonesian Member of Parliament.
“As in many of the countries in our region, there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of respect for basic civil and political rights in Laos, but a line has been drawn with the disappearance of Sombath and none of us will rest until he is returned.”
###
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) is a collective of lawmakers from Southeast Asia working to improve human rights responses and justice in the region.
BANGKOK — Southeast Asian lawmakers today called on the European Union (EU) to impress upon Laos the need for radical improvements to the human rights situation there and specifically raise concerns regarding the ineffectual investigation into the disappearance of civil society leader Sombath Somphone.