A Change of Guard

សូមស្តាប់វិទ្យុសង្គ្រោះជាតិ Please read more Khmer news and listen to CNRP Radio at National Rescue Party. សូមស្តាប់វីទ្យុខ្មែរប៉ុស្តិ៍/Khmer Post Radio.
Follow Khmerization on Facebook/តាមដានខ្មែរូបនីយកម្មតាម Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/khmerization.khmerican

Sunday, 22 June 2014

Koh Tral: Is it a Cambodian or a Vietnamese island?


The above is the 1820-1829 John Crawfurd's map of Cochin China showing Koh Tral, which was written as "Koh Dral". So it was a Khmer island back in 1820. According to Bora Touch, Crawfurd's predecessor, Alexander Hamilton, who visited Banteay Meas 

(Hatien) in Cambodia in 1718, called the island "Quadrol" (Koh 

Tral) in his published account of his journey (A New Account of the 

East Indies: Giving an Exact and Copious.....Vol 2, p206).

By Khmerization
19th June 2014

Recently, the Diplomat website has published an article by Jeff Mudrick titled “Cambodia’s ImpossibleDreams: Koh Tral” which he argued unequivocally that historically Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) belongs to Vietnam.
I intend to write this article in an attempt to put the historical context of Koh Tral from the Cambodian perspective.

The Origin of the Vietnamese people

The first Vietnamese state was known in Vietnamese as Văn Lang, which existed in 2879 BC and which was situated in Red River Valley that flows from the southern Chinese province of Yunan to the Gulf of Tonkin near Hanoi. It was a vassal state of China and existed under Chinese domination for over 1000 years.
In AD 938, the Vietnamese lord Ngô Quyền defeated the forces of the Chinese Southern Han state at Bạch Đằng River and achieved full independence for Vietnam after a millennium of Chinese domination and the country was renamed as Đại Việt (Great Viet).

Vietnam’s Southward Expansion

Between the 11th and 18th centuries, Vietnam expanded southward in a process known as nam tiến ("southward expansion"), eventually conquering the kingdom of Champa, which situates in central Vietnam near the imperial city of Hue. After conquering Champa, Vietnam moved to conquer part of the Khmer Empire, known as Kampuchea Krom which controls Koh Tral, an area stretches from Saigon down to the Gulf of Thailand.
Vietnam’s annexation of Champa in early 10th century was done through a royal marriage of Princess Huyen Tran, the daughter of King Tran Anh Trong (1293-1314) to the King of Champa as a trap to annex the Cham territory. Through this marriage, Vietnam had achieved its complete annexation of Champa in 1673.
After its complete annexation of Champa, Vietnam then began its campaign of annexation of Khmer provinces in today’s southern Vietnam, in an area stretching from Saigon downward to the Gulf of Thailand in 1623. Vietnam’s annexation of the 21 provinces of Kampuchea Krom was only completed in the 1860s.
Vietnam’s annexation of Cambodian southern territory began in 1620 because Khmer King Chey Chetha II (1618-1628) had fallen into a similar trap of Vietnam as that of the king of Champa in 1307. The warlord Nguyen Hi Tong (1613-1635) presented his daughter, Princess Ngoc Van, to Khmer King Chey Chetha II in exchange for territorial and commercial interests. Through the princess' intervention in 1623, the Cambodian Court of Udong gave permission for the Vietnamese to conduct trade in Morea (Baria) and Prey Nokor, which was later changed its name to Saigon. According to some historians, the Vietnamese Court of Hue only asked to use certain areas in Prey Nokor to train their militaries for wars against the Chinese and that they would be returned to the Khmer authority in 5 years after the war with the Chinese was over. But after the death of King Chey Chetha II in 1628, the areas of Prey Nokor, Morea, Do Nai, and Toul Ta Mauk were flooded with the Vietnamese warlords. Other provinces subsequently fell to Vietnam: Kampong Srakartrey (Bienhoa) in 1651; Prah Suakea or Morea (Baria) in 1651; Kampong Kou (Long An) in 1669; Tuol Ta Mauk in 1696; Kampong Krabey Prei Nokor (Saigon) in 1696.

In 18th century, Mac Cuu, a Chinese merchant, received a permission from Khmer King Ang Eum (1710-22) to control the Kampuchea Krom provinces of Peam (Hatien), Kramounsar (Rach Gia) and Koh Tral ( Phu Quoc island ) in 1722. The provinces of Mesar (My Tho), Kampong Reussey (Ben Tre), Koh Gong (Gocong) and Peam Ba-rach ( Long Xuyen) were lost to Vietnam in 1732. Phsar Dek (Sadec), Long Ho (Vinh Long), Mot Chrouk (Chaudoc) in 1757, Raung Damrey (Tay Ninh) in 1770, Prek Reussey (Can Tho) in 1758. The provinces of Preah Trapeang (Tra Vinh), Khleang ( Soc Trang), Pol Leav (Bac Lieu), and Teuk Khmao (Ca Mau) were seized in 1775 and until 18th century the whole 21 provinces of Kampuchea Krom were in total control of Vietnam in 1840.

Koh Tral: Whose island is it anyway?

Reading the above history of Vietnam’s existence and its expansionistic annexations, one has the impression that, geographically, legally and historically, Koh Tral does not belong to Vietnam, but to Cambodia.
There are other evidences which proved Koh Tral belongs to Cambodia. Pottery display in Phu Quoc (Koh Tral) Museum, which were unearthed from the ruined Khmer port of Oc Eo (O’Keo in Khmer which means “precious canal”) in the Mekong Delta region, which was referred to as the Oc Eo period (1st -7th century AD), suggests at least a proto-Khmer presence since the 1st century AD. In the 1st century AD, Vietnam only controlled the areas around Hanoi and the Gulf of Tonkin – nowhere near Koh Tral which situated thousands of miles from Hanoi to the south. On the other hand, during this same period Cambodia controlled the areas stretching from present day Saigon (known in Khmer as “Prey Nokor”) to Gulf of Thailand. Cambodia continues to control Kampuchea Krom (southern part of Vietnam) until the late 19th century - until 1840 to be exact. Koh Tral, then and now, situates only 15km from the Cambodian coastal town of Kep and Kampot – a physical evidence that proved that Koh Tral belongs to Cambodia since the 1st century until now.

Cambodia’s control of Koh Tral

According to Sydney-based lawyer Bora Touch, Cambodia’s rule over Khmer Krom lands, and eventually Koh Tral, dates back many centuries. Mr. Bora Touch stated that a Cambodian Constitution, known as "Kram Srok", which was promulgated in 1615 (Grand Era 1693) under His Majesty Chey Cheystha Reamea Eysaur, clearly lists Khmer Krom provinces, which had control over Koh Tral, and their governors and titles. He went on to state that a French official cartographer, in documenting the region in a map dated 1686, designated delta territories and Koh Tral as parts of Cambodia. He also states that British official cartographer John Crawfurd did also put Kampuchea Krom and Koh Tral under Cambodia’s rule in 1828. In the 1820-1829 Crawfurd's map of Cochin China, Koh Tral was written as "Koh Dral". According to Bora Touch, Crawfurd's predecessor, Alexander Hamilton, who visited Banteay Meas (Hatien) in Cambodia in 1718, called the island "Quadrole" (Koh Tral) in his published account of his journey (A New Account of the East Indies: Giving an Exact and Copious.....Vol 2, p206).
Mr. Bora Touch went on to say that in an internal British official memorandum dated 1778 sent to Governor-General Hastings, Charles Chapman, a British envoy to Cochin China, rightly advised Hastings that “Donai...is properly a province of Cambodia” (J.I.A.E. & A. Vol. 5, 1852). When the French arrived in the late 19th century, Cambodia’s front line was at the Vinh Te Canal, and the delta region up to Dong Nai province still appeared on Southeast Asian maps as a part of Cambodia.
Mr. Bora Touch also claimed that British East India envoy John Crawfurd’s 1828 map of the area is cited by some as evidence of Phu Quoc (Koh Tral) being part of Cambodia rather than Cochin China.

Cambodia’s continuous claims over Koh Tral

Cambodia has consistently laid claims to Koh Tral for over 150 years.
The first claims was in 1856 when King Ang Duong secretly contacted the French Emperor Napoleon III through a French Missionary (Monseigneur Miche), to warn the emperor not to accept the territory of Kampuchea Krom which the Annamite king might offer to him under a colonial rule. King Ang Duong lists the Khmer regions in Annamite hands: the DONAI province was lost 200 years ago but Saigon, Long Ho, Phsar Dek, Mesar, Preah Trapeang, Bassac, Mot Chrouk, Kramounsar,Teuk khmao,Peam, Koh Tral, Tralach. He added: "by chance, if the Annamite would offer any of these lands to yours Majesty, I beg you not to accept them because it belongs to Cambodia".

In 1858, Napoleon III ordered Admiral Doudard De La Grandiere to follow through with King Ang Duong’s request. King Ang Duong died before his request had been followed through. In 1864 King Norodom, King Ang Duong’s son who had just assumed the throne, went to see Grandiere again in Saigon, La Grandiere promise as requested. However, in 1867 a Khmer movement, which was supported by the Vietnamese, demanded Cochin China's independence, So La Grandiere had broken his promise with King Norodom.


The Chronology of Cambodia’s continuous claims over Koh Tral

# 1856: King Ang Duong apprise Mr. de Montigny, French envoy in visit to Bangkok, through the intermediary of Bishop Miche, his intention to yield Koh Tral to France (cf. “The Second [French] Empire of IndoChina”).

# 1863: Establishing the Protectorate of Cambodia, France annexed Kampuchea Krom, made a French colony out of it, and named it “Cochinchine”.

# May 25, 1874: Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) which belonged to Cambodia (under the reign of King Ang Duong) was placed under the administration of the Governor of Cochinchina, i.e. under the administration of France, by the French Protectorate.

# June 16, 1875: Koh Tral is attached to the inspection district of Hatien which was colonized by France. One needs to recall that in 1855, King Ang Duong reminded Napoleon III [first French President (1948-1852), later French Emperor (1852-1870)] that “the territories annexed by Vietnam located between the Western 
branch of the Mekong [River] and the Gulf of Siam (Hatien area) were “actually Cambodian land” (cf. A. Dolphin-Dauphin-Meunier – “History of Cambodia”, pg. 99). Therefore, Koh Tral always remains a Cambodian island, even though it is under the administration of colonial France.

# January 31, 1939: the “Brévié Line” which is not a maritime border demarcation, but rather a line dividing the police and administrative authority “on the islands along the Gulf of Siam” [was established]. By this act, Koh Tral was placed, as it did in 1875, under the French colonial administration of Cochin-Chine. Brévié himself specified that “the territorial dependence of these islands (including that of Phu Quoc) remains entirely reserved”.

# June 04, 1949: In spite of Cambodian protests and the Deferre Motion [the Deferre Motion has been part of the Bill of Transfer of French Cochinchine to Vietnam which spelled out specific rights of the Khmer Krom people], France voted a law allowing the 
attachment of the Cochinchinese territory (Khmer territory) to Vietnam.

# April 24, 1954: at the Geneva Conference, Cambodia still continued to protest against the unjust and uneven transfer of her Cochin-Chinese lands to Vietnam by France, and reserved her right to litigate the case at the United Nations.

# June 07, 1957: Norodom Sihanouk, President of the Council of Ministers, requested in a letter to Lon Nol, then National Defense Minister, to ensure the protection of all islands located along the Gulf of Siam (thus also including Koh Tral), and in particular, the group of islands of Poulo-Pangjang (Khmer name: Koh Krachak Ses; Vietnamese name: Tho Chu), Koh PouloWai (Khmer name: Koh Ach Ses) and Koh Tang.

# December 30, 1957: In his Kret regarding the delimitation of the Cambodian continental shelf, King Norodom Suramarit clearly reaffirmed that Cambodia reserved her retention on her historical rights to Koh Tral (cf. Article 6 of the Kret).

# 1963: In 
the book “Cambodia Geography” published in 1963 by Tan Kim Huon, a Khmer scholar who was also an agricultural engineer and forestry expert, [he indicated that] Koh Tral is indeed a Cambodian island (cf. maps no. 3, 12, and 19).

# 1969: Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) is included in the official list of Cambodian islands published by the Industry and 
Mineral Resources Ministry, and was numbered 61 (on a total of 64 islands).

# July 01, 1972: Following the July 1, 1972 Kret, the Khmer Republic Government maintains its reaffirmation of its sovereignty on its continental shelf and warns oil companies
 against [potential] consequences of any of their actions undertaken in this zone. Koh Tral still remains Cambodian.

# 1975 to End of 1978: Status quo.

# July 07, 1982: Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) and Poulo-Pangjang (Tho Chu) appear in the Vietnamese territory, on a map attached to the “Treaty on the Historical Water Zone between the Popular Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam”.

The Reality on the Ground

In 1975, the Khmer Rouge briefly occupied the island which found no substantial Vietnamese presence on the island. After Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1979, the invading Vietnamese army had populated the island with ethnic Vietnamese that reached 85,000 inhabitants today.
The Hun Sen government’s affirmation of Vietnamese sovereignty over the island in their 1982 and 1985 border agreements with Vietnam is in contravention of international law. Even the treaty was ratified by the Cambodian parliament and King Sihamoni in 2005 under the so-called Supplemental Treaty, the original treaties were signed with Vietnam as the occupier and Cambodia as the occupied and the king ratified it under coercion by Mr. Hun Sen, who was installed by the Vietnamese occupying forces. Both these treaties are null and void under the terms of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement as they were signed while Cambodia was occupied by Vietnamese military forces.
The last episode of Kampuchea Krom tragedy took place when the French colonial power ceded the territory to Vietnam on 4th June 1949. Kampuchea Krom, and effectively Koh Tral, was then incorporated into Vietnam, instead of Cambodia, in 1954.
Cambodia’s dreams of reclaiming of the island might be impossible. However, geographically, historically and legally Koh Tral was and still is a Cambodian island because it was ceded to Vietnam by Cambodia’s colonial power against international law and amid Cambodia’s repeated protests.

References:

218 comments:

1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

This is a detailed history showing that Koh Tral belongs to Cambodia. It is also written by a Cambodian in response to Jeff Mudrick's article about the island that put Vietnam as the owner of the island. Mudrick is known as a Vietnam supporter and he loves everything Vietnamese and that's why his article is biased toward Vietnam. By history, Koh Tral is a Cambodian island. Thanks for this article.

Anonymous said...

Koh Trol is always belong to Cambodia the same as Kampuchea Krom land. The French gave all to Vietnam after WW II because the Viet soldiers helping the French fighting against the Nazi Germany (Watch WWI + WWII)
Cambodia needs to claim Koh TRol and Kampuchea back from Vietnam.
Bulgary was under Turkish over 500 years now Bulgary is a free country, why not Koh Trol and Kampuchea Krom?

Anonymous said...

Koh Trol is always belong to Cambodia the same as Kampuchea Krom land. The French gave all to Vietnam after WW II because the Viet soldiers helping the French fighting against the Nazi Germany (Watch WWI + WWII)
Cambodia needs to claim Koh TRol and Kampuchea back from Vietnam.
Bulgary was under Turkish over 500 years now Bulgary is a free country, why not Koh Trol and Kampuchea Krom?

Anonymous said...

