Dead Journalist – you’re a romantic. Medical staff massacred by security forces to use your words. We all know who threatened whom. No other government would have acted so patiently in the face of such provocations and aggressions. I muat agree the government makes it too easy for you to continue a one-sided blame game. At least a people and city got their life back. Imagine a PM Chalerm. Now even then you wouldn’t rant. You would remain loyal to the poor suppressed who suffered so much under the old terrible regime. Again, a romantic you are, and a hopeles one.
Benny: of course, you are right that ASEAN wouldn’t have been able to do much without Chinese and US interests being engaged. That said, China simply couldn’t have aided the Khmer Rouge without Thai assistance (there was no way of smuggling the $500m-worth of arms per annum to the Khmer Rouge except via Thai territory). Thailand’s policy was absolutely crucial to underpinning the civil war – a point which became very obvious when Chatichai Choonhavan abruptly reversed policy after 1988. ASEAN diplomats were also very important in the General Assembly debates and also in the credentials committee. I reviewed the verbatim records on this issue in enormous depth, and it was ASEAN diplomats who took the leading role in politicising the credentials committee, not the US and China. This was a historically unprecendented achievement since every other overthrown government hitherto had been replaced at the UN – even that of Afghanistan after the 1979 Soviet invasion. Again this was partly because of the way in which ASEAN managed to sway third-world opinion by convincing non-aligned states to oppose Vietnam in the name of defending non-intervention norms. ASEAN also led opposition to Vietnam in annual resolutions on the Situation in Kampuchea and on Peace and Stability in Southeast Asia, and in the NAM. I don’t want to play up ASEAN’s agency too much, but equally I don’t want to erase it.
Chris Beale: I basically agree. The Vietnamese military presence was not without its problems, but they were initially welcomed as liberators by many Cambodians. The PRK was also generally accepted by the population and made considerable progress in reconstructing the bombed-out country and rehabilitating its half-dead population (as Michael Vickery’s work on this period shows). It would have achieved a lot more had it not been isolated and sanctioned by the West, but having pounded Cambodia remorselessly, the US and its allies decided to inflict further punishment instead. We shouldn’t romanticise the Vietnamese. They had initially collaborated with Pol Pot and only invaded when Khmer Rouge cross-border attacks on Vietnamese villages became so brutal and intolerable that they had to act. But if you had to pick sides in this conflict I know I wouldn’t choose to be on the side of the US, China, ASEAN, the EU and the Khmer Rouge.
My overall amazement at people in general, but possibly public officials and other leaders in society, is the extensive experience and education they undergo abroad in democratic societies, but then go back home and squander or abuse it.
There is some coercion in it, of course. Going back to one’s own society and trying to fit in and conduct an active role means fitting in. I wonder just how this is reconciled, but again conclude that it is relatively simple to deal with.
But you fail to segue into the next and very obvious statement.
We’ll never know because the Thai state have decided to cover it up.
And, as that’s the case, why in god’s name aren’t you demanding the Thai authorities carry out a transparent investigation into Fabio’s death?
Instead of this call for the most basic form of justice you attempt to blame Fabio for getting shot. You then make several spurious, completely fabricated statements. What next? Will you or Simon (aka StanG) claim Fabio was armed? Were the numerous medical staff targeted and murdered by the Thai army also dangerous militants who shouldn’t have been there? Your rationale is actually terrifying as it removes ALL responsibility for acts of violence – you give the state impunity to kill who it wants without accountability.
Dan, you, like several other ex-pats who supported the incredibly violent crackdown (bizarrely, all in the name of stopping “violence”) are now desperate to shore up their obvious immorality and lack of values. Basically, you’ve been found out – you’ve supported a massacre to protect your expat lifestyle. It’s actually quite disgusting and I find you, on a personal level, quite a sickening and grotesque individual.
Jao,
Your reading comprehension skills need work. I wrote, “As to who killed Mr. Fabio – flip a coin. There were shooters on both sides.”
Meaning the shot could have come from anywhere. The Thai army didn’t have all the firearms; there is ample evidence that some protesters were armed as well.
Ricky Ward. I agree with you. In my earlier draft I did refer to the trial by the PRK in which Pol Pot/ Ieng Sary were sentenced to death, but because of consideration of length I had to chop off that part. Ricky, I agree with you today;s trial is not only a goldmine for lawyers but security guards imported from the United Nations in New York and other personnel as well. I made a lot of enemies in Phnom Penh with my article hahaha.
Now for Susie Wong, With due respects, it appears to me that you get the institutions and dates mixed up and that was why your conclusions about my arguments were confused and therefore wrong.
