Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

[Kirk Tan]

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/hillary-clinton-goes-green-at-g20-summit-1329842128-slideshow/hillary-clinton-photo-1329842063.html 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, and Cambodia's Foreign Minister Hor Namhong speak during the G20 foreign ministers summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, Monday, Feb. 20, 2012. (AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini) 

[Kirk Tan]

Dear Professor peang-meth,

 

I wish you to write an article, which implies this kind of thinking with this kind of title...what happended during Pol Pot time was ACCIDENTAL. Simply put, no one and no country was responsible for it, and everything that had happended including killing and starving was in fact ACCIDENTAL. Since it was accidental, which was rarely occured, then the history should seldomly occur again. The reason for my thinking this way is that i am sugggesting and arguing that what happended in Pol Pot was meticulously calculating.

 

During Pol Pot time, a lot of big cultural terminologies/notions including "khos silak thor (wrong moral, literally translated) and "ngom nguer sa teh ra rom" (illness emotion) was culturalized. Do you think professor Kheang Vansak took some part in this cultural radicalization?

 

I thank you again for writing. I have broken my words for sending last time sees candy box but then my daughters opened the box. I hope to have sometimes to send such gifts to you.

 

Thanks

 

Kirk

 

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

I saw it. This is what diplomacy is all about!

[Kirk Tan]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Now I am totally confused. Why do I want to entitle my article "accidental" when the killing field had nothing accidental/circumstantial? GPM


On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

i am sorry for confusing you. i agree totally with you that it was not accidental. What i have in my mind, however,  is wishing you to give your readers the facts and evidence that  what had happened in Cambodia (1975-79) was calculated so well that made it seemed like no single person was accountable but a number of people and nations? But the title of the article is saying it was accidental, which it grabs your readers interests and attention. I want to learn more or was there more to learn about? Was it possible, too, that what happened was a matter of circumstance? But what theory is proving that?

 

May be i am sort of crazy for thinking that professor Kheang Vansak had something to do with Pol Pot b/c there were so many cultural words spoken during that time that i had never heard before.

 

Thank you so much,

 

Kirk

 

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:05 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Dear Kirk: I am not understanding what you are saying and what you have in mind. Would you please elaborate? I don't think what happened during Pol Pot time was accidental. Also, did you mean Prof. Keng Vannsak? What did he have to do with Pol Pot's "cultural radicalization"? Best, GPM

[Sokunthea Ok]

Dear all,

Thanks for the article. Thanks you for sharing.

Thea

Sent from my iPhone

[Kirk Tan]

Yes, it is totally confusing. Have you ever written an article on the circumstance and fact that led to the killing field or an article that suggests a myth to the killing field? As i conversed the subject of killing field with a number of friends, i noticed tensions and anger among them...not so much concerning the killing but what country and who was behind it....Ankar?

Thank you for responding professor peang-meth

Kirk 

---

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:40 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Now I am totally confused. Why do I want to entitle my article "accidental" when the killing field had nothing accidental/circumstantial? GPM


On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

i am sorry for confusing you. i agree totally with you that it was not accidental. What i have in my mind, however,  is wishing you to give your readers the facts and evidence that  what had happened in Cambodia (1975-79) was calculated so well that made it seemed like no single person was accountable but a number of people and nations? But the title of the article is saying it was accidental, which it grabs your readers interests and attention. I want to learn more or was there more to learn about? Was it possible, too, that what happened was a matter of circumstance? But what theory is proving that?

 

May be i am sort of crazy for thinking that professor Kheang Vansak had something to do with Pol Pot b/c there were so many cultural words spoken during that time that i had never heard before.