Stop asking so stupid. It is belong to Khmer long time ago.

Anonymous said...

យួនគេយកបាន គឺគេយកដោយមិនខ្វល់ ព្រោះគេមានសាច់ដុំធំជាងខ្មែរ ដល់ចិនគេយកបានគឺគេយកដែរ ព្រោះគេមានសាច់ដធំជាងយួន គឺអាធំវាស៊ីអាតូចអញ្ចឹង ហើយច្បាស់ជាគ្មានអ្នកណាជួយដោះស្រាយទេ មើលចុះ នៅក្នុងស្រុកក៍អាអ្នក់ធំយកដីអ្នក់តូចតាចរាប់មិនអស់ តើអ្វីទៅដែលថាយុត្តិធម៌នោះ ដូចគ្មានទេ ។តើពិភពលោកមួយណាកេឈឺក្បាលពីរឿងនេះ បើរដ្ឋាភិបាលខ្មែរគេមិនខ្វល់ផងនោះ។

Anonymous said...

Who Jeff Mudrick titled ? Is He Vietnamese or French? He may on the wrong side who steal everything from our ancestors,vietnam just stay in this region for 2 century only ,they theirs tactic how to take our land never stop , in front of us they are doing good but they their knifes behind their back ,this is vietnam way and they use the women to serve their politics too mostly french got killed by viet women even french general who was control indochinese colonial ,so viet girls can their politic brighter and acceptable known around the world so quick specially white man in western.

Anonymous said...

This traitor Khmer prime minister is an 8 grade student , event can't read french correctly how can he know all about Khmer history from the french colonial . All some thing he said is dictate by our enemy Youn expert and his cronies . Khmer youth need to stand up altogether to get rid these traitor and his cronies Viet slave and brave to do all you can learn more about our past , just don't let the enemy Yuon swallow our land and country . Please raise up as you can destroy this bastard slave Khmer administration now , you can't wait any longer .

Anonymous said...

Most of this is simply cut and pasted from Bora Touch's writings, all of which I have read. It would be useful to if you actually addressed my comments in the article about his position rather than simply restate that position. A small but important detail, for example is the fact that in 1964 Sihanouk accepted the Brevie line, which was agreed to by Vietnam in 1967. See Bora Touch letters to Sihanouk. Also the claim about the Crawfurd map is mistaken, all you have to do is look at it. No territorial boundaries and the name Koh Tral does not even appear (Phu Quoc does). Jeff

Anonymous said...

I am American. Perhaps you should care more about my arguments in the article than where I was born. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Why don't you directly address the points made in the article? What you have posted contains no new information and I'm sure most readers are already familiar with it. My article addresses why the historical record you cite is insufficient to support a claim if it ever got to ICJ. . Jeff

Anonymous said...

Can this author Maria Strasakova's article be uploaded?

Paper 4: Phu Quoc (Koh Tral): a Bone of Contention in Vietnam-Cambodia Relations?
Maria Strasakova
Metropolitan University Prague
strasakova@mup.cz
Phu Quoc (Koh Tral) is the largest island in the South China Sea; nonetheless most of the attention of the ASEAN member states has been focused on the Paracel and Spratly island dispute. However, on 2 September 2012 in the run up for the July 2013 Cambodian general election, Kem Sokha, the opposition leader to Hun Sen´s ruling Cambodian People´s Party brought the issue of Phu Quoc to the fore again by pledging to return the island to Cambodia. In spite of stressing a resolution through legal and peaceful means, he uncovered a dormant wound in the historically asymmetrical (and traditionally distrustful) relationship of Cambodia and Vietnam. Furthermore, he unleashed a heated domestic debate, in which Hun Sen was accused by the opposition leaders of being responsible for relinquishing the island to the Vietnamese. The objective of this paper is to first analyze the history of the Phu Quoc territorial dispute dating back to the infamous Brévié Line demarcated by the French colonial rule. Secondly, the aim is to seek an answer to what extent is the dispute over Phu Quoc “an anachronistic political debate” (quoting historian Henri Locard) or a political calculation of Cambodian parties (especially Cambodian National Rescue Party) in their quest for power and public support through stirring strong nationalist feelings against the Vietnamese. Thirdly, the paper seeks to investigate the main turning points in the attempts of both the countries to resolve this sensitive issue as well as prospects for future development and resolution of the dispute.
http://projectsoutheastasia.com/academic-events/sea-symposium-2014/panels/unresolved-border-disputes-strasakova

Anonymous said...

I am in contact with Ms. Strasakova, the paper is not yet finished. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Pay no attention to that evil minded back-stabbing maggot Jeff Mudrick. If there is no written name of Koh Tral on maps, then why the f*ck on the Cambodian maps there is the name of Koh Tral in the Khmer language? Why the f*ck the Khmer King used the name Koh Tral in his letter addressed to the French King? Why the f*ck the Khmer geography books include the name Koh Tral for the students to learn and memorize? Does this Jeff the maggot ever see the Khmer names of the Kampuchea Krom territory on the French made maps? The foreigners made the f*cking maps and thus they used whatever names they chose. Similarly, the foreigners use the Khmer term of Siem to identify the "Thais", but not Thai. In fact even the entire country was called by the Khmer term "Siam". So does that mean that the Khmer own the land of the Thais then? What a retarded freak, that despicable Jeff really is. He is an evil man rotten to the core and he is out to hurt the Cambodians in general. The fact that he chooses to take side of the land-grabbing Vietnamese thieves against the Cambodian victims say it all already. His article should be printed out and converted into toilette tissue instead.

Anonymous said...

A charming. response but my comment clearly referred only to the Crawfurd map referenced in the OP. Thanks. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Jeff ,you should learn more history better judge anything by yourself,you accepted if some ones come from some where else take your property that belong to you,if the world has law to require any countries has to limit how far dip the sore to the sea and who has the island closer than will belong to that country,not even you use your power to take others land or countries,like vietnam the past that a small group they were from south china and invade champa,south cambodia and they still expand more an more,they make in south east asia get war never known about peace because they're communist,you may not know communist plus a bad mind people they never want any nation have peace and freedom like al-qaeda so please learn more about situation and historical.

Anonymous said...

Here is the detail of the 1821 Crawfurd map mentioned in the OP. As you can see only the Vietnamese and Thai names for the island appear. Jeff https://www.dropbox.com/s/08gumsax8py5649/_20140620_091910.JPG

Anonymous said...

I have spent more than 20 years studying the history, thank you. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff, I really enjoy reading your retarded “understanding” of what Khmer really is. Here it is one more time: Koh Tral was not Khmer even if it was very close to the Khmer Empire but it was the Vietnamese who discovered it first. WTF! LOL. Koh Tral was not Khmer because according to most intelligent world-famous Vietnamese historian Nguyen Dinh Dau, Phu Quoc had NO settlement at the beginning and it was neither Viet nor Khmer. WTH? LOL. Koh Tral was not Khmer because according to the sign posted at Phu Quoc Museum, the word “Khmer” does not appear at the Phu Quoc Heritage Museum, only Oc-Eo and Southern Vietnamese are specifically mentioned. Once again WTF! Hey Jeff, you expect the territory-grabbing Vietnamese thieves to mention the Khmer on the property they stole from the Khmer? I guess you were just born yesterday, you stupid fool. Hey Jeff the jerk, since you claim to be a researcher and sh*t, you must know that Koh Tral and other islands and Kampuchea Krom and Cambodia were all part of the Kingdom of Funan or the Oc-Eo (O’Keo) Culture. Don’t be so stupid. Those are all facts. Japanese archeologists found that the Cambodian culture found in the territory of Cambodia (which was formerly part of Funan) is dated back to the 1st century A.D. So yes the Khmer have been here at least 2,000 + years. From now on, you will known among the Khmer as simply “j”eff the FOOL!

Anonymous said...

Yes I'm aware of all that thanks. The article addresses whether there is a case under international law not whether Khmer settled there in the Oc Eo period, I acknowledge that they did. Thanks. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Hey you guys, what do you think of Jeff Mudrick as a person?

1. In general Caucasians consider eating dog meat as food as immoral and barbarous. 2) Jeff Mudrick is a Caucasian who enjoys eating Vietnamese culinary cuisine of dog meat. 3) So what does that make you think of Jeff's personality as a human?

1) In general moral people defend the victims from the crime perpetrators. 2) The Vietnamese are well-known from past the present to be criminals of the Khmer territory and properties (TIME Magazine). 3) Jeff Mudrick always defends the Vietnamese criminals against the Cambodian victims, so what do you see him as a human being?

In America, the lakes are not allowed any human settlement on them. In Cambodia, illegal Vietnamese settlers settle on the lake and pollute it big time. Scientific study carried out shows that the lake is heavily polluted by the Viets. Jeff Mudrick argues that the Viets have the right to be there because they are the most hardworking world-renown people on the entire planet at catching fish when the Cambodians fail to catch any. Jeff said that the Vietnamese start out a second, if they don't catch any fish they would persevere until the earth blow up just to catch a tiny baby fish. If the Vietnamese are so hardworking at catching the Khmer fish from the Khmer lake, so why the f*ck they have more people than the Khmer? LOL! That is Jeff Mudrick's logic. Also, Jeff Mudrick enjoys eating Vietnamese caught fish because it is loaded with mercury. Jeff said that mercury has made him the man he is today. EWWWW!

Anonymous said...

You have way too much time on your hands. And are obviously incapable of addressing the substance of the article. Shame that.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff Mudrick, you keep bringing up the Falkland Islands dispute between Britain and Argentina as a comparison base to Koh Tral. However, the world knows that the dissimilarities are so so great that it defies logic itself. Cambodia is not an occupying nation of other nation's territory. However, the Vietnam, Britain, and Argentina are all occupying, colonizing countries. Since you are such a researcher, have you ever read up on what the Thais had to say against the Khmer people in order to wrestle the Khmer created Temple of Preah Vihear from the Khmer? According to the Thai scholars, the Khmer were all wiped out and chased out of Southeast Asia back to India already. According to the Thai scholars, the present-day people called "Cambodians" were part of the Thai race. Can you believe this sh*t coming from the misguided Thai academics? The Thais scholars also claimed that the Preah Vihear Temple was even built by the Thais themselves. LOL! The Thais were sure to win the claim over the temple, but luckily for Cambodians, the justice was much bitter to taste for the Thais. This all happened in the 60's. Now in the 2000's, we have Jeff Mudrick to want to repeat the same line of reasoning of the Thais against the Khmer people. So do it, Jeff Mudrick. Tell your Vietnamese to confront the Cambodian in the world court to end the Cambodian claim once and for all. I would like to see the outcome! Yeah and God Bless Cambodia and Cambodians for all eternity! DOWN to all lying immoral back-stabbing dawgs.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, the only substance in your article is that you are a shameless LIAR and a defender of Vietnamese criminals.You are not a civilized person with rules and code of conduct. You are a brute and a bully who use English skills to mock and make fun of Cambodians and to encourage to steal more land from the remaining Cambodian territory. Your action/writing energizes the Vietnamese to keep on stealing more of the Khmer territory because you will continue to defend their immoral acts. You trade your good sense and humanity for the Vietnamese barbecued dog meat, and MSG infested Pho noodles, and Vietnamese spring rolls stuff with earthworms, and stinky fish sauce to enhance your already rotten mouth.

Anonymous said...

The Falklands?? Why I don't talk about that at all here. What is relevant about the Falklands is that the ICJ is concerned about the rights to self determination of its overwhelmingly British population, just as they would re the 99% Vietnamese residents of Koh Tral. The Vietnamese don't need to go to "the world court" (whatever that is) to prove anything as they already control Koh Tral. The burden of proof is on Cambodia to take it away from them and I don't believe Cambodia has a winning case. perhaps Sihanouk didn't either. Why Preah Vihear in 1962 but never Koh Tral?

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, perhaps you don't live in Cambodia as I do, last I checked MSG was one of the Khmer's basic food groups. So you can call me a liar (easy when you are anonymous) but cannot point to any lies. Interesting and rather telling about the state of your knowledge. Jeff

Anonymous said...

And you're ragging on fish sauce as well? That's a hoot. Ever been to Cambodia?

Anonymous said...

Jeff the bully, when will you sh*t the f*ck up already! Khmer don't invent MSG, you freak. That is one of the Vietnamese addiction trying to pollute the Khmer natural food. In addition, you are one lost soul when it comes to know what various food groups are, you fool! There's the protein group, the calcium group, the carbohydrate group, and the vitamins group (fruits/vegetables). MSG is never a member of the food group, you fool. First you argue that when was the last time the State of Cambodia had the ownership of the Koh Tral. The answer was simply always since the first Khmer settlement of the island over 2000 years ago. When the Khmer Rouge captured the island in 1975, there were Khmer people there also. Even you yourself in your research show that there are Khmer people living on the island as of now. Could the Vietnamese settlers kill off the Khmer people living on Koh Tral? What do you think? Even in Kampuchea Krom, the Vietnamese killed numerous Khmer Krom people there based on evidence. Vietnamese also killed off and chased off the English agents who found a settlement on another Khmer island called Koh Tralach. So what do you say to that? But that is not important, Jeff the fool! The fact of the matter is that Cambodia has continuous claim until now. You don't believe me, why do you think Vietnam had to force the Hun Sen government to sign the treaty to renounce the right to Koh Tral. If according to you, Jeff the fool, that Vietnam already have the ownership of the island, why did they have to force Hun Sen to sign away the island to the Vietnamese? In addition, according to your logic once the Vietnamese have the possession of the territory or island, that means it belongs to the Vietnam. That is stupidity on your part. Vietnamese already have the control of the State of Lao. You have been there, haven't you!!! The Vietnamese flags are all over the place and the Vietnamese are all over the Lao people. However, legally, you can't just say that Lao is part of Vietnam. It is not right and bad! You also talked glowing about Hun Sen's acknowledgement of the loss of Koh Tral to the Vietnamese. Hun Sen's statements are all wrong. Hun Sen said that the reason Cambodia lost Koh Tral because King Sihanouk deposited Cambodia's map at the United Nations recognizing the Brevie Line. That is wrong! Hun Sen was also wrong at many levels as well. He said that Brevie detached Koh Tral from Cambodia and gave it to Vietnam since 1939. That is also false. Since you defend the Viet thieves, you are wordy naturally. The Cambodians have solid facts and evidence to reclaim the island. The question of getting the island back from the Vietnamese is never an issue. There are numerous ways to do it. The world court (in case you don't know) will consider the border treaty of 1982 resulting the loss of Koh Tral Vietnam while Cambodia was under the Vietnamese military occupation. In addition, the world court will consider the status of colonial status of the island itself since the French neither cede it to Vietnam nor Cambodia. Vietnam, unlike you, has been aware of this fact and that is why Hun Sen was forced to signed the illegal border treaty. Until now Cambodia's political factions still claim Koh Tral as part of Cambodia. So the claim is still continuous. Your wordiness does not change those two facts mentioned above.

Anonymous said...

Those treaties mostly had to do with territorial waters and other border issues. On this subject your friend lawyer Bora Touch argues that Vietnamese 1967 acceptance of Sihanouk's 1964 proposal, which accepted the Brevie Line would be determinative in the event the 1980s treaties were nullified. Thus the Viets would keep Koh Tral though with more restricted waters. Bora Touch argues that it is through UN decolonization that Cambodia would get back Koh Tral, a point about which he and I disagree. If you don't understand the significance of this I suggest you make an effort to do so. Jeff

Anonymous said...