Point 1. You are mixing up the International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statutes, operating in The Hague with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) which is the court currently trying the KR leaders which has nothing to do whatsoever with the ICC. The ICC is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court. On 17 July 1998, 120 States adopted the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the permanent International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries. So the KR trials is not taking place in the ICC so your arguments are invalid. Yes, you are right that Cambodia is a member and not the four states you mentioned. But this has nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge Court or the ECCC. To date the ICC is hearing cases proposed by Uganda, Congo and Central African republic as well as Darfur,Sudan but not Cambodia
Point 2. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia is a Cambodian court with international participation that will apply international standards and was established with the help of the United Nations. It is not a United Nations court, not even a hybrid one like the court of Sierra Leone. Of course I agree with you that the Khmer people, of all people, want a court to try the Khmer Rouge criminals. Every family in Cambodia has lost loves ones and suffered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. . So why did it take so long, thirty years for the ECCC to sentence Duch?
To begin with, as I argued in my previous postings after the Khmer Rouge genocidal regime was ousted by Vietnam and rebel ex Khmer Rouge forces on January 7 1979 the US, China and ASEAN ensured that the Khmer Rouge continued to be the legitimate government in Cambodia in the United Nations in New York for elevn more years. Obviously, they were not in a big hurry to try the Khmer Rouge. In Phnom Penh, as Ricky Ward mentioned, the Khmer people and the PRK did try the Khmer Rouge and condemned the Pol Pot/Ieng Sary to death in absentia. But in the world outside, this was totally ignored. Ieng Sary is now sitting and grinning perpetually in his air-conditioned cell in the ECCC, contemplating his good fortune.
Point 3. Why did it take so long for ECCC to start functioning? On June 7 1997, co premiers Samdech Hun Sen and Samdech Krom Preah Ranariddh asked the United Nations to assist in establishing a trial to prosecute the senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge. Since then, lengthy negotiations took place between the UN and the Cambodian government. The government of Cambodia insisted that, for the sake of the Cambodian people, the trial must be held in Cambodia using Cambodian staff and judges together with foreign personnel. Cambodia invited international participation due to the weakness of the Cambodian legal system and the international nature of the crimes, and to help in meeting international standards of justice. An agreement with the UN was ultimately reached in June 2003 and in 2006 the ECCC started functioning.
Point 4. As I stated earlier, after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after world war II which you cited eloquently, there was a long international hiatus in the pursuance of criminal justice because of the cold war. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by this: during the cold war America’s villain is Russia’s friend and vice versa. It was not until the cold war was over when in the 1990’s International Tribunals were established to try the leaders of the genocide and ethnic cleansing which took place in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda followed by the ICC. This has nothing to do with the ECCC which was established pursuant to a request by the premiers of Cambodia in June 1997, 18 years after the KR was ousted.
Charles F: If the deaths had been split 50/50, “flip a coin” would be a reasonable thing to say. Because the deaths were 100/0, I think the coin that should be flipped has a Royal Thai Army logo on both sides. Try harder next time.
Men-in-Black didn’t come in black as shown in a few video clips. They were around but not in the hundreds as claimed by the govt. The grenade attack that injured the Dutch reporter and some Thai soldiers was real. Just put yourself in the shoes of those young soldiers. That could be their first real battle. April 10’s incidence of men-in-black was likely in their minds. They didn’t want to die like their fellow soldiers on that fateful night. And, that is understandable. They were shot at and if they fired back indiscrimately. And that is understandable. Fabio was in black pointing his camera with a large len, red shirts were not in red and the ronin didn’t wear black.
Fabio was hit below his bulletproof vest according to the first news report–the stomach.
Red shirts who got killed were among their armed and extremely well-trained comrades were firing their lethal weapons from behind some structures.
Let’s hope the forensic evidence are intact and some foreign and neutral forensic experts are allowed into the investigation. If the existing evidence was in the govt’s favour it would have been revealed right there and then to condemn the red shirt. We have been shown the grenade attacks on the soldiers on the 10th night of April many times. My experience in 1992 military crackdown was complete one side shooting affair.
Fabio was a brave man like Muramoto and the Japanese reporter who was shot in Burma. When the Karen soldiers leaped from the pickup truck we were travelling in, firing their AK 47s at Burmese spies, all the reporters in the truck froze the whole time when the event transpired. It takes great courage to film such frightful moments. Many of the war footages of the Karen revolution done by foreign reporters were the skies and the mud in trenches.
Old aunty Sri does not enjoy her time in Germany, except for the fact that this is also an (almost) Thai-politics-free time. That is indeed very nice. Good luck with your work on the second volume, and looking forward to the third one…
It’s a shitty job by the way, photographer in such a situation. He tried his best and I’m sure he delivered great work till his fatal hour. RIP Fabio.
