Defense Attempts to Unveil Crucial Political Role of East Zone in Contemplated Coup

by Alice Murgier, International Human Rights LL.M, Northwestern University School of Law
— 30 Jun, 2016

Though there were a number of evidentiary elements about the Meas Sourn’s father, Seng Hong alias Chan, being close to Pol Pot, Sao Phim and other high-ranked Cadres, the witness failed to provide the Defense with substantial information. Today, the Defense had the floor for a shortened hearing day: Co-Counsel for the Defense of Nuon Chea Victor Koppe pressed the witness about the influence East Zone Cadres had high in the Party for about an hour, before Co-Counsel for the Defense of Khieu Samphan Kong Sam Onn concluded the session by asking Mr. Sourn about orders from the upper echelon in the East Zone.

Witness Meas Sourn testifies in Court on Thursday.

Pol Pot, Heng Samrin, Ouk Bounchun, Sao Phim, and Chan Seng Hong

Co-Defense Counsel Victor Koppe showed the same video extract as yesterday, which featured the visit of Pol Pot and possibly high-ranked Khmer Rouge Vorn Vet, as well as Sao Phim and Son Sen, at a rubber plantation in early 1978.[1] The witness was able to recognize Pol Pot. Mr. Victor Koppe suggested that the other person the witness saw, whom he thought was his father, was actually Heng Samrin, former Khmer Rouge commander, instigator of a contemplated coup in 1978 and currently member of the Cambodian People’s Party.

Still from the footage shown by Co-Defense Counsel Victor Koppe

The President Nil Nonn as well as Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne interjected, asking Counsel Koppe “not to twist the evidence” nor to “lead the witness”, saying Mr. Sourn had already expressed clearly he had recognized his father. Mr. Koppe abdicated and moved one, though he pointed out that his whole team asserted it was Heng Samrin.

The Co-Defense Counsel then relied on a statement by former Chief of Sector 21 of the East Zone, Ouk Bunchhoeun, today Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) Senator, to ask him if he knew that Chan Chakrei, together with his father, were selected to be revolutionary role models in 1974: “I did not”, the witness answered.[2]

Pol Pot and the East Zone

Ouk Bunchhoeun’s account further established the closeness and the trust between Mr. Sourn’s father, Chan Seng Hong, with Pol Pot, who “ceased trusting Sao Phim”.[3] [4] A statement by Heng Samrin corroborated this relationship between Pol Pot and the Chief of the East Zone District[5], but the witness answered he knew nothing about it.

“Mr. Witness, were you ever aware of an alleged rivalry between your father and other East Zone cadres including Sao Phim, Heng Samrin and Ouk Bunchhoeun?”

“I was never aware of it.”

According to several testimonies presented by Mr. Koppe, Pol Pot was afraid to go to the East Zone because it was close to Vietnam. Mr. Meas Sourn said he did not have any information on the matter, but International Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde asked briskly for the sources of the said testimonies. “To satisfy this Prosecutor”, Co-Defense Counsel Victor Koppe specified that the assessments had been made by Ouk Bunchhoeun[6] and Ieng Sary: “even Pol Pot and Nuon Chea, when they were in the East Zone, they were afraid of Ta Phim. So if he wanted to kill or do anything in the East Zone, he did not need approval from the upper echelon. It was almost ‘kill as you please, do as you please’.”[7] Nuon Chea, Pol Pot’s number two, had also stated to Tet Sambath that Pol Pot was especially afraid to go to the Eastern zone because of its proximity with Vietnam, and that himself and Khieu Samphan attended events on his behalf. “He was worried he would be smashed. He did not say it, but I knew he was scared.”[8]

Though this revealed how the East Zone was a somewhat independent faction which’s influence inspired fear even in Party leader Pol Pot, Mr. Meas Sourn said he had never heard of it and could not confirm it.