My article specifically address the issue of continuous claim. Why don't you show me where I'm wrong on the facts?

Anonymous said...

MSG is of course Japanese. Khmers love it though, not being in Cambodia you might not appreciate that.

Anonymous said...

Jeff Mudrick's thinking still stinks. British colonizers vs Argentinian colonizers is not ever related to the Khmer people who are natives of the islands. White settlers have been recorded to killed off the island natives (I am sure you are aware of this fact since you claim to be a researcher), thus the hateful Vietnamese colonists were not hesitant to kill off the Khmer inhabitants on the Koh Tral.

According to you, the viets "control Koh Tral", didn't they also CONTROL CAMBODIA before too? What do you have to say to that? In Cambodia, the Vietnam only administers Koh Tral, not controlling it. The independence of the island is yet to be decided by the world court. Your thinking has diverged from the Khmer collective view. So you are already an outcast. You say you "don't believe" that Cambodia has a winning case, is just that which is your OPINION. Your conclusion stinks and it is true only to your dog-meat eating world. Your other statement saying "perhaps Sihanouk didn't either why Preah Vihear in 1962 but never Koh Tral", and you claim to live in Cambodia? Again, you opinion and guess stink. You claim to be a researcher and you don't know. I recommend you read Cambodia-A Country Study. Cambodia was at peace until the Americans started attacking the Viet Congs and the North Vietnamese and then dragged Cambodia into the Vietnam War. Then the Khmer Rouge era,then the Vietnamese occupation and the civil wars. So there you have it. King Sihanouk never abandoned Koh Tral and just because you are naive of Cambodian inside information, you have no right to claim yourself as a know it all "white" person. That is an untypical American characteristic to begin with. King Sihanouk himself had declared that he would resolve the Cambodia's border issues with the State of Vietnam himself when he was alive, but Hun Sen said NO and warned Sihanouk that Sihanouk was not an elected official and therefore could not do the work of the government because the law did not allow Sihanouk to do anything according to Hun Sen. Sihanouk was not even invited to help with the reopening of the court case of preah vihear temple when Sihanouk was still alive. Just because you think that Cambodia does not have a case in winning back Koh Tral, it does not mean that the Cambodians and the rest of world agree with your "white" based view. In fact, the Cambodians think you are so fearful of not having the Koh Tral belonging to your Vietnamese instead. What interestingly to observe is that you and Hun Sen always talk for the benefits of the Vietnamese and use the "legality" of whatever the situation is. Just recently, Hun Sen send messages to various foreign embassies in Cambodian accusing the Opposition leadership of wanting to wage war with Vietnam because the Opposition wants to take the case of Koh Tral to the International Court. You are the same way! You said that even if Cambodia wins Koh Tral the Vietnamese on the island will choose to vote to stay with Vietnam using the Crimea case. What absurdity! Give what what belongs to Ceasar to Ceasar and what belongs to God to God. Likewise, Cambodia is the same way. Just like Sri Lanka a tear drop of India, Koh Tral is a tear drop of Cambodia.

Anonymous said...

Do you understand there is no such thing as a "world court"? There is the ICJ which would only hear the case of. Koh Tral if BOTH Cambodia and Vietnam agree to its jurisdiction. If Vietnam were to agree it would be because it expects to win. Jeff

Anonymous said...

From 1954 - 1970 Sihanouk elected not to pursue the issue of Koh Tral at the UN, choosing instead to negotiate border issues directly with the Vietnamese. In 1964 he accepted the Brevie Line. If you don't believe that I suggest you read Bora Touch letters to Sihanouk which refer to this, or ask Bora Touch yourself. The only one to make a continuous claim in living memory was Lon Nol. Fact. Read the letters and get back to me. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Whatever! Where in the Geneva Accord on IndoChina in 1954 that clearly stipulates that Koh Tral is transferred or gifted back to the Vietnamese?

Anonymous said...

Phu Quoc was part of the State of Vietnam prior to 1954. It didn't need to be transferred "back" to them.

Anonymous said...

Whatever? Now there's a thoughtful response. I take it you have no interest in actually developing an informed position by doing your own research. Yeah, whatever.

Anonymous said...

Wait I missed the earthworms reference. Hate to tell you but Khmers in Cambodia eat bugs, all kinds. You should come here, you might learn some things about the country that would surprise you.

Anonymous said...

That is interesting when someone said that Phu Quoc was part of the State of Vietnam prior to 1954. Really! There was a state called Vietnam before 1954? While in 1939, the Independence of Phu Quoc was not even determined and who concluded that Phu Quoc was part of this so-called State of Vietnam? That is like saying Annam was part of China. Even at the knowledge level we can't see eye to eye.

Anonymous said...

Well that is a new low to come from a person with infested parasitic worms inside the body. Eating bugs was dated back to the Khmer Rouge era, now it is for the adventurous tourists and the starving landless illegal immigrants. The Bible says animals are meant to be eaten by people who populate the world, so there is nothing wrong in eating bugs if that is what the eaters like. Scientists support eating bugs for healthy living, so it is a wonderful thing.

Anonymous said...

I'm embarrassed for you, really. State of Vietnam, 1949 - 1955, comprised the former states of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China.

Presumably you have never read the Brevie memo (yeah whatever). It's primary concern was to transfer police and administrative functions of certain small islands from Cochin China to Cambodia. Phu Quoc which was then under Cochin Chinese administration was left unchanged. Jeff

Anonymous said...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Vietnam

Anonymous said...

For your food reviews stick to Burger King and Mickey D or other Long Beach favorites, you obviously don't even know what Khmers eat. All my Khmer family, friends and colleagues eat bugs, none of them are tourists, none of them illegal or landless.

Anonymous said...

Get off your "white horse" already, Homo Brutis. Let us reread what you wrote again, shall we: "Phu Quoc was part of the State of Vietnam prior to 1954."

Your wikipedia source says this about your "state of Vietnam": This article does not cite any references or sources. Naturally of course since you are a Homo Brutus.


Anonymous said...

Read in the article:
"According to some historians, the Vietnamese Court of Hue only asked to use certain areas in Prey Nokor to train their militaries for wars against the Chinese and that they would be returned to the Khmer authority in 5 years after the war with the Chinese was over."

What kind of historians are these? Are there any proofs?

When you are a historian, you write history with the perspective of a political body, not races. The use of "fighting the Chinese" is clearly not a historian choice of words but a racists. Further more, during that time period, China was taken over by the Manchurian and became Qing empire. So, such writing had major issues:

1. Are the Nguyen Lord taking on the Chinese or the Manchurians? Perhaps it is more appropriate to use Qing empire.

2. The Nguyen Lord (the Hue-court) was engaging a civil war against the Trinh Lord. The Trinh Lord had at least 4 times the number because he controlled the densely populated Northern Delta. The Nguyen Lord was barely holding on to their precarious position with such an inferior number.

I really don't see how the Nguyen Lord would be in the right mind to pick the fight against the mighty Qing empire, nor he had any number to take over Prey Nokor and the Mekong Delta.

-----------------
There were the Ming soldiers who refused to surrender to the Manchurian and took refuge in Prey Nokor as well as the Mekong Delta. They were not Vietnamese. Although later on, their children became Vietnamese subjects, they were not Vietnamese. So you cannot blame Vietnam for stealing, taking your land. It was the Ming soldiers who did it.

You can argue about the legality of the Ming soldiers' giving land to Vietnam. I will not argue with you on that. But I will not allow the Khmers to lie with distorted history to cause troubles.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

Yes Wikipedia is part of a vast Vietnamese conspiracy. I'm sorry but I'm not here to provide you with basic history lessons about a region you claim to be knowledgeable about. 1949 is a significant date for Khmer Krom. Maybe you can figure out why on your own time.

Anonymous said...

20 June 2014 4:45 pm.

Drushit, so we Khmer cannot blame you Youn for the stealing for the murdering of the Khmer people.

It should be the Chinese or in your case, it was the Chinese soliders who slaughtered the Khmer people?

Was it also the Chinese soldiers too, who slaughtered the Khmer people and buried the Khmer people and burn them alive using head as teapot?

Right, this stories are just myth created by the Chinese..

UN Kid.

Anonymous said...

http://sokheounnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/2-tae-ong-genocide-regime-1800-1845.pdf

For Jeff Mudrick and his fan boys (https://twitter.com/jmudrick).

Read this Jeff Mudrick, today you are defending the Vietnamese and the Vietnamese installed party (CPP) enjoying the lifestyle you have now.

One day, when the Vietnamese and the CPP have no used of you, no amount of money will save you when you are caught in the road accident.

Hopefully, you will not die in vain as had hundreds of thousands of Khmer who died protecting the land and sea from your kind.

Anonymous said...

I don't defend either the CPP or the Vietnamese government. I only offer my analysis of the particular issue of Koh Tral. Let's try to keep to a civil discussion on issue of the OP.

Anonymous said...

Since it is an important point and the subject of much misinformation I will post from Bora Touch's 14 Feb 2004 Advisory Letter the sections which detail 1) Sihanouk's 1964 acceptance of the Brevie Line and 2) Vietnamese acceptance of same. Anyone who says that Sihanouk never accepted the Brevie Line can take up the issue with Bora Touch. Jeff
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5fg7ihqgft97aek/Screenshot_2014-06-20-14-21-26.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fw1qs06fhfci645/Screenshot_2014-06-20-14-21-46.png

Anonymous said...

20 June 2014 5:28 pm. Jeff Mudrick,

You claim that you offer your analysis on Koh Tral and take no favour attitude toward the the Vietnamese or the Vietnamese installed government?

So i take it that you are one of those so called Khmer "expert" who have been attacking the CNRP supporters and overseas Khmer as racist people who are trying to overthrow the Vietnamese installed government by creating false lies that Koh Tral or Khmer Krom ever existed or rightfully belong to the Khmer people?

UN Kid.

Anonymous said...

I have been critical of both CPP and CNRP. That's neither here nor there The article was focused on Koh Tral I would hope to focus the discussion on the facts and analysis rather than my national origin, personal politics or favorite football team.

Anonymous said...

I'll make no more responses to posts unrelated to Koh Tral.

Anonymous said...

The.OP distorts my point of view. I don't argue unequivocally that historically Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) belongs to Vietnam, I argue that Cambodia cannot make a strong case under international law that it belongs to Cambodia. There is a difference. Jeff

Anonymous said...

The.OP distorts my point of view. I don't argue unequivocally that historically Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) belongs to Vietnam, I argue that Cambodia cannot make a strong case under international law that it belongs to Cambodia. There is a difference. Jeff

Anonymous said...

20 June 2014 6:42 pm. Jeff Mudrick,

We made no reference to your national origin, personal politics or favorite football team. There is no need to fear the overseas Khmer or the CNRP supporters.

There is no need to be afraid if there is nothing to hide. This post is about Koh Tral and its rightful owners - The Vietnamese people and the Vietnamese government (in your claims, anyway).

So i take it that you have never attacked the CNRP leaders or the CNRP supporters, and this article isnt attacking the CNRP as you have never taken any favour attitude toward the Vietnamese people.

So if your evidence is right that it is our imagination that Koh Tral never belong to the Khmer people, do you also believe the Khmer people never had any rights or ownership of "Khmer Krom" before the arrival of the French arrival as claimed by the Vietnamese?

UN Kid.


Anonymous said...

My position is clearly stated in the last paragraph of my article. I believe that CNRP leaders are doing their supporters a disservice by leading them to believe that they can secure Koh Tral. That's my position. On your other points I make it clear I believe there is evidence for very early Khmer presence on the island (pre-Angkor). That fact is not sufficient under international law to get the island back. Kampuchea Krom is another subject but of course I recognize that area was once part of Cambodia without question. Jeff

Anonymous said...

20 June 2014 4:45 pm.

Drushit, so we Khmer cannot blame you Youn for the stealing for the murdering of the Khmer people.

It should be the Chinese or in your case, it was the Chinese soliders who slaughtered the Khmer people?

Was it also the Chinese soldiers too, who slaughtered the Khmer people and buried the Khmer people and burn them alive using head as teapot?

Right, this stories are just myth created by the Chinese..

UN Kid.

20 June 2014 5:15 pm
--------------------
The Chinese or Vietnamese don't bury and use the Khmer heads to cook tea:
1. The neck cannot support the weight.
2. The hair burning smell would ruin the taste of the tea.

When you are the victors, you are joyous and figuring out what best to exploit what you have just won. It is nonsense to destroy what you have just won.

When you are the losers, such as the Khmer, you are angry and dream up of revenge, torture to vent out your anger and frustration.

Don't create nonsense lies to trump up your war cry. The world has changed. Now day, Vietnamese save up their hard-earn money and buy up the land concessions in Cambodia. Khmer will be either owned or expelled out of the land with the help of the local Khmer police.

You got owned. I suggest you to improve and stop being angry. Look at you. You don't even have your own money to buy up the land concession in Cambodia.

I am an Asian. I chose to learn from the Best in the world:
1. German logic and German superiority.
2. Confucius and Eastern philosophy.
3. Western philosophy and scientific method/reasoning.
4. Yoga from India.
5. Taichi from China.
6. Karate from Japan, Wing Chun from Southern China, Muay Thai from Thailand.

I read thousand books and read every day, constantly learning.

So on and so on. You folks really need to improve.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

For Jeff Mudrick(https://twitter.com/jmudrick).

Your positions, your political view and even in your article, you often attack the CNRP leaders and even the CNRP via Twitter.

I think it is in your best interest and safety to use the available resources to secure your position if you think you are safe.

You know very well that Koh Tral belongs to the Khmer people in modern history and Pre-Angkorian history.

You also know that the Vietnamese had no claims to Koh Tral as there was no Vietnamese in "Koh Tral/Southern Cambodia" until recent years (after the invasion and genocide of the Champa Kingdoms).

How can CNRP or any Khmer have any chance of securing Koh Tral or its history if the Vietnamese installed party denies its evidence?



Anonymous said...

Thanks for your excellent analysis, Jeff. It really saddens me to see the educational level of most of the comments here, even though I understand the historic reasons for it. If Cambodia could just learn from the mistakes it made and makes - instead of permanently playing the victim - it would have a so much brighter future.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous, we are all entitled to express our opinions or don't you believe in freedom of expression.? From your comments and your other Anonymous friends I have my doubts I have been in Cambodia many years and have been brutally critical of the CPP regime. Should I keep my mouth shut? I offered my analysis, you disagree that's fine, you have right to your opinion as I should have right to mine. .

Anonymous said...

Mr. anonymous, you seem to be commening without having even read my article. I agree with you the Vietnamese were not on the island until the 17th or early 18th century, Khmers hundreds of years earlier. That does not mean Cambodia can get return of the island under international law, and that is the point of the article. Please read before Commenting.

Anonymous said...

20 June 2014 8:14 pm.

I cant believe Mr Jeff Mudrick actually wrote that that article himself.

First Mr Jeff Mudrick lied claiming he took no stance against the CNRP or its supporters, yet his Twitter post attacked the CNRP leaders and their policies.