But to magnify him into a martyr, into a brave victim of an ugly dictatorship, that is a very easy way out. It shows how little is necessary to make believe – to make followers fervently believe something; a something that can look quite different if you openly and honestly embrace all the angles and facts.
We’ll never know what really happened that day. Chances are he was very well shot by an army sniper. Because he looked like a black shirt and was in their area. As Simon said, he was warned. That’s why so many people stayed away. Could the reds or security forces be considerate of his safety? It’s like adding 1 + 1.
Wearing a green or whatever shirt with clear MEDIA or PRESS letters would probably saved his life. We’ll never know. And we’ll never know how all the other victims died. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that the attempt of violent change bears violence.
So many victims, no heros.
Nah, that’s not an apologist’s stance. That’s the simple truth.
A photographer goes to battlezone and ignores repeated and unambiguous warnings to leave. He runs around with the protesters, some of whom are firing live rounds at armed soldiers, who are nervous as hell because they have been receiving gunfire and *grenades* from militants for 10 days. He wears colours associated with the armed faction and he gets shot dead. Does he not bear some small part of the responsibility for his own death? Do we really need a conspiracy theory to explain this?
It never ceases to amaze me how armchair experts in comfortable locations expect soldiers on the front line to make perfect decisions with perfect aim. How would your decision making capacity be affected by a grenade going off in your vicinity? Or by one of your friends getting shot? Watch some of the video, why are so many troops looking up? Do you really think your personal safety catch would be off?
In all probability the guy was shot by frightened infantry hosing the street to keep heads down. But of course, soldiers have no right to defend themselves from armed militants. Only the right to die.
Lee Jones #8 – is n’t the true essence of this that :
Vietnam liberated Cambodia in late 1978, and has never had any thanks for doing so ?
I motor-biked Vietnam about a decade ago, and found Vietnamese of almost ALL AGES immensely proud that their country had not only defeated the Japanese, the French, the Americans, and the Chinese – but also liberated Cambodia from further genocide.
I’ve no doubt they will move to protect Hun Sen, if he’s threatened with overthrown by Thailand now.
Regardless of the other issues, I think no one will claim that Fabio was armed and dangerous and a “threat” to any soldier’s life.
That the Thai Army deployed snipers who fired live sniper rounds at people is clear.
Seh Daeng for instance was not shot by accident. He was precisely targeted by a Thai Army sniper. The bullet was inches away from a New York Times reporter’s head. Whatever the arguments about whether or not the unarmed at that moment Seh Daeng may have “deserved” to be executed without arrest or trial, only a brainwashed moron would accuse the so-called Red-directed “Black Shirts” of shooting him.
The accidental targeting of the motorcycle policeman in the “friendly fire” incident north of Bangkok was also the work of Thai Army snipers who had been deployed with live rounds and orders to shoot. A single shot to the policeman’s head killed him. There was even video footage of the Thai Army snipers firing which was briefly broadcast/streamed on Spring TZV and elsewhere before being censored).
Many unarmed demonstrators and some onlookers and even a few people entirely unconnected with the demonstrations were shot with single rounds to the head or chest. To accept the government’s story that all these people were shot as “provocations” by so-called Red-directed “Black Shirts” is not really plausible.
So even if Fabio was standing or running in a dangerous place (as actual reporters are prone to do as opposed to the lightweight reporters working for the Bangkok Post and The Nation), he was an unarmed person shot with a single bullet aimed to kill. And the shooter was a soldier deployed by the Thai Army.
Lee, thanks for your complements about my book. Since I am new to New Mandala, I was not sure whether people know my identity. Victims Rights, for instance said that just because I wrote a book and sipped cocktails with the elite in Phnom Penh but am not a Khmer does not qualify me to make comments on the KR trials. In other words he suggested that I should just shut up. Mr or Miss Victims Right, please note that I wrote my book not while sipping cocktails in Phnom Penh, but while drinking beer with professors and students while beinga visiting scholar for three years at the Kahin Center for Advanced studies on Southeast Asia at Cornell University in Ithaca, which has the best library on SEAsia . Victims Rights, if you Google my name you will find from 47,000 to 53,000 entries depending on the day. To just say that I should not open my mouth because I am not Khmer is highly unprofessional and belongs in Facebook, not in the highly respected New Mandala.
Lee, I too admire and respect your credentials at Queen Mary University in London and your expertise in research specifically on ASEAN’s role on the Cambodian problem. Now that we have praised each other enough let the fight continue, hehehe!