 

Thank you so much,

 

Kirk

 

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:05 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Dear Kirk: I am not understanding what you are saying and what you have in mind. Would you please elaborate? I don't think what happened during Pol Pot time was accidental. Also, did you mean Prof. Keng Vannsak? What did he have to do with Pol Pot's "cultural radicalization"? Best, GPM

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Kirk Tan]

Yes, it is totally confusing. Have you ever written an article on the circumstance and fact that led to the killing field or an article that suggests a myth to the killing field? As i conversed the subject of killing field with a number of friends, i noticed tensions and anger among them...not so much concerning the killing but what country and who was behind it....Ankar?

Thank you for responding professor peang-meth

Kirk 

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:40 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Now I am totally confused. Why do I want to entitle my article "accidental" when the killing field had nothing accidental/circumstantial? GPM


On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

i am sorry for confusing you. i agree totally with you that it was not accidental. What i have in my mind, however,  is wishing you to give your readers the facts and evidence that  what had happened in Cambodia (1975-79) was calculated so well that made it seemed like no single person was accountable but a number of people and nations? But the title of the article is saying it was accidental, which it grabs your readers interests and attention. I want to learn more or was there more to learn about? Was it possible, too, that what happened was a matter of circumstance? But what theory is proving that?

 

May be i am sort of crazy for thinking that professor Kheang Vansak had something to do with Pol Pot b/c there were so many cultural words spoken during that time that i had never heard before.

 

Thank you so much,

 

Kirk

 

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:05 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Dear Kirk: I am not understanding what you are saying and what you have in mind. Would you please elaborate? I don't think what happened during Pol Pot time was accidental. Also, did you mean Prof. Keng Vannsak? What did he have to do with Pol Pot's "cultural radicalization"? Best, GPM

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Kirk Tan]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Thank you

In summary: Pol Pot was the supreme leader. He was assisted by a group of men called Angkar. He and Angkar made policies. The policies were implemented/executed by Khmer Rouge rank and file. That's how organization functions. Of course, VN knew of the killing field. So did many other member states of the United Nations. The world's nation-states adopt foreign policies based on what their leaders perceived to be their national interests, and their national interests do not necessarily coincide with what happened with or to the Cambodian people. The sooner Khmer understand how world politics function the better. I assure you that Secretary of State Clinton did not speak with Hor Nam Hong and vice versa as seen in the photo, for her or their pleasure, her or their health. Their national interests dictated that they spoke; that's diplomacy. Khieu Samphan was one of the leaders in Angkar. Organizationally, once a policy is made, "the ship has sailed," the rank and file implement the policy. The result was 1.7 to 3 million people dead. All of them are responsible for the death of millions. You can't point a finger at one or two persons. If Prince Sihanouk and VN did not help the Khmer Rouge, the KR could not have come to power in 1975.  We can argue about the past until we all turn blue, nothing is going to change. The question is, here we are, now, today, what do we do? And that's why I have been writing endless articles. GPM
 

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you professor, have  you written an article that led to the killing field? The myth and fact the support it? VN knew of the killing field? Was the policy intended to starve and kill Khmer? A number of friends of mine made the assumption that Pol Pot was not a murderer but a true Khmer nationalist.

 

When i was growing up in Cambodia, i looked up to people like Kheav Samphan as a hero because he was able to acquire good education and study abroad. His Ph.D education, however, led Cambodia nation to severe economic and social destructions. Young Khmer should not look up to this man or should they?

 

I am a fan of culture, and i believe that many of us are capable of doing evil as well as good thing and some do it because of circumstance while others intentionally. Was the thing that led to the killing field beyond Pol Pot's control?

 

K

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:19 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Yes, I have dealt with different aspects of how the KR had come to rule Cambodia (without the then Prince Sihanouk's call on the people to join him and the KR fight the Lon Nol regime, the KR could not have come to power in April 1975), and how subsequent KR's rule and policies had resulted in up to 3 million people dead in Cambodia. VN, an ally of the KR, knew of the killing field but did nothing to prevent it until its invasion in December 1978.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, it is totally confusing. Have you ever written an article on the circumstance and fact that led to the killing field or an article that suggests a myth to the killing field? As i conversed the subject of killing field with a number of friends, i noticed tensions and anger among them...not so much concerning the killing but what country and who was behind it....Ankar?