Second, Mr Jeff Mudrick kept attacking the Khmer history, saying the Khmer have no claims as there isnt any evidence of the Khmer presence up until the early Pre-Angkor era. Now Mr Jeff Mudrick claims that Pre-Angkor era is around the 17th century. (Does Mr Jeff Mudrick know what he is talking about?)

Third, Mr Jeff Mudrick claims to also have been critical of the CPP Regime, yet all his articles and personal opinions supports the the Vietnamese history and the CPP policies.

Now Mr Jeff Mudrick doesnt want to shut up his mouth because he has lived in Cambodia for many years and now understand the truth.

UN Kid.


Anonymous said...

Can you read? serious question. I said Vietnamese were not there until 17th or 18th century. Khmer I said were there pre Angkor. I have not denied criticizing CNRP policies, I have and have every right to. My criticisms of CPP are unrelated to Koh Tral and not relevant to this discussion.

Anonymous said...

7:28 pm

Jeff may express his analysis and opinion, that's it just his opinion, although most Khmers disagree.

On the other hand, when you made your comment and drew your conclusion at the last part of your comment, you either do not understand Cambodia's problems or chose to ignore them.
You blame Khmers because they react to the symtoms. You must blame the traditional Khmers' enemy ( the Viets ) for bringing on the cancer in the first place.
As long as Khmers do not understand the root causes of the problems nor solve them accordingly, this cancer is terminal.

Khmerization said...

It's surprising to see people are hotly debating the Koh Tral issue here.
When I went to work in the morning there were just seven comments. In just 8 hours after I return from work the number of comments reached 61. This shows that the issue of Koh Tral is controversial but embedded in the minds of many, if not all, Khmers.

To Jeff, I thank you for taking part in the debate. I am sorry to see all the personal attacks against you from readers and commenters. To Koh Tral lovers, may I say this: It's not in our and Cambodia's interests to launch a personal against Jeff who had a different views from us regarding Koh Tral. It would be counter-productive to launch a personal against him. We all should attack his writing and put forward our arguments against his and his article.

To Jeff again, I have given you unfettered access to the forum and free comments without moderation. However, you have not been fair to me and those who have opposing views from yours. I had posted two articles and my friend posted one article in the Diplomat discussion section but you did not publish them.

To answer your question Jeff, this article was not intended to address your point in your article. My article was intended to address the Koh Tral ownership from an historical context. Tracing history from the 1st century AD to now, it clearly shows that Koh Tral belongs to Cambodia.

My article was not intended to address the legal ownership of Koh Tral either, even though I strongly believe that France had illegally transferred the island to Vietnam on the 4th of June 1949. If you ask me whether Cambodia had sufficient evidence to bring Koh Tral case to the ICJ and whether Cambodia has any chance of winning, I would say yes. However, if you ask me whether Cambodia can reclaim Koh Tral, whether by force or through the ICJ, then I would say no for four good reasons:
1. For ICJ to hear any cases, both sides have to agree to bring the case before it.
2. Vietnam will not dare to bring the Koh Tral case to the ICJ because it would not want to risk losing something that it had in its had for centuries already.
3. If Cambodia wins, Vietnam will not abide by the ICJ verdict.
4. If Vietnam refuses to abide by the ICJ verdict, who will enforce the verdict, the UN or the US? No chance.

For the 4 reasons I gave above, Cambodia has no chance to reclaim the island back, but it has the historical and legal claims to the island.

Anonymous said...

"I had posted two articles and my friend posted one article in the Diplomat discussion section but you did not publish them"

Khmerization: I am not affiliated with The Diplomat so have no say as to what gets published there. If it were up to me you could post whatever you want.

Thank you for your reasoned response it's quite a relief. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jeff Mudrick,

Some of us never even heard your name, let alone your opinions.
Would you state your positions or opinions on:

1. The CPP
2. The CNRP
3. On January 7,1979, did Vietnam invade or
rescue Cambodia ?

We appreciate your analysis and opinions.

Kind regards



Curious

Anonymous said...

Khmerization: I must say that with every single poster here but me posting anonymously it creates an extremely untenable situation for someone in my position. While I appreciate your site, read it regularly, and will continue to do so I would likely not post here again faced with an ocean of anonymous posters who feel perfectly free to launch their personal attacks based solely on their anonymity. Many or most of whom, by the way seem not have read my article but are simply responding to your OP (which was fine but it provided no detail about my article) and subsequent posters.

Anonymous said...

"Would you state your positions or opinions on:
1. The CPP
2. The CNRP
3. On January 7,1979, did Vietnam invade or
rescue Cambodia ?"

No.

If you read my article and a question or comment about it I would be happy to respond. Thanks. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Khmerization: Re your four points,
1. For ICJ to hear any cases, both sides have to agree to bring the case before it.
2. Vietnam will not dare to bring the Koh Tral case to the ICJ because it would not want to risk losing something that it had in its had for centuries already.
3. If Cambodia wins, Vietnam will not abide by the ICJ verdict.
4. If Vietnam refuses to abide by the ICJ verdict, who will enforce the verdict, the UN or the US? No chance.

I absolutely agree with 1 and 4. I disagree with 3. About 2 I'm not sure, as it is complicated by the other South China Sea issues. Were it not I would absolutely agree with you, Vietnam would have no reason to bring it.

Anonymous said...

This is what Jeff Mudrick the Homo Brutus wrote to discredit the Khmer people from the island of Koh Tral: 1) The Vietnamese discovered the island first; 2) the word "Oc Eo" is not a Khmer word; 3) The Vietnamese historian(s) said that there was no settlement in the beginning of time. 4) The case of Falkland (Britain vs Argentina) and the case of the Islands and Island of Las Palmas (Netherlands v. United States) will be used by the ICJ to support the Vietnamese claim of the island.

For these reasons above, this explains why some participants react so strongly against the author Jeff Mudrick. Clearly he started out taking every angle to discredit the Khmer people from the island that means so much to them. When he does not even acknowledge that the transliterated term Oc Eo as not Khmer then clearly there is no need to read further of his biases against the Khmer people. Even his so called "analysis" there are many basic parts that be easily refuted with facts and sound reasoning. A rebuttal to his every bias will soon be countered.



Khmerization said...

Jeff, I did put a link to your article. I agree with you that some commenters in this forum might not have read your article in its entirety. However, with both of us presenting in our strong evidences in respective article I believe that they would still get angry with you.

I regret that I can't moderate every comment because of time constraint and because I don't want to alienate them. I used to delete the most obscene comments, but unable to do it anymore due to time constraint.

Regarding my point 2, I strongly believe that Vietnam would not agree to bring the case before the ICJ because I strongly believe that Vietnam would not want to risk of losing something it had in its hands for centuries already. My point 3 is related to poit 2. Vietnam would not agree to bring the case to the ICJ but if, only if, it did, I'm sure it would not abide by the ICJ verdict because to do so it would lose its largest island to Cambodia and risk giving Cambodia more pretext to make a claim for Kampuchea Krom at the ICJ.

Remember Preah Vihear? Thailand did not want to go to ICJ when Cambodia initiated the case in 1958. Thailand has no choice because it was a full member of the ICJ which compels it to go to the ICJ. And after it lost in 1962, the then Thai PM Sarit Thanarat refused to return Preah Vihear to Cambodia. He only agreed after King Bhumibol ordered him to do so for fearing that Thailand becoming an international pariah. Cambodia was very lucky at that time. After the loss in 1962, Thailand withdrawn its full membership from the ICJ so that it did not have to go to this court against if it didn't want to. Thailand only agreed to go to the ICJ again in 2011 because it think it can win but also it didn't want to have a status as an international pariah.

I also saw your post somewhere asking why Sihanouk only brings Preah Vihear to the ICJ. My answer is Cambodia got the full backing from France in bringing the Preah Vihear case to the ICJ. France provided legal, technical, maps and international diplomacy, may finance too, to help Cambodia in the case because France was the one who signed the treaty with Siam/Thailand in 1907 and drawn the map in 1908 that put Preah Vihear in Cambodia. So, France is obliged to help Cambodia.

Regarding Koh Tral, Cambodia has no support from France because France was the one who ceded Koh Tral to Vietnam so France would never embarrass itself in helping Cambodia in the case against Vietnam. On the contrary, France would be inclined to assist Vietnam against Cambodia because it was the one who ceded Koh Tral to Vietnam. The other factor is, without a powerful backer like France, Sihanouk would not want to risk angering Vietnam who would chip/encroach more border territories from Cambodia or might launch a full scale war against Cambodia.

Regarding Vietnam vs. China, I know for sure that Vietnam had asked China to bring the case of the Paracel Islands to the ICJ but China refused. Both Vietnam and China claimed to have historical evidences- historical settlements on the island - but China did not want to risk losing the islands to Vietnam because it controlled the islands or the majority of them already.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the clarifications, much appreciated. I think we're pretty much in agreement. Vietnam I think would have to be near 100% sure that they'd prevail AND deem that they had something to gain beyond Koh Tral to accept ICJ jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

To Khmerization, if you think that France already ceded Koh Tral to "Vietnam", I just want to be technical here, then you are in an agreement with Jeff Mudrick already. For the us readers, we want the proof of that. Where in the Geneva Accords on IndoChina in 1954 does it say that? The fact that the Khmer still hang on the claim of the island is because of the 1939 written records that clearly spelled out that Koh Tral is neither of Vietnam nor of Cambodia and its "independence" is yet to be declared at a future time. If we go strictly by the United Nations law of the sea, Koh Tral is already Khmer in every sense of the word.

Khmerization said...

11:33 pm, Technically, France did not cede Koh Tral to Vietnam because the "Brevie Line" was not drawn for the purpose of border demarcation, but for the administrative purpose of the island only. Since Brevie put Koh Tral under Cochin China (Kampuchea Krom), which was separately administered by France from Cambodia and Vietnam, it was assumed that Koh Tral was ceded to Vietnam when France ceded Kampuchea Krom to Vietnam on 4th June 1949.

The Geneva Conference was not held to settle border demarcations between the Indo-Chinese countries (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam), but was held to transfer the independence of these 3 countries to the natives of these countries. Vietnam was divided into two countries, South and North, under the Geneva Conference. Ho Chi Minh demanded that Cambodia be divided in two by giving some autonomous regions to the Khmer Viet Minh but it was objected by the Cambodian delegation and the conference agreed not to partition Cambodia. The same with Laos. But unfortunately, France had ceded Kampuchea Krom to Vietnam on 4th June 1949 and because Koh Tral was put under the Kampuchea Krom administration, that is to say under Cochin-China's rule due to the Brevie Line drawn in 1939, so Koh Tral was assumed to be ceded to Vietnam along with Kampuchea Krom. Technically, there is no document to say that Koh Tral belong to Vietnam, only under the assumption only due to the fact of the Brevie Line.

Anonymous said...

Respectfully the Brevie memo simply left the status of Phu Quoc unchanged. It had been administered by Cochin China and the memo, while changing the status of other islands, left Phu Quoc under Cochin Chinese administration. Jeff

Khmerization said...

Jeff, you and me agreed that the "Brevie Line" put Koh Tral (Phu Quoc)under Cochin-Chinese rule but you would have agreed that, under the Brevie memo, the line was only for administrative purpose only, not a demarcation line. Here is part of the Brevie memo: "It is understood that this (Brevie Line)is only the administration and police, and that the issue of territorial dependence of these islands remains fully reserved."

The fact that Brevie said that the dependence of the island "remain fully reserved" means the island has not been demarcated. And with Cambodia's claim to the island, as evident by King Ang Duong's 1856 letter to Emperor Napoleon III, and with historical evidence such as the Khmer pottery at Oc Eo (O'Keo)archeological site, Koh Tral's "dependence" should rest with Cambodia.

Anonymous said...

I obviously don't agree. Ang Duong's claim of sovereignty was just that, a claim. The fact was the Vietnamese had controlled the island since 1789 (per Bora Touch) or earlier . The French negotiated the Treaty of Saigon with the Vietnamese, not with Cambodia, clearly they believed the Vietnamese had sovereignty not the Khmers. If you review cases in international law you will find that "we were there first" is not sufficient to establish a claim of sovereignty. Right or wrong that's the way it is. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Khmerization:

As I have said earlier in this thread, the purpose of the Brevie memo was first and foremost to deal with other small islands near the Cambodian coast who had previously had to deal with Saigon on police and administrative matters where dealing with Cambodian officials would be much easier. Thus the Brevie Line established Cambodian administration for those islands. It's incorrect to say that Phu Quoc was yet to be demarcated, it was before and was after administered as part of Cochin China, the Brevie memo simply acknowledged that Cambodia disputed Koh Tral's ownership and that this memo was not aimed at dealing with that political issue. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Excuse my ignorance everyone, I don't know much about history, but can some one tell me where the Vietnamese originally came from?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff I don't care who you are,I just know you stay in phnom Penh and you work for Dictator Hun Sen so you get money from him and how much? we are khmer we just want to live in peace freedom and justice and khmer never invade any others countries even vietnam,actually vietnam make a strong wind and storm in south east asia since they are there,they invaded from one to one never stop until today no hanoi we will have peace and freedom so just one thing we wish we need china break them down as soon as they can and we don't care you're well known intentional justice is well known jeff.

Anonymous said...

,I just know you stay in phnom Penh and you work for Dictator Hun Sen so you get money from him and how much? "

You certainly have a vivid imagination. I'm guessing like most people here you couldn't be bothered to read my article? Feel free to comment or ask questions once you've done so I'll be happy to respond.

Kmenhwatt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Don't believe this guy he got hire by dictator hun sen and Yuon to prove the government that hun sen don't want khmers who love their land to stop react to willing claim of koh trail I don't care about him we just need khmer paris find all proofs from the past in france colonial and bring to icj international court like preach vihear,He is working for Vietnam and dictator cpp ruling he try to pretend everything from right to wrong if he good why he live in phnom penh and work with dictator ?

Anonymous said...

some king of dog food people mix up this comments on upper lines.

Anonymous said...

some kinds not some king correct upper comment.

Kmenhwatt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kmenhwatt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Khmerization said...

Jeff at 2:50 am, We should agree to disagree. We have written our respective article by presenting our case so let the people read and make up their mind which one to believe. I shall rest my case and let people judge the evidences I presented in my article.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. I fully respect your opinion on the matter.

Anonymous said...

The full text of the Brevie memo is found here.

http://camwatchblogs.blogspot.com/2011/04/brief-history-of-koh-tral.html

Anonymous said...

shut up dog eater you will see something happen near future you may jump down in the sea by china to lecture asap.

Khmerization said...

Dear readers,
Please be civil in your discussion and try to avoid personal attacks.

To Kmenhwatt, I had deleted your posts because they contained the photos of Jeff Mudrick who asked me to remove/delete them. Please stop posting his photos in this forum again. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Dear Khmerization and the visitors,

You must be warned that Jeff Mudrick is nothing but a sheep in a wolf's clothing. Here is what he had informed his fans at THAT WEBSITE...

jm (Jeff Mudrick) wrote: "A lively infantile debate going on both on Khmerization site
http://khmerization.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... amese.html

Then his biggest fan Andy Ahmed added this comment: "There you are, the sole voice of patient reason amidst a sea of staggeringly thick frothing dolts. I trust you're actually enjoying it!"

