Kim Phuc’s Odyssey: ‘I Dream One Day People All Over The World Can Live In Real Peace’
I had the privilege of covering a good many big stories during a long newspaper career. The visit of a diminutive woman by the name of Phan Ti Kim Phuc to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., on Veterans Day 1996 would seem to pale in comparison to the Clinton impeachment circus or O.J. Simpson trials, to name two of the biggies, but it is one that I cherish.
I had been tipped that Ms. Phuc would be making a surprise appearance at the memorial during the annual Veterans Day ceremonies. Following is the story that I wrote for the Philadelphia Daily News about this event, which for me and many other people at The Wall that day completed a circle that had been broken for many, many years:
By SHAUN D. MULLEN Daily News Staff Writer
Phan Thi Kim Phuc will always be the Girl in the Photograph.
Nine years old when her South Vietnamese village was bombed in
1972, she was photographed fleeing down Highway One from the ferocious napalm attack, the clothes burned off her reed-thin body, arms outstretched and face contorted into a silent, agonizing scream.
The powerful Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph seemed to represent all that had gone horribly wrong for the United States in Vietnam. Some say it hastened the end of the war.
Yesterday, after a remarkable personal odyssey, 32-year-old Kim Phuc (pronounced kim fook) stood before the long black slash that is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and laid a wreath in memory of the 58,212 fallen American men and women whose names are inscribed on the sweeping granite wall.
Several thousand people, many of them former veterans in faded fatigues, looked on from the sweeping lawn below the Lincoln Memorial. Many had tears in their eyes. Some wept. The war was already all but lost on the day 24 years ago that an American commander ordered South Vietnamese Air Force planes to drop napalm on a Buddhist temple in the village of Trang Bang near Saigon.
Kim Phuc had crowded into the temple with other villagers thinking they’d be safe. The napalm attack burned her arms and shoulders to the bone. Her two younger brothers died instantly.
Bundled in a long coat against the autumn chill, Kim Phuc said yesterday that despite everything, she feels no anger.
“I do not want to talk about the war,” she said, almost apologetically, before she and a retired Air Force colonel, a POW for six years after his fighter plane was shot down, carried a large wreath to the wall.
“I cannot change history,” she explained in English. “Even if I could talk face-to-face with the pilot who dropped the bomb, we could not change history. ”
Many in the crowd were surprised when she was introduced. The program for the Veterans Day ceremony had been printed before she decided to come.
Her appearance was a measure of the extent to which Americans have come to terms with a war that divided them. It does not seem likely Kim Phuc would have felt welcome, let alone be a guest of honor who received a sustained ovation, at a Veterans Day ceremony 10 or 15 years ago.
The first major national catharsis toward reconciling the Vietnam tragedy was construction of the memorial itself. Many others have popped up in Philadelphia and elsewhere as Viet vets gained a measure of respect initially denied many of them, and their fallen comrades came to be viewed as heroes no matter how wrong the war may have seemed to many Americans.
The Washington memorial, dedicated in 1982 after a firestorm of controversy over its starkly simple design and intentional lack of overtly military images, is now the most visited memorial in the nation’s capital.
Finally, in 1995, 20 years after the war officially ended with the rooftop helicopter evacuation of diplomats from the American embassy in Saigon, the United States formally recognized the Communist Vietnamese government.
Despite two decades of anguish, guilt and bitterness and a president who had dodged the draft and protested the war, there was remarkably little political fallout. But reactions between the former adversaries have warmed slowly. The Hanoi government may still not have divulged all it knows about the fate of more than 2,000 Americans listed as missing, and members of MIA/POW groups were present yesterday to make sure that was not forgotten. Recently, Washington’s interest in cultivating Vietnam as a trading partner has gotten the most attention. But American Viet vet groups have worked quietly and largely behind the scenes for rapproachement through contacts with former foes and Vietnamese allies.
It was through the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation, which has worked to find and remove landmines and provide prosthetics for Vietnamese amputees, that arrangements were made for Kim Phuc to travel from Canada for the ceremony.