I recently saw a History Channel documentary of Cambodia and when Carter was asked why he recognized the Khmer Rouge, he said that this is what its neighbors want. So this is in line with your arguments. America is indeed ashamed to admit, especially today, that it committed this atrocious act, for eleven years in a row and prefer to be hiding it. However, being stationed in New York at the time it was quite clear that ASEAN could not have pushed such an important issue as recognizing the genocidal Khmer Rouge without the imprimatur of the powers that be, the veto wielding powers in this case the US and China. You are a great scholar and I am sure you have read the many tomes proving the powerful role of the US in the Security Council and the UN. For instanced David Malone, in his The UN Security Counicl. Lynn Riener, 2004, pp 636 ff
When Vietnam liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge regime, Carter of the US was faced with a dilemma. On the one hand there was the Khmer Rouge which had just killed two million people and on the other was the Communist Peoples Republic of Cambodia, led by Heng Samrin and Hun Sen, backed by Vietnam and the Soviet Union. Carter chose to back the former which was the Chinese position.So when the Soviet Union vetoed a resolution in the Security Councilintroduced by Cyrus Vance of the US to demand Vietnam to withdraw its troops. The battle shifted to an obscure nine member credential committee of which the US, the Soviet Union and China were members. No ASEAN country was a member of this committee. On September 19, 1979, this credential committee voted 6 to 3 to award Cambodia’s seat to the Khmer Rouge. The committee did not even review the credentials of Heng Samrin Hun Sen.
This resolution was then send to the 120 member General Assembly, where there is no veto power, which voted in favor of seating the the Khmer Rouge as I already described before to approve the seating of the Khmer Rouge. You are right that because of the no veto power in the GA, the role of smaller states, such as ASEAN became very important to lobby with the non aligned countries. Tommy Koh, as I said yyewd before, the brilliant Singaporean did so with great vigor and skills. As I am sure you know, ASEAN is by no means always united and Thailand and Singapore were the most eager to toe the US line. The brilliant Tommy Koh of Singapore managed to avoid a vote on the Indian proposal as chairman of the non aligned countries to leave the seat vacant. The seating of the Khmer Rouge was important as the west now can impose sanctions on the PRK as it was not a valid government. In the field you are right that ASEAN gave aid to the three factions while China, as a stated, channeled aid to the Khmer Rouge through the Deng Xiao Ping trail from the port of Sattahip in Thailand. The US and the UK of course also helped the non communist resistance forces although in a more covert manner. The importance of big power politics can again be proven that a solution of the Cambodian problem was only possible when the cold war was over and the Soviet Union collapsed. As a consequence, the UNTAC solution, as I claimed in my book, was flawed because it contains the unjust decisions of the past 11 years in particular giving the Khmer Rouge a legitimate place in the peace process.
It seems like history is repeating itself. The Obama administration is again trying to use ASEAN to make Myanmar change. Obama was the first president to meet with Prime minister Thein Sein of Myanmar in an ASEAN meeting in Singapore. However, on the other side is China, not ideologically, but economically and the Tatmadaw government can ignores western sanctions as it receives trade and aid form China, as well as India. But that is another story.
From Bangkok Post, re. lifiting SOE :
1)”Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also director of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation, had repeatedly expressed concern over the situation in Bangkok.”
WHY is Bangkok such a problem ?
This is costing Thailand – airfares to there from Australia are now significantly lower.
2)The emergency decree is currently still in force in Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pathumthani, Samut Prakan, Udon Thani, Khon Kaen and Nakhon Ratchasima.
Seems like there’s still considerable resistance in major Isaarn towns Udon and Khon Khaen.
And not comforting to General Prem that one of his major power-bases – Nakhon Ratchasima – looks less than 100% loyal.
A question. One poster above says: “There were shooters on both sides.” Okay, we have seen many reports that there were black-clad red shirts defending their positions on the day of the crackdown. And, I recall, there were some pictures of people with the odd M16 and handgun. The government displayed some allegedly captured weapons, but these included a bunch of rusting WW@ vintage weapons. Is there any really strong evidence of a red shirt armed force clad in black, fighting on the day of the crackdown? There was talk of it, especially from the government, but there were no deaths on the government side – yes, there was a series of photos of a badly injured soldier, apparently from a grenade. But wouldn’t a well-armed force have caused more casualties? Was there such a force? If there was, is the government covering up their side’s injuries and deaths?
The speed of the DSI/government’s accusations of red shirts guilt given the smallest piece of evidence is proof that the government can’t pin this one on them.
BKK lawyer @53 :
what you’ve posted is an extremely racist comment – Abhisit is 100% British (if he so chooses), regardless of his ethnicity, due to :
1) being born in the UK
2) having strong ties to the UK – eg. most of his education there, and at the most prestigious places possible.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Dead Journalist – you’re a romantic. Medical staff massacred by security forces to use your words. We all know who threatened whom. No other government would have acted so patiently in the face of such provocations and aggressions. I muat agree the government makes it too easy for you to continue a one-sided blame game. At least a people and city got their life back. Imagine a PM Chalerm. Now even then you wouldn’t rant. You would remain loyal to the poor suppressed who suffered so much under the old terrible regime. Again, a romantic you are, and a hopeles one.