So Khmerization, if anything at all, it's as if Jeff Mudrick is alluding to your debating with him as "infantile". As far as others are concerned, no one is debating anything with Jeff Mudrick at all since a debate is defined as an argument to discuss a question. The others were pointing out to him the defining characteristics of Koh Tral within the historical Khmer context, while Jeff Mudrick does not even have the basic vocabulary to define Koh Tral itself. The fact that Jeff Mudrick time and again chooses to use the Vietnamese sources as his truths invalidates everything from the Khmer view point already. When have the Vietnamese say anything truthful about the Khmer and the Khmer territory stolen from the Khmer? NEVER. All of Jeff Mudrick's know-it-all conclusions/opinions in that wordy article are invalid and false because all of his premises were false to begin with. Who would ever even consider to deal with a known Khmer-hating individual as Jeff Mudrick? He proudly stereotype the Cambodians in his article; he chooses to omit important details, he clearly include his special-interest sources and other techniques that are directly copied from the TV advertisements. Does this ring the bell with anyone by now? Jeff Mudrick's article is just a propaganda to serve the interests of the Vietnamese. Who would ever invest time in reading a propaganda. Now you know, and I don't mean to say that not that didn't know about Jeff Mudrick and his kind already. Wolf in sheep clothing, I tell you. You should check out his other racist wording towards the ethnic minority members in the American society also. Don't buy into his "birth place and personal politics and favorite football team" disguise. No this guy is deep and he is hateful of Cambodians and a few other ethnic minority members in America. Be warned! In front of you and on Khmerization website, he is acting calm and meek, but at his racist Website, watch out, all hell breaks loose.

Anonymous said...

The defining attribute of All of Jeff Mudrick's writing including his food reviews is simply that which is a propaganda or the spreading of ideas or information to damage Cambodia and Cambodians in general. The proof is all in his writing.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Khmerization and the visitors,

jm (Jeff Mudrick) wrote: "A lively infantile debate going on both on Khmerization site
http://khmerization.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... amese.html

Then his biggest fan Andy Ahmed added this comment: "There you are, the sole voice of patient reason amidst a sea of staggeringly thick frothing dolts. I trust you're actually enjoying it!"

So Khmerization, if anything at all, it's as if Jeff Mudrick is alluding to your debating with him as "infantile".

21 June 2014 4:51 pm
-------------------
I understand Jeff Mudrick's remark of "A lively infantile debate" this way:

_ He was referring to Kmenhwatt and other pathetic Khmers who have been engaging personal insults/attacks against him.

_ He was NOT in particularly remarking ONLY against Khmerization.

What you are doing is very unethical. You are misrepresenting the person, then attack. This is called "straw-man attack". I learned Philosophy 101, Basic reasoning and thinking in college. It is rampant in the society with Ad Hominem.

I am not really interest in attacking and destroying the Khmer. Make a note of that. I am here to correct your behavior for a better world.

I have shown my teeth before. And you folks should fear me or I will go to other websites and expose your kinds' bad deeds. You have been warned and I will rest my conscience on the consequence imposed on your kinds.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

Now this is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous said...

I'd say the most recent posts, especially the one castigating my food reviews FFS affirm my characterization was spot on. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Totally agreed with 4:51. Come to think about it the essential question regarding the article written by Jeff Mudrick is "Who is Jeff Mudrick to make the Claim?" Does he have the credibility? Does he have a bias? Does he have the level of expertise? Is his evidence credible? Lastly, why does Jeff Mudrick continue to force the readers to accept his logical fallacy or false dilemma of "no-in-between"? He continues relentlessly try to convince the readers that there is only the X and there is only Y and nothing in between. Other neutral author(s) on the topic of Koh Tral continues to consider other possibilities and thus negate Jeff Mudrick's illogical conclusions. The fact that he does not even know the Khmer artifacts and the Khmer words associating with the island itself historically, this disqualifies him already. When someone is already disqualified, then the product of that person is simply below acceptable standards and can't be considered as anything, except being a spreading of false information.

Anonymous said...

What is this "false dllemma" or "logical fallacy"? . Most readers here clearly have not read my article, the thrust of which is not that Koh Tral has always been Vietnamese, it hasn't, but that Cambodia is very unlikely to win it back in the ICJ based on the evidence Cambodian advocates have presented. Instead of pointing out flaws in my article readers talk about dog meat and payoffs from Hun Sen. Is that how you would win the argument at the ICJ (which I agree with Khmerization will never hear the case)? I think you'll have to do better. 90 comments here and not one has disputed facts as presented in my article, only the conclusion (also generally misrepresented). It's not an impressive showing of analytical skills.

Anonymous said...

I have a theory about the Khmer people. They have been creamed off repeatedly by the Thais when Siam sacked Khmer capital repeatedly. Smart and brave Khmer were killed or taken away. I used to tutor Khmer students in school and they were not only the worst, but their learning aptitude is way below any other race. I devise a test against the entire Khmer community to prove my point:

Why does the website
http://ki-media.blogspot.com/
show
Monday, December 31, 275759
???

No Khmer was ever able to answer my question. Of course I can. Now, perhaps my test was invalid. It could be too hard for the Khmer and most other race. Perhaps for me to be superior over the entire Khmer race is irrelevant. What really matters here is their behavior in face of the test.

So far, the Khmer has shown very unethical behaviors when they face a no-win situation. They create lies, massive personal attacks, or diversions (Drgunzet ran away from other challenge). And so on.

But the test still stands today. No Khmer could answer the question. Instead of trying to answer the question, or admit "you got us, we don't have the answer", Khmer community never admit defeat but resort to massive personal attack.

Frankly speaking, I am not interested in winning or losing the arguments with the Khmer. Winning arguments with Special Olympics does not make me an Olympian. I merely want to expose Khmer's UNETHICAL behavior when they face a no-win situation.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

I am sorry, but this is just embarrassing. Mr. Murdock's argument may be wrong, and a well-informed advocate of Koh Tral might be able to show that, but so many of the responses on this thread only go to prove what is implied in Murdock's article, that many Cambodians, especially outside Cambodia, are not able to think clearly on the subject, have no real knowledge or information about Koh Tral, and are driven by mythology, ignorance and prejudice. It makes me sad that we were given this opportunity to defend Cambodia's rightful possession of Koh Tral, to make it clear for all to see, but instead we fell in the mud, resorting to name calling, threats and bigotry, and helped bolster Murdock's claim that it's is all a myth, a misunderstanding by an ignorant people, an ugly dream. So sad.

Anonymous said...

kimedia blog has been deleting this comment of mine repeatedly.
---------------
http://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/king-signs-off-on-border-pact-with-vietnam-border-treaty-51601/
quoted from the above link:
"King Norodom Sihamoni signed the supplemental border treaty with Vietnam into effect on Wednesday, according to a statement from the King.

King Sihamoni explained that he had been persuaded that the treaty, which supplements an agreement signed with Vietnam in 1985 during the Vietnamese occu­pa­tion, was both legal and ne­ces­sary."

-Drgunzet-

Khmerization said...

4:51 pm, I can't speak for Jeff, but I think he refers the "infantile" debate to the comments made by readers in this forum, not attributed to my comments. However, if he refers to my comments as "infantile" I won't get upset with him because my comments are for the general readers to judge, not Jeff.

Anonymous said...

8:20 PM Drgunzet

You would be the last person to lecture on codes of ethics and civility.

Anonymous said...

I was not referring to your comments but to the ridiculous personal attacks completely unrelated to my article.

Anonymous said...

9:13 pm Dirt Drgunze

King ( Kong ) Sihakmoni was repeatedly given altermatums by Puppet & Traitor Hun Sen to sign or else !


Anonymous said...

11:32 pm

Mr. Mudrick,


I did read your article on and about Koh Tral.
Your analysis and opinions are not unbiased.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
9:13 pm Dirt Drgunze
King ( Kong ) Sihakmoni was repeatedly given altermatums by Puppet & Traitor Hun Sen to sign or else !
21 June 2014 11:34 pm
----------------
That is another accusation. But other Khmer accused me of making lies about the 2005 treaty, signed when Cambodia is no longer under occupation/protection of the Vietnamese. When I presented my proof from a Cambodian source, my proof got deleted repeatedly.

I always view myself as a superior being. With just my superiority, I should be able to own all the Khmer. There is no need for me to lie. I might make mistakes here and there, err once a while. but I was raised by the superior and honorable German American. For me to lie and cheat, it's a disgrace to my upbringing.

I am here to set example of my German superiority. You folks are just too corrupted, too unethical to even fathom my honorable way.

If you doubt my German superiority, and cannot verify my awesome intellectual power, you can go to the Germany forum and ask the German folks to challenge me. Leeporter did it before.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/germany/T54GVBPF4O4GMCE9Q
Read post #20, "this guy is smart and intelligent."
Read post #21, "Auf teutsch - der Typ is SUPER."

You can also try again. It is easy to flaunt my talents around. I will repeat again: I have read thousand of books and learned just about any important subjects for mankind. In fact, in some way, I know more about Cambodia and Khmer than many of you.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

Feel free to refute any particular contention you dispute, otherwise you're not advancing a discussion. I'm still waiting for ONE refutation of facts presented.

Anonymous said...

Hanoi has to be blame by cambodian,because after world war|| ,Hanoi kidnap a lot of cambodian boys bring to Hanoi to educate to be khmer vietminh and taught them them to be ho chiminh communist regime and sent them all to fight back their own nation this the point , ho chi minh stir up in region in south east asia from decade to decade even ho already died,but political ho regime still spread up and make a hurricane in the region never have a peace and freedom don't refuse this situation,now they ask us to support why? you're communist us is liberation country ,all the communist are the same like North Korea,Cuba,Russia China and vietnam those are no human right,if some one help them later on they will give back the bad problem like crocodile.

Anonymous said...

Listen All, there is no need to read the article or anything by Jeff Mudrick and this does not ever mean that the ad homine is employed. The fact that he repeatedly says on THAT WEBSITE that as long as he lives he will never want to see the Cambodians having the control of Koh Tral Island clearly demonstrates that he is not a neutral person. Just this aspect alone, there is no need to go further with whatever he has to say. Jeff Mudrick is comparable to the infamous Donald Sterling who attended the all-black Church, donated millions of dollars to the black causes, had black girlfriend and friends, but deep inside he is still a racist towards the black. Jeff Mudrick keeps saying about this so-called his "Khmer family", but that is just a facade. According to Jeff Mudrick, since the Vietnamese administer Koh Tral already, the Cambodians should back the f*ck off because it already belongs to the Vietnamese and it is just an "impossible imagination" of the Cambodians in general. Has anyone ever considered this outrageous title directed to the Cambodians at all. However, if we consider other possibilities, using the legality of the United Nations Law of the sea, Koh Tral is 100% belonging to Cambodia. So how come no one is seeing Jeff Mudrick taking that position or possiblity? He also likes to bring various precedents and Falkland Islands to defend his position against the Khmer in reclaiming Koh Tral. Those are unrelated. What Jeff Mudrick should consider is the dispute between Vietnam and China over the Paracel islands. Fact: China administers those islands. So why do the Vietnamese still try to claim them? Archeologoical evidence shows that Chinese colonized those islands first, so why do the Viets continue to claim them? Don't expect Jeff Mudrick to even mention those things at all. He is the one then who employs the red herring fallacy to distract the readers from the real issue.



Anonymous said...

To 21 June 2014 8:45 pm,

So where is your rebuttal piece to counter Jeff Mudrick's illogical conclusions? In case you are clueless, Koh Tral is neither of Vietnam nor of Vietnam per French colonial decision. However, Jeff Mudrick shamelessly continues to defy the French colonial decision and over and over he says that Koh Tral is always part of this so-called "state of Vietnam". He was also able to convince Khmerization to believe that Koh Tral was returned to the Vietnamese in 1954. However there is no such thing in the Geneva Accords on IndoChina. So if you want to go with that racist Jeff Murdrick, then go ahead and be his servant already. I ask you this: How did Cambodia regain the lost provinces ceded by the Japanese during WWII to Thailand? Again, according to the Treaty of Tokyo, it clearly spelled that those former Cambodian provinces must be returned to the French IndoChina. So get your fact straight and stop being so obsequious to that Jeff Mudrick. He is not what you think he is. All you need to do is to say hi and bye to his type. Stay away from him. And after reading this and you still feel sad, then you might try ways to end your suffering.

Kmenhwatt said...

I just want to put the face of a man to his liar words for all to see; Why don't you delete his picture, leave the comment alone? If mr Mudrick so sure of what he wrote he shouldn't be hiding behind his keyboard and spreads lies about the island that he didn't know! I and millions Khmers student studied in Khmers school about Koh Tral,Koh Ses Koh tro'larch, Koh rung, and many others little Koh in 7-8 grade, do you (Jeff& Ching DrugunZ) think that the Cambodian's geography book was lies? I knew 2005 treaty wasn't under Yuon's occupation, but Hun sen was under Hanoi controlled forced the king to sign that treaty; If the king didn't sign Hun sen threatening to abolish the monarchy it on record.

Note; this is my last use of a picture of this khmer's hater called (Jeff) and a Hanoi's sympathizer who falsify the truth in the name of HATRED toward Khmers race,

Anonymous said...

Good point there, Kmenhwatt. In fact he also deleted all of his posts and comments from that other infamous racist WEBSITE. One wonders why does he do that? What is he afraid of? Is he trying to fool the world that he is a neutral person when it comes to his writing regarding any concerns of the Khmer? Nope, never, I tell you. Long way before he produces this writing, he mocked and jeered and deride any Cambodians who wish to challenge the Vietnamese over Koh Tral. He pointed his stinky finger at the Cambodian faces and demanded them to not speak about it at all. He acts the same way as Hun Sen do towards the Cambodians. Even in his article he uses Hun Sen to support his position. Not only that, he also uses the facts twisting Vietnamese scholars as his references sources. He had said so many negative things toward the Cambodians in general that one only wonders if he still curse Cambodians during his sleep. He claims to live in Cambodia, but everything that comes from his mouth is for the benefits of the Vietnamese. Take the case of K5 plan, or the illegal Vietnamese settlers, or Hun Sen's government. He defend them all. Keep up the good work, Kmenhwatt! If 100 Cambodians believe this guy and we are able to save just 1 or 2, then we can still say the situation is not hopeless yet.

Anonymous said...

I would be upset if my picture is associated with the inferior third-world low life such as Kmenhwatt. Can a person has a personal right to request his privacy or personal dignity, "I do not want to see my picture associated with ...".

It is not easy to deal with the Khmer. So, more batons on the Khmer heads will agreement is reached.

I really enjoy watching the Cambodian police whacking the batons onto the Khmer. Hit them hard enough, they will stop making troubles.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

In the words of Barney Frank "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."

Bye.

Anonymous said...

To Hypocrite, Disgusted, Violent and Evil (-HDVE-) or -Drgunzet- (22 June 2014 4:20 am):

What you said is you have made up the accusation on Khmer people after you and your evil Yuon/Vietcong robbed, cheated, lied, killed Khmer people and beyond. When you don't have anything to say, you just say whatever you can to protect yourself, your evil Yuon/Vietcong thieves and killers of all times.

We can see how you act to be a nice guy after you were a very bad guy and crime committed thief.