How she got from Trang Bang to Toronto is a story in itself. Associated Press photographer Nick Ut, who won the Pulitzer for his photo, and British television cameraman Alan Downes, who shot less well-known film footage of Kim Phuc that day, saved her life by rushing her to a military hospital.
After the Americans fled in defeat in 1975, she became a propaganda tool for the Communist regime, her burn scars a vivid reminder of the war to be shown to visiting foreign dignitaries along with downed fighter jets and captured artillery pieces.
Kim Phuc says she wanted to go to medical school when she grew older, but was relegated to a secretarial job at a provincial government office. She eventually received permission to attend college at the University of Havana. During six years of study and continuing therapy for her burns, she says she found Jesus, converted to Christianity, and met her future husband, a fellow Vietnamese.
Following a trip home, their plane stopped in Toronto. They defected and received asylum.
She told National Public Radio that while she had wanted to live in the United States, she felt the Vietnamese community here was too fractious politically, and was concerned she again would become a pawn.
The cosmopolitan Canadian city, with its large Asian community, seemed a better choice, and today she lives with her husband and their 2 1/2-year-old-son. But Kim Phuc keeps being reminded of her past.She was invited to visit Los Angeles earlier this year for an exhibit of historic photographs, including Ut’s famous shot. After numerous requests from journalists, she relented and allowed a Canadian documentary crew to film her life.
There is another reminder of who she is: The hideous scars from the crude battlefield surgery on her burns. She dreams in vain of being able to wear sleeveless shirts and dresses without feeling self conscious. And the scars, she said, are especially painful during the cold Toronto winters.
Kim Phuc has another dream, too, she explained, and you know she means it:
“I dream one day people all over the world can live in real peace.”
15 Responses to “Kim Phuc’s Odyssey: ‘I Dream One Day People All Over The World Can Live In Real Peace’”
The civilians always suffer the worst in a war. The numerical figures of civilian casualties, in just about any war, are shocking.
The best that we can do, is to insist that our military leaders obey international conventions regarding civilians and to respect the International Committee of the Red Cross (Genève). Our soldiers do not rape and murder or indiscriminately kill civilians if they are taught humanitarian principals, but if they do they need to be held accountable.
I believe the incident in the photo above was decided an error. One of many I’m sure.
Thank you, Shaun. This is one of those events we should never — will never — forget.
Allen:
It was indeed an error.
Kim and her family were residents of the village of Trang Bang. On June 8, 1972, South Vietnamese Air Force planes dropped a napalm bomb on Trang Bang, which had been attacked and occupied by North Vietnamese forces. Kim joined a group of civilians and South Vietnamese soldiers who were fleeing from the Cao Dai Temple to the safety of South Vietnamese–held positions. A South Vietnamese Air Force pilot mistook the group for enemy soldiers and diverted to attack. The bombing killed two of Kim’s cousins and two other villagers.
mn:
Your take on the Vietnam War is ignorant and your view of the Vietnamese, a lovely and gentle people by nature, is obviously seem through a racist perspective that is inappropriate for this forum.
Let me remind you that it was the U.S. who was most responsible for the carnage:
http://themoderatevoice.com/125446/ho-chi-minh-an-appreciation/
Oh we no doubt killed more people. But if Ho and Giap had been content with a two country status quo, there wouldn’t have been a war. So I hold them at least equally responsible. And like many a civil war for example the US civil war, the real cassus belli really is, which flag is gonna fly over the post offices e.g. sovereignty over territory. I wouldn’t sacrifice my children for that. Ho was ready to do so. That’s not a racist judgment, it’s a moral and political judgment. And “lovely people” sounds pretty condescending, whether or not you’re a doddering old fool : )
mn:
What was your impression of the Vietnamese when you were there?
mn says
“To what end? So that two decades later they could adopt the same economic system they claimed to be against, and to invite American corporations to invest, and McDonalds, and to invite the US Navy back to their ports.”
And I won’t even quote the despicable sentence that follows this.