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
Benny: of course, you are right that ASEAN wouldn’t have been able to do much without Chinese and US interests being engaged. That said, China simply couldn’t have aided the Khmer Rouge without Thai assistance (there was no way of smuggling the $500m-worth of arms per annum to the Khmer Rouge except via Thai territory). Thailand’s policy was absolutely crucial to underpinning the civil war – a point which became very obvious when Chatichai Choonhavan abruptly reversed policy after 1988. ASEAN diplomats were also very important in the General Assembly debates and also in the credentials committee. I reviewed the verbatim records on this issue in enormous depth, and it was ASEAN diplomats who took the leading role in politicising the credentials committee, not the US and China. This was a historically unprecendented achievement since every other overthrown government hitherto had been replaced at the UN – even that of Afghanistan after the 1979 Soviet invasion. Again this was partly because of the way in which ASEAN managed to sway third-world opinion by convincing non-aligned states to oppose Vietnam in the name of defending non-intervention norms. ASEAN also led opposition to Vietnam in annual resolutions on the Situation in Kampuchea and on Peace and Stability in Southeast Asia, and in the NAM. I don’t want to play up ASEAN’s agency too much, but equally I don’t want to erase it.
Chris Beale: I basically agree. The Vietnamese military presence was not without its problems, but they were initially welcomed as liberators by many Cambodians. The PRK was also generally accepted by the population and made considerable progress in reconstructing the bombed-out country and rehabilitating its half-dead population (as Michael Vickery’s work on this period shows). It would have achieved a lot more had it not been isolated and sanctioned by the West, but having pounded Cambodia remorselessly, the US and its allies decided to inflict further punishment instead. We shouldn’t romanticise the Vietnamese. They had initially collaborated with Pol Pot and only invaded when Khmer Rouge cross-border attacks on Vietnamese villages became so brutal and intolerable that they had to act. But if you had to pick sides in this conflict I know I wouldn’t choose to be on the side of the US, China, ASEAN, the EU and the Khmer Rouge.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
My overall amazement at people in general, but possibly public officials and other leaders in society, is the extensive experience and education they undergo abroad in democratic societies, but then go back home and squander or abuse it.
There is some coercion in it, of course. Going back to one’s own society and trying to fit in and conduct an active role means fitting in. I wonder just how this is reconciled, but again conclude that it is relatively simple to deal with.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Thanks Bangkok Dan, you sum it up nicely –
“We’ll never know what really happened that day.”
But you fail to segue into the next and very obvious statement.
We’ll never know because the Thai state have decided to cover it up.
And, as that’s the case, why in god’s name aren’t you demanding the Thai authorities carry out a transparent investigation into Fabio’s death?
Instead of this call for the most basic form of justice you attempt to blame Fabio for getting shot. You then make several spurious, completely fabricated statements. What next? Will you or Simon (aka StanG) claim Fabio was armed? Were the numerous medical staff targeted and murdered by the Thai army also dangerous militants who shouldn’t have been there? Your rationale is actually terrifying as it removes ALL responsibility for acts of violence – you give the state impunity to kill who it wants without accountability.
Dan, you, like several other ex-pats who supported the incredibly violent crackdown (bizarrely, all in the name of stopping “violence”) are now desperate to shore up their obvious immorality and lack of values. Basically, you’ve been found out – you’ve supported a massacre to protect your expat lifestyle. It’s actually quite disgusting and I find you, on a personal level, quite a sickening and grotesque individual.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Didn’t Sondhi wear a t-shirt proclaiming that he was proud to be of Chinese origin? The racism of these “debates” is appalling.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Jao,
Your reading comprehension skills need work. I wrote, “As to who killed Mr. Fabio – flip a coin. There were shooters on both sides.”
Meaning the shot could have come from anywhere. The Thai army didn’t have all the firearms; there is ample evidence that some protesters were armed as well.
Try harder next time.
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
Ricky Ward. I agree with you. In my earlier draft I did refer to the trial by the PRK in which Pol Pot/ Ieng Sary were sentenced to death, but because of consideration of length I had to chop off that part. Ricky, I agree with you today;s trial is not only a goldmine for lawyers but security guards imported from the United Nations in New York and other personnel as well. I made a lot of enemies in Phnom Penh with my article hahaha.
Now for Susie Wong, With due respects, it appears to me that you get the institutions and dates mixed up and that was why your conclusions about my arguments were confused and therefore wrong.