That means the bad guy like you (barbaric Yuon/Vietnamese) who doesn't care. You and your evil Yuon/Vietcong commit wrong doing and always want to learn to be smart to kill, rob, steal, etc to get rich, power and be wealthy.

How clever is that? You can manipulate all kinds of things to make the good guys or people to believe you and show them the wealth and money that you (including evil and crime committed Yuon/Vietnamese thieves) stolen from the victims of Cambodia who are the real owners of properties, lands, natural resources.

Do you think you (and evil Yuon/Vietnamese thieves and killers) can get away from the crimes and murders? Hell, no.

Victims and dead people will haunt you (including Yuon/Vietnamese thieves killers) in your dream and you will not sleep all night.


Khmer Yeurng

Kmenhwatt said...

Your Ching Chong Racist is "inferior" Indeed! =DrugunZ=HDVE,a bipolar multiple personality low life inferior hate- monger is trying to tell me how cambodian's history and Geography without knowing all the facts.Do you think that Cambodian's geography that was teaching at Khmers school was fake?

I knew the truth is hurting so bad,you should stop preach fake links and be neutraled instead of lies to fulfill your racist's agenda! Call me any thing you want; the truth is you're RACIST bias-hate-monger,I follow you all the sites you visited.Be ready you picture is NEXT to be posted for all to see...!

What are you going to do if I post your picture for all to see here, Inferior low life scambag? Sue me at Hanoi's court? Or sue me in Hun sen's court? I prefer ICJ court...!



Anonymous said...

Well, I have read 2,000 books and tens of thousand articles so far. And clearly I do not know all the facts. But I know enough to say this: My knowledge is vastly superior over Khmer race.

If you are different from me, then you are wrong until I spot my own error. I did not say what you know is fake. Being wrong is different from fake. Oh gosh, why are Khmer so inferior. It is very difficult to communicate with you.

About your disrespect toward others' picture, I don't know what I would do with you if you use my picture unauthorized. Luckily I already anticipate such low class behavior from third world country, so I remain anonymous.

I say, more batons onto the Khmer heads would help. When I was a kid, I used to inflict head concussions into dark-skinned kids so that they will stop attacking me. There was no other way to reach agreement with dark-skinned kids. Believe me, I am a very nice guy, I explore all possible mean to restore peace.

So, more batons on Khmer heads for now ok? If I know a better way, I will send ideas to Cambodian police.

-Drgunzet-

P.S. I am so curious: I already offer to demonstrate my ability to teach complex concepts such as Infinite Series, Differential Equations, Advanced Physics (time dilation, Einstein's theory and stuff) to the inferior Khmer. Believe me, it's not easy to teach these subjects to your kind.

But you folks don't believe me, don't you. I do possess a secret to teach complex subjects to your bone-heads!

Anonymous said...

Hey PhoDawg, if you are so smart why are you not listed as one of the richest people in the world? If you are so smart, where is your noble prize? If you are so smart why don't your give us the name of your school so that we can check out your school ranking and distinction. If you are so smart why do continue to speak boatpeople's English. You writing is full of grammatical and spelling errors. What school do you go to, you PhoDawg! Come on, let us hear it about your school name. You have nothing to add except your immorality and inherent criminal intent embedded in your gene. If you claim to be smart, then get a clue already nobody wants to deal with you and if you are a business person, nobody wants your service or product, you PhoDawg. Go kill some dogs and cook its bone and meat for that Jeff Mudrick to eat because he must be hungry for sitting for too many hours on his stinky ass writing sh*t about Cambodians. Go now and do it for if you don't then you are considered a stupid dog. Woof woof, be gone now PhoDawg!

Anonymous said...

Well, I suppose I have been exaggerating a bit too much. Let's cut all of my boasting in half ok? Happy now.

Be as it may, I am still vastly superior than your entire race. That's easy because your race is the worst. So, let me prove my point:

Why does the website
http://ki-media.blogspot.com/
show
Monday, December 31, 275759
???

That was your own website. And no Khmer knows the answer. Of course I do. I am vastly superior over your entire race.

Prove me wrong.

-Drgunzet-

P.S. As I said before, the Thais creamed your race by killing and took away any intellectual Khmer. Khmer Rouges finished off any left-over intellectual. What's left are mostly dumb and angry Khmer. That's my theory. Prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...

9:28 a
Drgunzet

For sometimes now, I do know the answer to December 31,...... but I don't want to play YOUR games.
So, Boy what's your answer ?

Anonymous said...

You post part of your answer first, then I post part of my answer to follow up. Then you post your next part. We alternate the answers.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

12:10 am

Mr. Mudrick,

There were more than ONE refutation.
About 90 % of your " facts "were based on the Vietnamese 's side.
Likewise, your citation of the legal precedence of the international court was also one-sided.
You should have also cited the adversary legal precedence as well.

Anonymous said...

10:33 am

Although, I don't want to play your game, but here's to start : It's not technical in nature.

Anonymous said...

Jeff Mudrick wrote, "It's not technical in nature". LOL. He admits it right there, people!!!! He said it himself that his entire article is lopsided for the benefits of the Vietnamese. So it is biased and not neutral and thus this overall position is Vietnamese-oriented. No need to bother further with Jeff Mudrick's article. From now on, and I wish that his so-called "Khmer family" will realize that he is the enemy within bending on destroying them slowly. His negative words reveal his evil thoughts and later he will become THAT frustrated monster that we all often read about in the newspaper. The eventuality is coming to Jeff Mudrick soon. The fact that he does not choose to be with his own kind shows that he is already an outcast in his ethnic community and now he has to be a vagabond trying to attach himself with other hosts.

Anonymous said...

PhoDawg since you admit that you are just a liar, and just a piece of sh*t. The school you go to is just sh*t because you can't even speak or write proper English. Your output is still below the knowledge level. To put it succinctly, you are retarded. You need to stop barking as a dog. You are not wanted here, now be a good dog and go cook some dog meat for Jeff Mudrick to eat. After all Jeff Mudrick is an all time admirer of Vietnamese cuisine. Don't forget to add a lot of MSG and maggots-infest fish sauce for him. They are part of his regular diet.

Khmerization said...

Jeff, you wrote that the Crawfurd map only had Thai and Vietnamese names. Someone just sent me a link found by Bora Touch which shows Crawfurd had written Koh Tral as "Koh Dral" in his map. Mr. Bora said that Crawfurd's predecessor, Alexander Hamilton, who visited Banteay Meas (Hatien) in Cambodia in 1718 called the island "Quadrole) which undoubtedly was "Koh Tral". Here is the link: http://mapsof.net/map/1820-1829-siam-and-cochin-china-john-crawfurd-journal-of-an-embassy-o#.U6ZpQpSSxiC.

I'm interested to hear your thought.

Anonymous said...

Woot, woot, Excellent Job on your part, Khmerization! Jeff Mudrick has tried his hardest to discredit the Khmer from their Koh Tral Island by focusing on the name Koh Tral not written on his discovered maps in his research. There is a comment that says that he intentionally left out important details in order to fool the readers. So there it is, Jeff Mudrick! In your face with the map you try to discredit. All of your facts based solely on the Vietnamese are all wrong, and you don't know what you are talking about, and now you should kiss the Khmer Asses. I bet Jeff Mudrick also enjoys repeating the story that Angkor Wat was abandoned and the Khmer had disappeared until the French rediscovered it again. Wrong!!! recent findings of paintings on the Angkor Walls have proved it otherwise. In addition, there are other Khmer cities recorded in history books but left no vestiges to prove their existence. So similarly, the existence of the Khmer population on the Koh Tral Island that Jeff Mudrick has tried to omit and deny must be continuous as well. In your face, Jeff Mudrick the distorter of facts.

Kmenhwatt said...

Thank you for acknowledgement my fellow above. Please don't let the Chinese [DrugonZ] and a white man [Jeff Mudrick] telling us how our geography and history was written base on lies,These two outsider were scumbags and bias his ass for yuon's Ka'douy.Its made me sick because these two clown can't even read khmer's language nor stay a nano second in Khmer's school ,how can these two scumbags tell me about my history nor geography? I stayed in Khmers school for many years finished high school in Srok khmer before went to abroad studied English .

Jeff and DrugonZ shouldn't preach lies about Khmer geography on Tral island in the name of hatred toward Khmer as whole.

DrugonZ is hated monger toward Khmers folks,he was a Ching Chong guy made in China-cheap shit,Yuon hated him and he still defend yuon and Jeff Mudrick also defend yuon for Ka'douy despite Yiekcong had killed 58,000 of his fellows white-men (Americans) during Vietnam & American war from 1968-1975.These two; the Ching (DruginZ and white trash (Jeff Murdrick ) were RACISM period.

Anonymous said...

Khmerization: I was going to stop posting here but with your posting of Crawfurd's map is a substantive challenge on the facts. You are wrong, it doesn't say Koh Dral it says Koh Dud, the Thai name. Your map you cannot clearly read it, here is a blow up from a better quality map. I will email you my copy of the full map for your reference. Jeff

https://www.dropbox.com/s/apavzrqwlc8j5h8/IMG_20140622_133803.jpg

Anonymous said...

Khmerization :Map emailed.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but you can't even read that map. I've provided Khmerization with a much better copy. It says Koh Dud not Koh Dral.

Khmerization said...

Jeff, Don't read the map i posted. Please go to the link and zoom in, you will see "Koh Dral" written clearly. http://mapsof.net/map/1820-1829-siam-and-cochin-china-john-crawfurd-journal-of-an-embassy-o#.U6Z8X5SSxiD

Anonymous said...

We "It's not technical in nature" was not my post. Please direct your invective elsewhere. If anyone here had the balls to use their names you'd be able to tell one poster from another. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Khmerization, can you make sense of the maps at this website:
http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/asia/Indo-ChinaIndex.htm

It is possible that Koh Dud is Koh Dral because the of the transliteration. Khmerization, you need to check the Thai source because of Jeff Mudrick's evasiveness.

Anonymous said...

It's still fuzzy. My map at 13MB is crystal clear. Koh Dud. Jeff

Anonymous said...

I gave Khmerization a better quality copy of his map. That's evasive? . You are truly an imbecile.

Khmerization said...

Jeff, your map said "Koh Dud or Phu Kwok" but it doesn't give any other details, so how can we verify it's Crawfurd's map. The link I gave shows clearly it's Crawfurd's map drawn in 1820-1829.http://mapsof.net/map/1820-1829-siam-and-cochin-china-john-crawfurd-journal-of-an-embassy-o#.U6YbYpSSySp

Anonymous said...

Dude I said I emailed you the full map. You are making this far more difficult than it needs to be. Jeff

Anonymous said...

I will upload the full map to Dropbox so everyone has a clear copy

Anonymous said...

Here is link to full map in best quality :
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cg1a22ww1qzkgo/1820_1829_Siam_and_Cochin_China_John_Crawfurd_journal_of_an_embassy_o.jpg. Jeff

Anonymous said...

I presume Bora Touch was using your same map and made the same error. An honest mistake. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Even if the map were not clear Crawfurd's journal is. As mentioned in my article the island is described there as except for a few Hainanese, 100% Cochin Chinese. I can provide a link if you are interested. Jeff

Anonymous said...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/apavzrqwlc8j5h8/IMG_20140622_133803.jpg

That settles that. It is not 'Koh Dral'. It is 'Koh Dud.' 

When not completely clear like it is on the larger maps it is something if a Rorschach test for people who really want it to be Koh Tral. They see Koh Dral "clearly" even though it says Koh Dud. Anyway, glad that's settled. It says Koh Dud.

Different question, do you have a reference that shows Koh Dud to be the Thai name?

Anonymous said...

I think from Crawfurd's journal but I will double check. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Crawfurd's journal page 99: "The place we had now visited is called by the Cochin Chinese Phu-kok, and by the Siamese Koh-dud, or the" far island". He goes on to mention that the Khmers call it "Koh-trol" and that it appeared on old maps that way (as we know). On page 100 is the mention of the inhabitants of Phu-kok being "all of the true Cochin Chinese race". Jeff

Anonymous said...

That is very clear and specific. Thank you. Is Crawfurd's journal on the Internet somewhere? Do you have a link? (Sorry if you posted it already. There is a lot of stuff to sort through here.)

Anonymous said...

The best copy is here:https://archive.org/details/journalanembass04crawgoog

There is also an appendix I believe to Vol 2 written earlier (1810) which mentions the Cochin Chinese authorities on the island. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Dear Khmerization, what is your take of the stuff below?
Jeff Mudrick’s position:“Since Vietnamese possess the island, as they have since say 1789, the CNRP has to prove up early Khmer sovereignty to have a case for repossession. King Ang Duong’s letters to the French in the 1850s were the last expression of a claim by a Khmer sovereign on behalf of Koh Tral for one hundred years. The opinions of French officials in Ha Tien are not under international law, any more than the opinions of Kem Sokha. What matters is whether Cambodia, the state, has made a continuous claim of severignty over Phu Quoc. . If Cambodia had a strong case under international law one wonders why it's never brought the matter forward.”

Some of the omitted details are below:
1) Viet chronicles apparently liked to claim dominion over certain areas down in the delta that they didn't really control or occupy, with the Vietnamese controlling only small enclaves with the Khmers dominating the rest of the countryside.
2) French archaeologist Malleret surveyed the island of Koh Tral in the mid 20th and found pot sherds on the island. He did not follow them up to determine the ethnicity of the people who left them there. He also found unexplained odds and ends as well.
3) Viets always change the Khmer names to Viet names. In the 1830’s, the Vietnamese attempted to erase all traces of Khmerness by Vietnamizing the way the Khmer women wore their hair, the names of Khmer towns andstreets.
4) Is the absence of evidence for Khmer continued occupation of the island enough for one to conclude that the Khmer abandoned the island?
5) Regarding the Khmer population on the Island of Koh Tral, could they be impermanent fishing communities or isolated farmers.
6) Even if there’s the absence of the archaeological evidence of Middle Period Khmer occupation of the island, can anyone conclude with certainty that the island was not Khmer when there are Middle Period capital cities in Cambodia that had left no detectable remains.
7) What obligations did France have for Cambodia as a French protectorate? Why did Brevie draw his line in 1939? What were the outcomes of the dispute between French administrations of Kampot and Ha Tien (Peam in Khmer).
8) Koh Tral is only a stone’s throw from Kampot (Funan) and one of the Khmer inscriptions dating from the 6th to 7th century is just a few kilometers away in Kampot. Even though there’s nothing much remaining from Funan, the conclusion can be drawn in the opposite direction that Funan must itself have been a distinctly Khmer civilization. If the opposite conclusion could be drawn for Funan to be Khmer, then could the people of Koh Tral during that period be Khmer?
9) Since Koh Tral’s archeological evidence shows that the island’s inhabitants were of the Kingdom of Funan or ( O’Keo Culture) and it shows Khmer occupation of and dominion over the island predating the Viets, how could the island be ever given up or cut out from Khmer territory?
10) The English agents of the British East India Company founded a settlement on the island of Koh Tralach or (Pulo Condor), but the Viets murdered some of them, destroyed their factory, and chased out the remaining settlers. The early 19th century was also when the Viets were first moving in on central Cambodia with intent to take over. While the Aboriginal habitation on the island of Tasmania was being exterminated by white settlers, the Khmer habitation on Koh Tral seemed to have disappear when Viets were there.
11) If Cambodia did NOT have a strong case under international law then why on July 7, 1982 the Viets found it necessary to force their puppet Cambodian government to sign away Khmer claims of ownership through the Treaty on the Historical Water Zone between the Peoples Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam by which on the attached map the islands of Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) and Poulo-Pangjang (Tho Chu) appear as Viet territory.