Thank you for responding professor peang-meth

Kirk 

[Kirk Tan]

Please below 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you

That's another story.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I will try to get a copy. Thank you

We?

No one could not stop the atrocities during the time?

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Thank you

Refugees who arrived at the Khmer-Thai border in 1975 brought countless of news about mass exodus and execution. Books were written and published in 1976 and after. The most important book was "Cambodge, Anne Zero," or "Cambodia, Year Zero," by Pere Ponchaud. You might want to pick up a copy from the library to read. We knew of atrocities since 1975-1976.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Clinton did not speak with Hor Namhong...it was diplomacy

A group of men called Ankar organized thoughts and ideas that led to a policy, which were made known to VN and the UN. The policies were implemented. I was not aware that VN and the UN knew about it. Knowing and nothing about it essentially means colluding with Ankar?

Thank you for sharing your intellects and knowledge with me.

 

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Thank you

I would like to know what you have learned or re-learned.
 

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Wow, i will reread it. I feel so pleased with your summary because i have learned or perhap unlearned?

Thank you

K

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Thank you

In summary: Pol Pot was the supreme leader. He was assisted by a group of men called Angkar. He and Angkar made policies. The policies were implemented/executed by Khmer Rouge rank and file. That's how organization functions. Of course, VN knew of the killing field. So did many other member states of the United Nations. The world's nation-states adopt foreign policies based on what their leaders perceived to be their national interests, and their national interests do not necessarily coincide with what happened with or to the Cambodian people. The sooner Khmer understand how world politics function the better. I assure you that Secretary of State Clinton did not speak with Hor Nam Hong and vice versa as seen in the photo, for her or their pleasure, her or their health. Their national interests dictated that they spoke; that's diplomacy. Khieu Samphan was one of the leaders in Angkar. Organizationally, once a policy is made, "the ship has sailed," the rank and file implement the policy. The result was 1.7 to 3 million people dead. All of them are responsible for the death of millions. You can't point a finger at one or two persons. If Prince Sihanouk and VN did not help the Khmer Rouge, the KR could not have come to power in 1975.  We can argue about the past until we all turn blue, nothing is going to change. The question is, here we are, now, today, what do we do? And that's why I have been writing endless articles. GPM
 

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you professor, have  you written an article that led to the killing field? The myth and fact the support it? VN knew of the killing field? Was the policy intended to starve and kill Khmer? A number of friends of mine made the assumption that Pol Pot was not a murderer but a true Khmer nationalist.

 

When i was growing up in Cambodia, i looked up to people like Kheav Samphan as a hero because he was able to acquire good education and study abroad. His Ph.D education, however, led Cambodia nation to severe economic and social destructions. Young Khmer should not look up to this man or should they?

 

I am a fan of culture, and i believe that many of us are capable of doing evil as well as good thing and some do it because of circumstance while others intentionally. Was the thing that led to the killing field beyond Pol Pot's control?

 

K

From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <pean...@gmail.com>
To: Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:19 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Hor Namhong speaks with Clinton on 2/20/12

Yes, I have dealt with different aspects of how the KR had come to rule Cambodia (without the then Prince Sihanouk's call on the people to join him and the KR fight the Lon Nol regime, the KR could not have come to power in April 1975), and how subsequent KR's rule and policies had resulted in up to 3 million people dead in Cambodia. VN, an ally of the KR, knew of the killing field but did nothing to prevent it until its invasion in December 1978.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Kirk Tan <kirk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, it is totally confusing. Have you ever written an article on the circumstance and fact that led to the killing field or an article that suggests a myth to the killing field? As i conversed the subject of killing field with a number of friends, i noticed tensions and anger among them...not so much concerning the killing but what country and who was behind it....Ankar?

Thank you for responding professor peang-meth

Kirk