Point 1. You are mixing up the International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statutes, operating in The Hague with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) which is the court currently trying the KR leaders which has nothing to do whatsoever with the ICC. The ICC is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court. On 17 July 1998, 120 States adopted the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the permanent International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries. So the KR trials is not taking place in the ICC so your arguments are invalid. Yes, you are right that Cambodia is a member and not the four states you mentioned. But this has nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge Court or the ECCC. To date the ICC is hearing cases proposed by Uganda, Congo and Central African republic as well as Darfur,Sudan but not Cambodia
Point 2. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia is a Cambodian court with international participation that will apply international standards and was established with the help of the United Nations. It is not a United Nations court, not even a hybrid one like the court of Sierra Leone. Of course I agree with you that the Khmer people, of all people, want a court to try the Khmer Rouge criminals. Every family in Cambodia has lost loves ones and suffered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. . So why did it take so long, thirty years for the ECCC to sentence Duch?
To begin with, as I argued in my previous postings after the Khmer Rouge genocidal regime was ousted by Vietnam and rebel ex Khmer Rouge forces on January 7 1979 the US, China and ASEAN ensured that the Khmer Rouge continued to be the legitimate government in Cambodia in the United Nations in New York for elevn more years. Obviously, they were not in a big hurry to try the Khmer Rouge. In Phnom Penh, as Ricky Ward mentioned, the Khmer people and the PRK did try the Khmer Rouge and condemned the Pol Pot/Ieng Sary to death in absentia. But in the world outside, this was totally ignored. Ieng Sary is now sitting and grinning perpetually in his air-conditioned cell in the ECCC, contemplating his good fortune.
Point 3. Why did it take so long for ECCC to start functioning? On June 7 1997, co premiers Samdech Hun Sen and Samdech Krom Preah Ranariddh asked the United Nations to assist in establishing a trial to prosecute the senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge. Since then, lengthy negotiations took place between the UN and the Cambodian government. The government of Cambodia insisted that, for the sake of the Cambodian people, the trial must be held in Cambodia using Cambodian staff and judges together with foreign personnel. Cambodia invited international participation due to the weakness of the Cambodian legal system and the international nature of the crimes, and to help in meeting international standards of justice. An agreement with the UN was ultimately reached in June 2003 and in 2006 the ECCC started functioning.
Point 4. As I stated earlier, after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after world war II which you cited eloquently, there was a long international hiatus in the pursuance of criminal justice because of the cold war. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by this: during the cold war America’s villain is Russia’s friend and vice versa. It was not until the cold war was over when in the 1990’s International Tribunals were established to try the leaders of the genocide and ethnic cleansing which took place in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda followed by the ICC. This has nothing to do with the ECCC which was established pursuant to a request by the premiers of Cambodia in June 1997, 18 years after the KR was ousted.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Charles F: If the deaths had been split 50/50, “flip a coin” would be a reasonable thing to say. Because the deaths were 100/0, I think the coin that should be flipped has a Royal Thai Army logo on both sides. Try harder next time.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Men-in-Black didn’t come in black as shown in a few video clips. They were around but not in the hundreds as claimed by the govt. The grenade attack that injured the Dutch reporter and some Thai soldiers was real. Just put yourself in the shoes of those young soldiers. That could be their first real battle. April 10’s incidence of men-in-black was likely in their minds. They didn’t want to die like their fellow soldiers on that fateful night. And, that is understandable. They were shot at and if they fired back indiscrimately. And that is understandable. Fabio was in black pointing his camera with a large len, red shirts were not in red and the ronin didn’t wear black.
Fabio was hit below his bulletproof vest according to the first news report–the stomach.
Red shirts who got killed were among their armed and extremely well-trained comrades were firing their lethal weapons from behind some structures.
Let’s hope the forensic evidence are intact and some foreign and neutral forensic experts are allowed into the investigation. If the existing evidence was in the govt’s favour it would have been revealed right there and then to condemn the red shirt. We have been shown the grenade attacks on the soldiers on the 10th night of April many times. My experience in 1992 military crackdown was complete one side shooting affair.
Fabio was a brave man like Muramoto and the Japanese reporter who was shot in Burma. When the Karen soldiers leaped from the pickup truck we were travelling in, firing their AK 47s at Burmese spies, all the reporters in the truck froze the whole time when the event transpired. It takes great courage to film such frightful moments. Many of the war footages of the Karen revolution done by foreign reporters were the skies and the mud in trenches.
Here in NM we have a battle!
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Hi Nick,
Old aunty Sri does not enjoy her time in Germany, except for the fact that this is also an (almost) Thai-politics-free time. That is indeed very nice. Good luck with your work on the second volume, and looking forward to the third one…
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Thank you Simon, you sum it up nicely.
It’s a shitty job by the way, photographer in such a situation. He tried his best and I’m sure he delivered great work till his fatal hour. RIP Fabio.