Anonymous said...

Your statement of historic facts is pretty much correct. But you continue to make the same mistake as others, the Vietnamese don't have to prove that Khmers abandoned the island the Khmers have the obligation to prove their claim of sovereignty. You might also consider the case of Qatar v Bahrain. Bahrain clearly occupied the island first, only. 3 miles from their coast. ICJ awarded the island to Qatar. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Khmerization, what is knowledge of the term "Cochin-Chinese"? I have never heard of that. Here is how the term is defined by wikitionary:

Noun

Cochin-Chinese -noun- (uncountable): A native or inhabitant of Cochin China

Adjective: Cochin-Chinese (not comparable) Of, or relating to Cochin-China or its inhabitants

Since Cochin-China is also known as Kampuchea Krom from the wikepedia, does that mean the term refers to the ethnic Khmer people also? I do know that the Americans use the term IndoChinese to refer to the Lao, the Khmer, and the Viets. It would be nice if you can elaborate on that. As far as Jeff Mudrick is concerned the term only refers to his Vietnamese because he wants to connect it to the dominant people living on the island so that they can have the right to self determination.

Anonymous said...

Bora Touch would say the 1980s treaties were necessary for the Vietnamese because they gave the Vietnamese more territory than they were offered in 1964.

Anonymous said...

Khmerization, does the stuff below make any sense at all? The original owners vs the occupiers, and the occupiers got the reward? How closely similar is the case of Qatar v Bahrain to Cambodia vs Vietnam? Isn't Cambodia a unique case in this world? Isn't Cambodia the victim of the Vietnamese colonists, and this is not to mention about the Thais and the Lao who are still making their countries out of Cambodian territory. What is your take on Jeff's view?

Jeff wrote, "the Vietnamese don't have to prove that Khmers abandoned the island the Khmers have the obligation to prove their claim of sovereignty. You might also consider the case of Qatar v Bahrain. Bahrain clearly occupied the island first, only. 3 miles from their coast. ICJ awarded the island to Qatar."

Anonymous said...

Come on. Did you just not read the Crawfurd quote : "The Cochin Chinese call the island Phu-kok.. the Khmer Koh-trol."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
10:33 am

Although, I don't want to play your game, but here's to start : It's not technical in nature.

22 June 2014 1:16 pm
-----------------------
Wrong, it is technical.

This person needs to get a nick-name, a pen-name to reduce confusion. Khmer people are very incompetent, a confusing bunch.

-Drgunzet-

P.S. Here is my question to the entire Khmer race again:

Why does the website
http://ki-media.blogspot.com/
show
Monday, December 31, 275759
???

Anonymous said...

Review Khmerization 4 points. He's already said there is no case at the ICJ unless the Vietnamese want to go there.

Anonymous said...

Good news, Khmer people. Jeff said to consider the case of the Hawar Islands dispute between Bahrain and Qatar. The archipelago is only (1.9 km) from the Qatari mainland whilst being (19 km) from the main islands of Bahrain), however the ICJ awarded the islands to Bahrain because "the islands used to be one of the settlements of the Bahraini branch of the Dawasir who settled there before the Qatari in the 19th century."

So can this be a Lebron James' slam dunk for Cambodia's case with Vietnam? If the court only requires the first settlement, then Cambodia wins already. The Khmer Rouge captured the island in 1975 and recorded the Khmer people on the island and Jeff himself says that there are still Khmer living on the island - I hope the Viets who are reading this will not do any harm to those Khmer on the island just to win the case at all cost. Anyway, Jeff clearly implies that the term Cochin-chinese as used by Crawford referred to the Vietnamese because they referred to island as "Fu Kwok". This raises the question that does this mean that there were no Khmer inhabitants living on the island at the time even if they were not discovered by the Westerners? Trade-oriented/missionary Vietnamese were expected to be known by the westerners, but the quiet shy peaceful Khmer inhabitants on the island would be an exception. Similarly, the Cambodian capital are called as Nam Vang by the Viets and Kim Ta by the Chinese and by other name by the Lao locals so does that mean there are no Khmer inhabitants living in the capital?

Anonymous said...

Hey 8:04, the Lao people in Cambodia called Phnom Penh as "Meung Pa Tay".

Khmerization said...

Jeff,

The link you gave me is the same as my own link, which shows the name of Koh Tral looks like "Koh Dral" but not clear enough. The other link you gave shows clearly "Koh Dud", but it just shows the map, no other details which hard to verify. However, it could likely be "Koh Dud" or "Koh Dral" in the map that we couldn't see clearly. And in your post above you also said that Crawfurd did also mention the name of "Koh Tral" in his journal.

How do you response to Crawfurd's predecessor, John Alexander, who wrote in his published diary when he visited Banteay Meas (Hatien) in 1718? See that Hamilton still use the Khmer name of Banteay Meas instead of the Vietnamese name Hatien? In 1718 Hatien was still controlled by Cambodia and was called Banteay Meas. It only fell to Vietnam in 1722 along with Koh Tral, so it make perfect sense that in 1718 Hatien was still called Banteay Meas and Koh Tral was called Koh Tral or Koh Dral Or "Quadrole" by Alexander Hamilton.

Regarding Crawfurd's description of the island inhabitants as 100% "Cochin Chinese" it makes perfect sense. Remember that Kampuchea Krom was called by France as Cochin China and the population was Khmers, not Vietnamese. At that time the population of Cochin China (Kampuchea Krom) were mainly Khmers, not Vietnamese. So the "Cochin Chinese" people that Crawfurd were talking about were Khmers, not Vietnamese.

Anonymous said...

Bad news you are referring to the wrong islands, the ICJ decision gave another island to Qatar in spite of the fact that Bahrain was their first.

For the millionth time Vietnam does not have to prove that no Khmers were there. cambodia has to prove they occupied and controlled the island. On the absence of evidence it stays Vietnamese. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Dude he specifically said that the Cochin Chinese call the island Phu-kok and the Khmers Koh-trol. The Cochin Chinese he was referring to were obviously Vietnamese. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Jeff wrote, "Bad news you are referring to the wrong islands, the ICJ decision gave another island to Qatar in spite of the fact that Bahrain was their first"

Well spell out the name of the island then. Why do you beat around the bush too much. Are you hiding something?

Anonymous said...

Khmerization: This map: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cg1a22ww1qzkgo/1820_1829_Siam_and_Cochin_China_John_Crawfurd_journal_of_an_embassy_o.jpg

is exactly the same as yours, with Crawfurd's name on it, no "details" missing, everything exactly the same as yours except in better resolution with Koh Dud as clear as can be. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Khmerization, it would be useful to invest time in the French source instead of the English-language sources. Here is one sentence I copied from the French source about Koh Tral: "L'ile de Phu-quoc connue des Cambodgiens sous le nom de Koh Sral ou de Koh tral..." I think it says that the Phu Quoc island is known in Cambodian as Koh Sral or Koh Tral.

You might want to check on the Khmer source by Mak Phoeun.



Anonymous said...

"Well spell out the name of the island then. Why do you beat around the bush too much. Are you hiding something?"

So it's my job to do your research?

Janan island.

Jeff

Khmerization said...

Thanks 4:58 pm for providing this link: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/asia/Indo-ChinaIndex.htm

In the link above, the first three maps produced in 1751, 1787 and 1832 put all the Kampuchea Krom territory(Cochin China) under Cambodian rule. That was before the French colonisation of Cambodia in 1863. If Cambodia ruled Cochin China (Kampuchea Krom) at that time it means Koh Tral was still under Cambodian rule at that time also.

Anonymous said...

It was your suggestion to begin with and thus you are the one who starts the fire. I bet you did not know that Koh Tral is also know as Koh Sral according to the French source. Now you know. You don't have to thank me for it.

Anonymous said...

Khmerization:

"In the link above, the first three maps produced in 1751, 1787 and 1832 put all the Kampuchea Krom territory(Cochin China) under Cambodian rule. That was before the French colonisation of Cambodia in 1863. If Cambodia ruled Cochin China (Kampuchea Krom) at that time it means Koh Tral was still under Cambodian rule at that time also."

Incorrect on all counts:

1751/1787: Cochin China was at these dates ruled by the Vietnamese Nguyen lords, not Cambodia. This was prior to the unification of Vietnam in 1802. That is why Cochin China is shown separate from both Cambodia and Tonkin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_lords). Phu Quoc's at this time was under control of the Mac family who was paying tribute to the Nguyen, not to Cambodia.

1832: You are forgetting your history. At this point in time Vietnam, ie Cochin China had annexed Cambodia (Master's Tea and all that), not the other way around.

Remember, in any event, in multiple cases the ICJ has made it clear that maps don't count for much as they are often copied from other maps which are often wrong.

Jeff

Anonymous said...

Dear Khmerization, your opinion is warranted in the case of Qatar vs Bahrain.

Jeff wrote, “The opinions of French officials in Ha Tien are not under international law, any more than the opinions of Kem Sokha.” Then he wants the readers to consider the Qatar vs Bahrain case.

Apparently, back in the day, the French administrators of Kampot (Cambodge) and the French administrators of Peam (Cochin China) wanted the control over Koh Tral but couldn’t resolve it. This prompted Brevier to step in to draw his line in 1939 to use as merely an administrative line not demarcation line.

Jeff considers the case of Qatar vs Bahrain to supporting his view.
However, upon closer examination of the ICJ’s final binding decision on Qatar vs Bahrain, it is clear that the court considered the colonial decision in its deliberation. The court’s reasoning goes like this: “The Court observes that the British decision of 1939 makes no mention of Janan Island. …In 1947…the British Government made it clear that "Janan Island is not regarded as being included in the islands of the Hawar group". The Court considers that the British Government provided an authoritative interpretation of its 1939 decision. The Court then turns to the question of the maritime delimitation. It recalls that international customary law is the applicable law in the case.

Anonymous said...

Yeah for Cambodia: If the Brevier's decision of 1939 is used Cambodia will be able to reclaim Koh Tral. According to Jeff, the Chinese adventurer Mac was granted authority by the Khmer King to develop Koh Tral but then he sought refuge with the Vietnamese Nguyen house because the Khmer King couldn't protect him from the Thais. Even so, Koh Tral remained part of Cambodia even back then still. Why, consider when the Khmer King allowed the Cham immigrants to develop a piece of territory that later on became Kompong Cham Province. It was never cut out from Cambodia. It is time to get the sheriff to serve the summon to the Viets to appear at the ICJ to settle this issue once and for all. Yeah for Cambodia.

Anonymous said...

Regarding maps and the ICJ, it is worth noting that in the Preah Vihear case, a case in which maps played a crucial role and Cambodia correctly prevailed, the court quite explicitly did not rule on the accuracy or validity of the map, nor did it base it's ruling primarily on the placement of Preah Vihear on that map. It based its ruling on the official and joint nature of the production of the map (between Siam and authority in Cambodia) and the both explicit and implicit subsequent official acceptance of that part of the map by both sides, Siam/Thailand and Cambodia. The court explicitly stated that it did not rule on the validity of the map.

It is not about finding a map that agrees with you but, in so far as maps play a role in deciding such cases, about finding a map that can carry weight in an international court. In the case of Preah Vihear that weight derived from the joint production and acceptance of the map, not from its existence. 

Anonymous said...

"Jeff considers the case of Qatar vs Bahrain to supporting his view."

It was a complicated case. What is important is the court made it clear that the first settlement on Janan by Bahrain did not mean they were entitled to the island, nor was it important that it was 3 milies from the Bahrain coast. Jeff

Anonymous said...

The Chams were allowed to settle in Kompong Cham. If the Thais attacked Kompong Cham, and the Chams asked Vietnam for protection, Kompong Cham will belong to Vietnam too.

But as we see, Kompong Cham is in the middle of Cambodia, so it is safe from the Thai.

The ancient's rule was simple: If you cannot protect the land and the people living at the area, no matter what you claim, you lose it.

Now the modern law has replaced the brutal ancient's law. But it does not mean you folks can claim Koh Tral or Khmer Krom. You could not protect those land from the Thais, the Ming Chinese folks sought protection with Vietnam, those land were given to Vietnam.

If you still want to file complain to the world, make sure you include the Ming Chinese in your complaint. I will not not tolerate Khmer lies against Vietnam. You cannot lie by cutting out crucial fact that the Ming Chinese gave those lands to Vietnam.

I won't bother to debate whether it's legal for the Ming Chinese to give land to Vietnam. My goal is simply to stop the Khmer lies.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

The White people moved into Texas which used to belong to Mexico. The formed a Texas Republic because there were mostly White folks with hardly any Mexicans around.

When Mexico attacked Texas, USA intervened. Mexico lost the war and lost a lot more lands, much more. Mexico lost California, Arizona, Nevada, and other big patch of land.

If you folks still want to fight over Koh Tral and Khmer Krom, I would not be surprised you folks would lose all the land East of the Mekong river as well as all the land with the Chams living on it.

You cannot just suddenly attack other country, murder the unarmed, defenseless civilians then get away with it. You will be punished.

-Drgunzet-

Anonymous said...

Khmerization I presume you are in US, maybe still asleep. I hope that you will accept you can made an honest and understandable mistake regarding the Crawfurd map and modify your OP accordingly. Jeff

Anonymous said...

The caucasian christians did it, they attacked the Native Americans, raped, and murdered the defenseless women and children, stole their land, forced them to convert to a middle eastern religion and then commence write down their biased version of "his" story.

Anonymous said...

For those of you readers who have some knowledge of Jeff Mudrick who has the username at that other racist website as jm and his negative incorrigible perennial views of Cambodians in general, I beg you to block that aspect of his personal racism against the Cambodians. Please read his own clarification of his article that non of you care to read because he has been such a racist bigot towards Cambodians for at least 20 years.

If you are interested, read below and then counter his premises used to support his view accordingly.

Jeff Mudrick’s Clarification of His Own Article Published on the Diplomat Website

“I don't argue unequivocally that historically Koh Tral belongs to Vietnam, I argue that Cambodia cannot make a strong case under international law that it belongs to Cambodia. There is a difference. I believe that CNRP leaders are doing their supporters a disservice by leading them to believe that they can secure Koh Tral. That's my position. I make it clear I believe there is evidence for very early Khmer presence on the island (pre-Angkor). I agree that the Vietnamese were not on the island until the 17th or early 18th century, Khmers hundreds of years earlier. That does not mean Cambodia can get return of the island under international law, and that is the point of the article. I repeat that my article addresses whether there is a case under international law not whether Khmer settled there in the Oc Eo period, I acknowledge that they did. That fact is not sufficient under international law to get the island back. Kampuchea Krom is another subject but of course I recognize that area was once part of Cambodia without question.

Continued to part II

Anonymous said...

Part II -- Continued from Part I: Jeff Mudrick's clarification of his article published on the Diplomat Website.