Co-Counsel for the Defense of Nuon Chea Victor Koppe

Coming back to Sao Phim, Chan Seng Hong’s superior, Mr. Koppe confronted the witness with a declaration by Heng Samrin: “We had a struggle, but a secret one. But at that time, it was tight and cramped. There was no opportunity to rise up and struggle. Even Ta Phim [Sao Phim] had to struggle.”^{^[9]} Last week, the Defense Counsel had already confronted Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, with this statement about a rebellious struggle led by Military Leader Sao Phim[10]. Similarly to Duch, today’s witness was not able to provide any information about it.

The witness further confirmed there were many military clashes between Heng Samrin, as well as other forces, and Center forces in the East Zone on May 25, 1978. He was not sure whether or not these forces had joined by the Vietnamese military forces in late 1978 or early 1979.

Meas Sourn had testified he had received a letter from Sao Phim in May 1978, which asserted there was going to be a coup d’état led by Son Sen to topple the Party Secretary and Deputy Secretary. However, Sao Phim still “believed in Brother Number One”, Hang Samrin stated.[11]

“Mr. Witness, why would Sao Phim think Son Sen was staging a coup d’état against Pol Pot and Nuon Chea?

In the whole East Zone, the Center forces purged all the forces in the military. [Otherwise], I did not know anything about that.”

The witness did not know of any plans to get Sao Phim to the East to get to Vietnam.[12] Discouraged by the lack of information the witness seemed to possess or was willing to reveal, Co-Counsel for the Defense of Nuon Chea Victor Koppe asked about Sao Phim’s family and his relationship with Ruos Nhim, Secretary of the Northwest Zone of Democratic Kampuchea purged in 1978, in vain.

Co-Defense Counsel for the Defense of Khieu Samphan Kong Sam Onn

The floor was then handed to the Defense Team for Khieu Samphan. Co-Counsel Kong Sam Onn asked follow-up questions about Heng Song, alias Chan, the witness’ father. Mr. Meas Sourn recalled he had seen him after May 25, 1978. He then detailed how his superior, Sor, asked him to report to Sao Phim about alleged traitors, whom he eventually pardoned.[13]

Mr. Kong Sam Onn then went back on the rebellion of the Cham mentioned yesterday. He succeeded in having the witness state that Cham people were not the only ones to be evacuated at that time, in the East Zone or elsewhere.[14]

The President Nil Nonn announced that Mr. Meas Sourn’s testimony was now concluded. The witness put his palms together and saluted the Tribunal with a traditional Khmer sampeah. The segment on internal purges will continue on July 26, 2016 at 9 am. The Court will hear the testimony of a witness 2-TCW-1005 in relation to that topic.

Featured image: Witness Meas Mourn (ECCC: Flickr)

[1] E3/3015R.

Bophana Center, at 00422113 and D285/2/2.

[2] E3/387, at 00350211 (EN), 00441426 (KH), 00379493-94 (FR).

[3] E3/432, at 00542185 (EN), 00583878 (KH), 00712076-77 (FR).

[4] E3/432, at 00542190 (EN), 00583887-88 (KH), 00712083 (FR).

[5] E3/1568, at 00651890 (EN), 00743363 (FR), 00713964 (KH).

[6] E3/387, at 00350215 (EN), 00379499 (KH), 00441432 (FR).

[7] E3/89, at 00417608 (EN), 00332690 (FR).

[8] E3/4202, at 00757528 (EN), 00849428 (FR).

[9] E3/1568, at 00651888-89 (EN), 00713962 (KH), 00743361-62 (FR).

[10] See Duch Denies Targeting of Cham and Forced Marriages During Regime, The Cambodia Tribunal Monitor, June 23, 2016.

[11] E3/5531.

E3/1568, at 00713980 (EN), 00651899 (KH), 00743378 (FR).

[12] E3/1568, at 00713980 (EN), 00651899 (KH), 00743378 (FR).

[13] E3/5531, Question and answer 43.

[14] E3/5531, Question and answer 50 (EN) (FR), 51 (KH).

Cambodia Tribunal Monitor’s Trial Observer posts are written according to the personal observations and opinions of the writer and do not constitute a transcript of ECCC proceedings or the views of Cambodia Tribunal Monitor and/or its partners. Official court transcripts for the ECCC’s hearings may be accessed at the ECCC website.