But to magnify him into a martyr, into a brave victim of an ugly dictatorship, that is a very easy way out. It shows how little is necessary to make believe – to make followers fervently believe something; a something that can look quite different if you openly and honestly embrace all the angles and facts.
We’ll never know what really happened that day. Chances are he was very well shot by an army sniper. Because he looked like a black shirt and was in their area. As Simon said, he was warned. That’s why so many people stayed away. Could the reds or security forces be considerate of his safety? It’s like adding 1 + 1.
Wearing a green or whatever shirt with clear MEDIA or PRESS letters would probably saved his life. We’ll never know. And we’ll never know how all the other victims died. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that the attempt of violent change bears violence.
So many victims, no heros.
Nah, that’s not an apologist’s stance. That’s the simple truth.
Burma in Limbo, Part 2
Ko Hla Oo
Well done, awaiting your next part.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
@Dead Journalist: What’s to cover up?
A photographer goes to battlezone and ignores repeated and unambiguous warnings to leave. He runs around with the protesters, some of whom are firing live rounds at armed soldiers, who are nervous as hell because they have been receiving gunfire and *grenades* from militants for 10 days. He wears colours associated with the armed faction and he gets shot dead. Does he not bear some small part of the responsibility for his own death? Do we really need a conspiracy theory to explain this?
It never ceases to amaze me how armchair experts in comfortable locations expect soldiers on the front line to make perfect decisions with perfect aim. How would your decision making capacity be affected by a grenade going off in your vicinity? Or by one of your friends getting shot? Watch some of the video, why are so many troops looking up? Do you really think your personal safety catch would be off?
In all probability the guy was shot by frightened infantry hosing the street to keep heads down. But of course, soldiers have no right to defend themselves from armed militants. Only the right to die.
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
Lee Jones #8 – is n’t the true essence of this that :
Vietnam liberated Cambodia in late 1978, and has never had any thanks for doing so ?
I motor-biked Vietnam about a decade ago, and found Vietnamese of almost ALL AGES immensely proud that their country had not only defeated the Japanese, the French, the Americans, and the Chinese – but also liberated Cambodia from further genocide.
I’ve no doubt they will move to protect Hun Sen, if he’s threatened with overthrown by Thailand now.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
Regardless of the other issues, I think no one will claim that Fabio was armed and dangerous and a “threat” to any soldier’s life.
That the Thai Army deployed snipers who fired live sniper rounds at people is clear.
Seh Daeng for instance was not shot by accident. He was precisely targeted by a Thai Army sniper. The bullet was inches away from a New York Times reporter’s head. Whatever the arguments about whether or not the unarmed at that moment Seh Daeng may have “deserved” to be executed without arrest or trial, only a brainwashed moron would accuse the so-called Red-directed “Black Shirts” of shooting him.
The accidental targeting of the motorcycle policeman in the “friendly fire” incident north of Bangkok was also the work of Thai Army snipers who had been deployed with live rounds and orders to shoot. A single shot to the policeman’s head killed him. There was even video footage of the Thai Army snipers firing which was briefly broadcast/streamed on Spring TZV and elsewhere before being censored).
Many unarmed demonstrators and some onlookers and even a few people entirely unconnected with the demonstrations were shot with single rounds to the head or chest. To accept the government’s story that all these people were shot as “provocations” by so-called Red-directed “Black Shirts” is not really plausible.
So even if Fabio was standing or running in a dangerous place (as actual reporters are prone to do as opposed to the lightweight reporters working for the Bangkok Post and The Nation), he was an unarmed person shot with a single bullet aimed to kill. And the shooter was a soldier deployed by the Thai Army.
An alternative view of the Duch verdict in Cambodia
Lee, thanks for your complements about my book. Since I am new to New Mandala, I was not sure whether people know my identity. Victims Rights, for instance said that just because I wrote a book and sipped cocktails with the elite in Phnom Penh but am not a Khmer does not qualify me to make comments on the KR trials. In other words he suggested that I should just shut up. Mr or Miss Victims Right, please note that I wrote my book not while sipping cocktails in Phnom Penh, but while drinking beer with professors and students while beinga visiting scholar for three years at the Kahin Center for Advanced studies on Southeast Asia at Cornell University in Ithaca, which has the best library on SEAsia . Victims Rights, if you Google my name you will find from 47,000 to 53,000 entries depending on the day. To just say that I should not open my mouth because I am not Khmer is highly unprofessional and belongs in Facebook, not in the highly respected New Mandala.
Lee, I too admire and respect your credentials at Queen Mary University in London and your expertise in research specifically on ASEAN’s role on the Cambodian problem. Now that we have praised each other enough let the fight continue, hehehe!
