Posted by Oliver Kamm on February 25, 2009 in UK media
John Pilger, at Comment is Free, writes of British policy towards Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge:
'In 1983, the Thatcher government sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in landmine technology - in a country more seeded with mines than anywhere except Afghanistan. "I confirm," Thatcher wrote to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the Major government was forced to admit to parliament that the SAS had been secretly training the "coalition".'
It's worth noting, as Pilger does not, what happened after the television broadcast of his 1990 film "Cambodia: The Betrayal", which alleged that the SAS had given training to the remnant Khmer Rouge. I quote from The Times, 6 July 1991:
'TWO men who claimed that a television documentary accused them of being SAS members who trained Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge to lay mines, accepted "very substantial'' libel damages in the High Court yesterday. Christopher Geidt and Anthony De Normann settled their action against the journalist John Pilger and Central Television on the third day of the hearing. Their counsel, Geoffrey Shaw, QC, said the terms provided substantial damages with all costs.
'Desmond Browne, QC, for Mr Pilger and Central Television, said his clients had not intended to allege the two men trained the Khmer Rouge to lay mines, but they accepted that was how the programme had been understood.'
The statement Pilger's QC read out was this: "The defendants now accept that neither plaintiff has ever trained Khmer Rouge or any other guerrillas and particularly not in mine-laying or any other military techniques which would be directed against civilians. Neither plaintiff would ever contemplate any such thing and would refuse to do it if ordered."
Pilger had written an impassioned letter to The Sunday Times, published on 10 March 1991, in which he preposterously claimed the newspaper's own reporting in his support, and added:
'You also mentioned a libel action against Central Television and myself by two former members of the SAS named in the film. Not only is this action being vigorously defended, but further extensive and independent investigation has provided vital new evidence that goes to the heart of Britain's role in Cambodia. Suffice to say that the film was 100% accurate, and that SAS personnel have been involved in training interrogation units.'
As the newspaper aptly commented:
'This is a classic Pilgerism. Mr Pilger alleged in his film that the British government had been covertly assisting the Khmer Rouge. In fact, our article confirmed no such thing. It reported that the government was helping to train two other Cambodian guerrilla groups. It is possible the Khmer Rouge may have benefited indirectly from this aid, but we did not allege this was the intention of the government, as Mr Pilger claims. We still find there is insufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations.'
This was, by the way, also the extent of what John Major "was forced to admit to Parliament" in 1991. There was no evidence at the time, and none has emerged since, that Britain allied diplomatically with the Khmer Rouge, let alone provided it with military training.
I've briefly summarised here Pilger's contribution to investigative reporting.
John Pilger, at Comment is Free, writes of British policy towards Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge:
'In 1983, the Thatcher government sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in landmine technology - in a country more seeded with mines than anywhere except Afghanistan. "I confirm," Thatcher wrote to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the Major government was forced to admit to parliament that the SAS had been secretly training the "coalition".'
It's worth noting, as Pilger does not, what happened after the television broadcast of his 1990 film "Cambodia: The Betrayal", which alleged that the SAS had given training to the remnant Khmer Rouge. I quote from The Times, 6 July 1991:
'TWO men who claimed that a television documentary accused them of being SAS members who trained Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge to lay mines, accepted "very substantial'' libel damages in the High Court yesterday. Christopher Geidt and Anthony De Normann settled their action against the journalist John Pilger and Central Television on the third day of the hearing. Their counsel, Geoffrey Shaw, QC, said the terms provided substantial damages with all costs.
'Desmond Browne, QC, for Mr Pilger and Central Television, said his clients had not intended to allege the two men trained the Khmer Rouge to lay mines, but they accepted that was how the programme had been understood.'
The statement Pilger's QC read out was this: "The defendants now accept that neither plaintiff has ever trained Khmer Rouge or any other guerrillas and particularly not in mine-laying or any other military techniques which would be directed against civilians. Neither plaintiff would ever contemplate any such thing and would refuse to do it if ordered."
Pilger had written an impassioned letter to The Sunday Times, published on 10 March 1991, in which he preposterously claimed the newspaper's own reporting in his support, and added:
'You also mentioned a libel action against Central Television and myself by two former members of the SAS named in the film. Not only is this action being vigorously defended, but further extensive and independent investigation has provided vital new evidence that goes to the heart of Britain's role in Cambodia. Suffice to say that the film was 100% accurate, and that SAS personnel have been involved in training interrogation units.'
As the newspaper aptly commented:
'This is a classic Pilgerism. Mr Pilger alleged in his film that the British government had been covertly assisting the Khmer Rouge. In fact, our article confirmed no such thing. It reported that the government was helping to train two other Cambodian guerrilla groups. It is possible the Khmer Rouge may have benefited indirectly from this aid, but we did not allege this was the intention of the government, as Mr Pilger claims. We still find there is insufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations.'
This was, by the way, also the extent of what John Major "was forced to admit to Parliament" in 1991. There was no evidence at the time, and none has emerged since, that Britain allied diplomatically with the Khmer Rouge, let alone provided it with military training.
I've briefly summarised here Pilger's contribution to investigative reporting.
1 comment:
I've been trying to find out the facts of this particular debate, and it seems that the particular issue of contention revolves around whether the factions that Britain trained were connected with the Khmer Rouge. Pilger goes one step further and alleges that the groups were largely overlapping with the KR. What is not under dispute is that Britain was giving military aid to groups in Thailand and allegedly Malaysia with the express intention of toppling the government of Cambodia. So it may well constitute a crime anyway, but it is at least worthy of discussion. One problem I do have with this article by Oliver Kamm is that Kamm himself is a blatant liar. The following links should demonstrate these points. Thanks!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KB19Ae01.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gqK7IwQEJbQC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=%22I+confirm+that+there+is+no+British+government+involvement+of+any+kind+in+training,+equipping+or+co-operating+with+Khmer+Rouge+forces+or+those+allied+to+them.%22&source=bl&ots=RzTM7wdP-R&sig=0pM--e0zLIO1jy_lSuV48ZyhhbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-eaiT9y3GMzs-gaVkaTzCA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22I%20confirm%20that%20there%20is%20no%20British%20government%20involvement%20of%20any%20kind%20in%20training%2C%20equipping%20or%20co-operating%20with%20Khmer%20Rouge%20forces%20or%20those%20allied%20to%20them.%22&f=false
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/03/the-kamm-scam/
Post a Comment