"Again, the thrust of my article which is not that Koh Tral has always been Vietnamese, it hasn't, but that Cambodia is very unlikely to win it back in the ICJ based on the evidence Cambodian advocates have presented. Since Vietnamese possess the island, as they have since say 1789, the CNRP has to prove up early Khmer sovereignty to have a case for repossession. King Ang Duong’s letters to the French in the 1850s were the last expression of a claim by a Khmer sovereign on behalf of Koh Tral for one hundred years. The opinions of French officials in Ha Tien are not under international law, any more than the opinions of Kem Sokha. What matters is whether Cambodia, the state, has made a continuous claim of severignty over Koh Tral. If Cambodia had a strong case under international law one wonders why it's never brought the matter forward. When I mentioned about the Falklands, I am referring to its relevancy in that the ICJ is concerned about the rights to self determination of its overwhelmingly British population, just as they would regarding the 99% Vietnamese residents of Koh Tral. In Crawfurd's journal on page 99, he wrote, "The place we had now visited is called by the Cochin Chinese Phu-kok, and by the Siamese Koh-dud, or the" far island". He goes on to mention that the Khmers call it "Koh-trol" and that it appeared on old maps that way (as we know). Thus, he specifically said that the Cochin Chinese call the island Phu-kok and the Khmers Koh-trol. The Cochin Chinese he was referring to were obviously Vietnamese. As mentioned in my article the island is described there as except for a few Hainanese, 100% Cochin Chinese.

Continued to part III

Anonymous said...

Part III of Jeff Mudrick's Clarification of his article

"Despite the historical facts favoring Cambodia, the Vietnamese don't have to prove that Khmers abandoned the island. It is the Khmers who have the obligation to prove their claim of sovereignty. You might also consider the case of Qatar v Bahrain. Bahrain clearly occupied the Janan island first and is only 3 miles from their coast. ICJ awarded the island to Qatar. So again, the ICJ decision gave another island to Qatar in spite of the fact that Bahrain was on the Janan Island first. The case of Qatar vs Bahrain was a complicated case. What is important is the court made it clear that the first settlement on Janan by Bahrain did not mean they were entitled to the island, nor was it important that it was 3 milies from the Bahrain coast. The Vietnamese don't need to go to the ICJ to prove anything as they already control Koh Tral. The burden of proof is on Cambodia to take it away from them and I don't believe Cambodia has a winning case. Perhaps Sihanouk didn't either. Why Preah Vihear in 1962 but never Koh Tral? Ang Duong's claim of sovereignty was just that, a claim. The fact was the Vietnamese had controlled the island since 1789 (per Bora Touch) or earlier . The French negotiated the Treaty of Saigon with the Vietnamese, not with Cambodia, clearly they believed the Vietnamese had sovereignty not the Khmers. If you review cases in international law you will find that "we were there first" is not sufficient to establish a claim of sovereignty. Right or wrong that's the way it is. The purpose of the Brevie memo was first and foremost to deal with other small islands near the Cambodian coast who had previously had to deal with Saigon on police and administrative matters where dealing with Cambodian officials would be much easier. Thus the Brevie Line established Cambodian administration for those islands. It's incorrect to say that Phu Quoc was yet to be demarcated, it was before and was after administered as part of Cochin China, the Brevie memo simply acknowledged that Cambodia disputed Koh Tral's ownership and that this memo was not aimed at dealing with that political issue. Respectfully the Brevie memo simply left the status of Phu Quoc unchanged. It had been administered by Cochin China and the memo, while changing the status of other islands, left Phu Quoc under Cochin Chinese administration. Its primary concern was to transfer police and administrative functions of certain small islands from Cochin China to Cambodia. Phu Quoc which was then under Cochin Chinese administration was left unchanged. Bora Touch argues that it is through UN decolonization that Cambodia would get back Koh Tral, a point about which he and I disagree. Koh Tral was part of the State of Vietnam prior to 1954. It didn't need to be transferred "back" to them. From 1954 - 1970 Sihanouk elected not to pursue the issue of Koh Tral at the UN, choosing instead to negotiate border issues directly with the Vietnamese. In 1964 he accepted the Brevie Line. The only one to make a continuous claim in living memory was Lon Nol. I absolutely agree with Khmerization that for the ICJ to hear any cases, both Vietnam and Cambodia have to agree to bring the case before it. In addition, if Vietnam refuses to abide by the ICJ verdict, who will enforce the verdict, the UN or the US? No chance. I don't defend either the CPP or the Vietnamese government. I only offer my analysis of the particular issue of Koh Tral. We are all entitled to express our opinions or don't you believe in freedom of expression? I offered my analysis, you disagree that's fine, you have right to your opinion as I should have right to mine.

Anonymous said...

Repost:
Anonymous said...
10:33 am

Although, I don't want to play your game, but here's to start : It's not technical in nature.

22 June 2014 1:16 pm
-----------------------
Wrong, it is technical.

This person needs to get a nick-name, a pen-name to reduce confusion. Khmer people are very incompetent, a confusing bunch.

-Drgunzet-

P.S. Here is my question to the entire Khmer race again:

Why does the website
http://ki-media.blogspot.com/
show
Monday, December 31, 275759
???

22 June 2014 7:28 pm

I will remind you folks again: When I was in my early teen, I was the street battle commanders for the light-skinned kids battling against the dark-skinned kids. I am very sophisticated. Someone tricked me to reveal the solution. Now, the person disappeared.

I can also post my solution to a different website with a time stamp to prove the point I do know the answer. Meanwhile, no Khmer can answer my question.

--------------
About the Khmer. If you put a mirrors in front of various monkey species, only 4 monkey species would recognize their own reflections as themselves. If I put some humanity tests, Khmer folks lack a lot of concepts which other human races have.

I really don't think the Khmer is the same specie with many other races. I will not use the term sub-human. That term is racist. I simply say the Khmer lack a lot of abilities which other races normally have. It's alarming and dangerous.

The worst one was compassion. Khmer race would chop an unarmed, defenseless civilian to pieces to get their ways, or they could rip an unborn baby from the mother's womb. That's what I was told in the labor team with other Cambodians laborers. What a sick race.

You can see here again the Khmer posters always advocate for killing, murdering, fighting against other races.

Anonymous said...

LET'S MERGE VIETNAM AND CAMBODIA INTO ONE COUNTRY. THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE DAYS AND NIGHTS. KHMERS CAN CALL VIETNAM-CAMBODIA THEIR COUNTRY. YOUN CAN CALL VIET-CAMBODIA THEIR COUNTRY. FAIR ENOUGH? BOTH PEOPLES ARE RIGHT, SO LET'S MERGE GUYS? LET'S NOT ARGUE LIKE LITTLE CHILDREN, BEGGING FOR ADULTS (AKA JM&OTHERS) TO SIDE WITH YOU OR ME. FAIR ENOUGH, LET'S DO IT.

Anonymous said...

7:28 pm

Drgunzet


The answere to your question
"December 31,....." is given to you.
Now It's YOUR turn.
What's your answer ?

Khmerization said...

Could the name "Koh Dud" be Khmer name? The word "Koh" in Khmer means "island" and "Dud", pronounced "Dutch" could be a misnomer of the Khmer word "dach", pronounced "Dutch", which means "cuff off or far off"? In Crawfurd's journal he translated the word "Koh Dud" as a "far off island". The word "far or far off" in Thai is "klai" (ไกล), not "Dud". "Dud", if pronounced as "Dutch", would be a Khmer word meaning "cut off or far off", so "Koh Dud" means a "far off or cut off island" in Khmer and it's possible a Khmer name.

Anonymous said...

11:51 PM


Yes, for sure YOU are great liar !!!

Anonymous said...

7:1 am
Drgunzet

You are just an empty can.
Old man, YOU suffer a mentality of inferior complex !!!

Anonymous said...

My friend you are digging the grave of your own cause with your sloppy scholarship. The Alexander Hamilton journal which you now cite in your blatantly inaccurate OP, clearly says that at the time of his visit in 1718 that the island of Quadrol was UNINHABITED. He says it had been abandoned for fear of pirates. Here for everyone's reference is the page.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7iqqy6z4bc6hew0/Screenshot_2014-06-23-05-48-01.png

As for your above comment about Koh Dud you are clearly grasping at straws in the face of clear evidence. crawfurd says that name is Thai and that is the name he pus on his map. He knows the Khmer name and chooses not to use it. Even if the name Koh Dud were rooted in Khmer it would not be significant, the fact that he chooses to use the name he believes as Thai is significant.

Thank you for the Hamilton reference, it is a hugely important finding. Unfortunately it does great damage to the Cambodian case for Koh Tral. I will make Diplomat readers aware of this significant finding. Jeff

Anonymous said...

6:15 am
Stupid Drgunzet

Your mother was a Chinese Yuon, your father was a Khmer, and you were born in Cambodia,.that's why you were allowed to come to the US.
Therefore you are by birth right a Khmer, Yuon Khmer. You were allowed to enter into the States as a Khmer refugee.

However you are the low life kind we
love to hate.

Anonymous said...

22 June @ 12:10 am
Mr. Mudrick,

I've been waiting for two days now for YOUR response ( s ).
Thanks

Khmerization said...

Jeff at 9:07 am, our discussion here is to prove the historical context of Koh Tral, not to prove whether Cambodia has a case to put before the icj. I have stated clearly that Cambodia has a case, but unlikely to reclaim the island back because VN would refuse to go to the icj and refuse to accept the verdict.

The fact that Crawford and Hamilton acknowledged the name "Koh Tral/Quadrol" in their diaries proved that Koh Tral was inhabited/controlled by Cambodian/Cambodia at that time because VN haven't controlled Kampuchea Krom, or not incomplete control of the area. The name Koh Dud doesn't not mean anything in Thai, let alone a "far off island". If we translate the word "Koh Dud" in Khmer it means a "far off island".

Anonymous said...

Jeff wrote, "The Alexander Hamilton journal clearly says that at the time of his visit in 1718 that the island of Quadrol was UNINHABITED. He says it had been abandoned for fear of pirates. Unfortunately it does great damage to the Cambodian case for Koh Tral. I will make Diplomat readers aware of this significant finding."

Assuming Quadrol is a reference to Koh Tral, how can Alexander Hamilton conclude that the island was not populated? What did he use to come up with that conclusion? Parallelly, didn't some Westerners also say that Angkor Wat City was abandoned for some hundred years before discovered again by the French? Recent findings negate that statement of abandonment of Angkor Wat already. Since Alexander Hamilton made a statement about "pirates", then what proof did he offer? Who were those "pirates"? The name "Pirates of Koh Tral" must be a good find that the readers are interested in learning more about.



Anonymous said...

Khmerization, I think I can buy your explanation: "The name Koh Dud doesn't not mean anything in Thai, let alone a "far off island". If we translate the word "Koh Dud" in Khmer it means a "far off island".

So in Thai language, Koh Duch does not mean "far off island", but the "dud" is very similar to the Khmer word Dach" meaning cut out from or separated. Cool interpretation. What about the "pirates" that Hamilton mentioned? Who were those "pirates" is there a proof that they were on Koh Tral to wreak havoc with the Khmer population there? Is it a place where the pirates hide their riches and treasures? This get so interesting!

Anonymous said...

He was there. He describes in some detail the condition of the harbors where people would have settled. That the area around Koh Tral was infested with pirates was well reported. The small islands off Koh Tral are still known as the Pirate Islands.

Now for the 2,000,000th. time and I don't know why you all are so thick to not understand THE VIETNAMESE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING, CAMBODIA HAS TO PROVE THE CASE THAT THE ISLAND WAS ALWAYS THEIRS. The Vietnamese would have considerable evidence to the contrary and this first hand account would be an important part of that. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Dude what matters is that Crawfurd thinks that it's Thai and uses that name instead of the KHMER name he also knows. Whether it is Thai in current language or not matters not at all.

Anonymous said...

It's quite telling Khmerization that when you thought. Hamilton proved your case he goes straight to an amended OP. Now that it's clear he doesn't he's discounted. People here clearly have no interest in the truth.

Anonymous said...

To Khmerization, A New Account: Page 402 by Alexander Hamilton, can you simplify what the author's writing means? Here is 1) "There are several islands that lie off the Coast of Cambodia, but none are inhabited, because the Saleeters, or Pirates that infest that Coast, rob them of what they get by Pains and Industry." The question is, what several islands were Alexander referring to? Can you name them specifically? Who were the Pirates that infest the Coast of Cambodia?

Then Alexander went on to write this,2) "Though, there is one about three Leagues West of Ponteamas, called Quadrol, that has good Qualifications for a Settlement. It is about three Leagues long, and one broad. Wood and freth Water are plentiful, the Ground of a moderate Height, the soil black and fat, except along the East Side which faces Ponteamas, and that has several fine sandy bays, and they are good safe Harbors in the rainy and windy seasons."

Does that mean that Koh Tral still had Khmer settlement?

Does this mean that the Khmer King still had the sovereignty over those islands off the Cambodian Coast? Clearly, Alexander Hamilton only used the Khmer names for those islands. He also gives clear reasons why the Khmer people didn't populate those "several islands" because of their great fear of the "pirates that infest that Coast, rob them of what they get by Pains and Industry." Does this mean that the Khmer people used to populate those islands? Does it also mean that if the pirates were to be out of the way, the Khmer people would return to those islands? Who were the "Saleeters" that Alexander Hamilton was referring to? He defined them as "pirates". Were they the same as the Cham or Javanese Pirates that challenge the Khmer people of the Chenla Period? Looking forward to hear your elucidation.



Anonymous said...

Good qualifications for settlement means it could be settled in the future though it wasn't then.

The evidence is that Khmers were on the island previously, but it's not clear when the island would have been abandoned. From the previously cited sources in my article it appears that for whatever reasons the Khmer did not come back in numbers large enough to be noticed by 18th and 19th century observers. Jeff

Anonymous said...

Re sovereignty, in 1718 the Viets had not yet settled or claimed Koh Tral. Just around this time the apparently empty island was granted to the Chinese Mac Cuu who change soon change allegiance from the Khmer king to the Vietnamese. Jeff

Anonymous said...

On the issue of Sovereignty of Koh Tral, Jeff Mudrick interprets that sine Crawfurd identifed in writing the island by name of the CoChin Chinese of "Phu Kok", then the "Vietnamese" must have the sovereignty over the island. What about when Crawfurd also indicated in writing the "Thai" name of "Koh Dud" for the island, does that mean that Thailand had a sovereignty over the island too. After all, wasn't Cambodia and its all other islands used to be a protectorate of Thailand? Perhaps, we need to look at the Thai sources regarding the island of Koh Tral as well. If we can find out who those "Pirates" that Hamilton was talking about were,then we can find out where they came from. What about the Chinese source? Aren't there Chinese artifacts predating even the Vietnamese on the island? Why was this term "Cochin Chinese" used instead of "Vietnamese"? When was the term "Vietnamese" invented? Let us get all the sources from the Thais, Indonesia, Champa, China, France, England, and other sources as well. The Khmer term identifies the island as the island, so what does Phu Quoc mean in the CoChin Chinese language? Does it have the equivalency in meaning to the Khmer name of Koh Tral? What does the word island means in CoChin Chinese?

If Crawfurd called it Phu Kok means that the CoChin Chinese had sovereignty, then before Crawfurd, Hamilton called it as Quadrol, means that Cambodia had the sovereignty.


«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»