I recently saw a History Channel documentary of Cambodia and when Carter was asked why he recognized the Khmer Rouge, he said that this is what its neighbors want. So this is in line with your arguments. America is indeed ashamed to admit, especially today, that it committed this atrocious act, for eleven years in a row and prefer to be hiding it. However, being stationed in New York at the time it was quite clear that ASEAN could not have pushed such an important issue as recognizing the genocidal Khmer Rouge without the imprimatur of the powers that be, the veto wielding powers in this case the US and China. You are a great scholar and I am sure you have read the many tomes proving the powerful role of the US in the Security Council and the UN. For instanced David Malone, in his The UN Security Counicl. Lynn Riener, 2004, pp 636 ff
When Vietnam liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge regime, Carter of the US was faced with a dilemma. On the one hand there was the Khmer Rouge which had just killed two million people and on the other was the Communist Peoples Republic of Cambodia, led by Heng Samrin and Hun Sen, backed by Vietnam and the Soviet Union. Carter chose to back the former which was the Chinese position.So when the Soviet Union vetoed a resolution in the Security Councilintroduced by Cyrus Vance of the US to demand Vietnam to withdraw its troops. The battle shifted to an obscure nine member credential committee of which the US, the Soviet Union and China were members. No ASEAN country was a member of this committee. On September 19, 1979, this credential committee voted 6 to 3 to award Cambodia’s seat to the Khmer Rouge. The committee did not even review the credentials of Heng Samrin Hun Sen.
This resolution was then send to the 120 member General Assembly, where there is no veto power, which voted in favor of seating the the Khmer Rouge as I already described before to approve the seating of the Khmer Rouge. You are right that because of the no veto power in the GA, the role of smaller states, such as ASEAN became very important to lobby with the non aligned countries. Tommy Koh, as I said yyewd before, the brilliant Singaporean did so with great vigor and skills. As I am sure you know, ASEAN is by no means always united and Thailand and Singapore were the most eager to toe the US line. The brilliant Tommy Koh of Singapore managed to avoid a vote on the Indian proposal as chairman of the non aligned countries to leave the seat vacant. The seating of the Khmer Rouge was important as the west now can impose sanctions on the PRK as it was not a valid government. In the field you are right that ASEAN gave aid to the three factions while China, as a stated, channeled aid to the Khmer Rouge through the Deng Xiao Ping trail from the port of Sattahip in Thailand. The US and the UK of course also helped the non communist resistance forces although in a more covert manner. The importance of big power politics can again be proven that a solution of the Cambodian problem was only possible when the cold war was over and the Soviet Union collapsed. As a consequence, the UNTAC solution, as I claimed in my book, was flawed because it contains the unjust decisions of the past 11 years in particular giving the Khmer Rouge a legitimate place in the peace process.
It seems like history is repeating itself. The Obama administration is again trying to use ASEAN to make Myanmar change. Obama was the first president to meet with Prime minister Thein Sein of Myanmar in an ASEAN meeting in Singapore. However, on the other side is China, not ideologically, but economically and the Tatmadaw government can ignores western sanctions as it receives trade and aid form China, as well as India. But that is another story.
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
From Bangkok Post, re. lifiting SOE :
1)”Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also director of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation, had repeatedly expressed concern over the situation in Bangkok.”
WHY is Bangkok such a problem ?
This is costing Thailand – airfares to there from Australia are now significantly lower.
2)The emergency decree is currently still in force in Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pathumthani, Samut Prakan, Udon Thani, Khon Kaen and Nakhon Ratchasima.
Seems like there’s still considerable resistance in major Isaarn towns Udon and Khon Khaen.
And not comforting to General Prem that one of his major power-bases – Nakhon Ratchasima – looks less than 100% loyal.
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
A question. One poster above says: “There were shooters on both sides.” Okay, we have seen many reports that there were black-clad red shirts defending their positions on the day of the crackdown. And, I recall, there were some pictures of people with the odd M16 and handgun. The government displayed some allegedly captured weapons, but these included a bunch of rusting WW@ vintage weapons. Is there any really strong evidence of a red shirt armed force clad in black, fighting on the day of the crackdown? There was talk of it, especially from the government, but there were no deaths on the government side – yes, there was a series of photos of a badly injured soldier, apparently from a grenade. But wouldn’t a well-armed force have caused more casualties? Was there such a force? If there was, is the government covering up their side’s injuries and deaths?
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
The speed of the DSI/government’s accusations of red shirts guilt given the smallest piece of evidence is proof that the government can’t pin this one on them.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
BKK lawyer @53 :
what you’ve posted is an extremely racist comment – Abhisit is 100% British (if he so chooses), regardless of his ethnicity, due to :
1) being born in the UK
2) having strong ties to the UK – eg. most of his education there, and at the most prestigious places possible.