by Stan Starygin
The interview published yesterday by the British publication the Independent turned out to be less recent then many might have assumed by the date of its publication and its text. It is true that nothing in the text suggests that said interview was held recently, however, nothing suggests to the contrary either. It is a well-entrenched assumption, though, that periodicals publish reasonably recent news and not something that happened some 3/4 of a year ago.
It is rare that news agencies let the news acquire a vintage status, however, when in those rare occasions when it is done, it is done for a good reason. What reason the Independent had that caused it to sit on this interview for about 3/4 of a year remains a mistery. It seems that it would have made far more sense to have this interview released when the interviewee was in the spotlight which in the last year has happened at least three times -- the instance of his transfer to ECCC custody (the ECCC likes calling it 'arrest' but that would presume that Kaing Guek Iev was at liberty prior to being taken into ECCC custody), his hearing, and the PTC's decision regarding his co-lawyers' motion for release. Anyone of these instances would have greatly amplified the content of the article in point. The Independent, however, chose to throw us all off the track and have it published when whatever the flurry there was around Duch's case had come to a screeching halt.
It is even more curious exactly how the Indepedent managed to gain access to Duch when some many who had tried prior had been thrown red tape at. Why, all of a sudden, did the Cambodian goverment who had been guarding Duch as a prized trophy for 8 years relent and give this particular media representative access to him and why did it have to be done so clandestinely?
If the two curious facts above are analyzed together, they create a spate of issues that are far from clear or being matters of standard operating procedure of news agencies.