You know what, you are partly right. Yes, the war between North and South Vietnam may have been over “which flag is gonna fly over the post offices e.g. sovereignty over territory.” And yes, the North Vietnamese flag is now flying over those post offices; and you are even more correct, North and South Vietnam live in peace; are a relatively prosperous society; and they are inviting “American corporations to invest, and McDonalds, and to invite the US Navy back to their ports.”
All this after:
250,000 South Vietnamese military were killed
Approximately two million South Vietnamese civilians were killed
Approximately one million North Vietnamese military and Viet Cong were killed (Some may not care about this)
Approximately 65,000 North Vietnamese civilians were killed (ditto)
Most tragically, 58,272 of our own, American service men (and some service women) were killed
303,644 American GIs were wounded in action
1,687 of our troops are still missing in action, and
866 American heroes were Prisoners of War with 65 of them dying in captivity.
Now, if we had not invented the “domino theory,” etc., the North Vietnamese flag would still be flying over South Vietnamese post offices; Vietnam may still have adopted the economic system they have now; they still may have invited McDonalds,etc., etc., except probably at a much lower cost to the Vietnamese people and without the horrendous price in blood and resources America and Americans paid.
A coda to Dorian’s excellent analysis.
Kim Phuc’s forebears lived under occupying powers for much of Vietnam’s 2,700 year history, including the Chinese four times, the French twice, the Japanese, and of course, the Americans.
The fight waged by Ho and Giap was all about finally throwing off the yoke of the occupier. It was nothing more or nothing less. Their embrace of communism as a liberating tool was absolute, but they understood that they would have to make peace with the major powers if their revolution was to succeed and survive.
The French-Indochinese and Vietnam wars would have been unnecessary if the U.S. had embraced the Vietnamese insurgency when the Japanese were routed and it was to the Americans that Ho first turned. He was rebuffed and this was well before the Domino Theory was promulgated by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his fellow imperialists.
To blame Ho and Giap in any way for the ensuing slaughter is disingenous.
Well, you right, the deaths of American soldiers, while far fewer in number, was “the most tragic,” not because I care more about Americans, but an American life is, on average, more valuable than a Vietnamese life. For the same reasons that a high salary-earner’s life is more valuable than a low-salary-earners, under US tort law, or a young person’s life compared to an old person’s life.
It’s a grave mistake to conflate ancient Vietnamese history with modern Vietnamese history, as any professional historian will tell you generally.
In S. Vietnam, Catholics and highlander tribes were vehemently against N. Vietnamese control over the South, as were a large segment of the remaining population. Supprot for the VC and the North was limited, and most of the population warily indifferent.
I am generally appalled by “wars of liberation.” I dislike nationalism, and value human life. If the Swiss occupied America tomorrow, my first question would be, where do I sign up for Swiss language lessons? I really, really don’t care what flag flies over government buildings.
Ho and Giap were nationalists first, communists second. And sure, maybe the US could have found a modus vivendi with them. But we gave up after losing 50,000 lives of young men. They refused to give up, even at the cost of millions of lives. And for what? In the end, “national honor.” Well, I call that willfully stupid.
Oh, and I don’t know Vietnam all that well, but I know it better than you people. I was there just for a month, and I don’t speak any Asian languages, so my impressions were necessarily superficial. But I’ve read a ton of Asian history and some literature in translation. Nice enough people, but I think stubborn and cruel is as applicable as “lovely and gentle,” how many Vietnamese fled the country in horrific and dangerous circumstances, how many were put in prison camps after the war?
And compare Thailand, a nice military regime and US ally that democratized and which has a far higher standard of living, independent courts, and no legacy of millions of dead youth. S. Vietnam coulda been Thailand, that’s what I compare it to, and could have absorbed a poor communist N. Vietnam peacefully. But for “national honor”, and power, Ho and Giap decided to wage war. That was a grave sin. And I doubt any of you can really rebut my argument here.
And I see you deleted my original argument. Gads, are you folks that cowardly intellectually?
mark n. Youve been asked to read the commenter’s rules. Adhere to them all and all will be well. It’s not going to be said again.
Thanks.
“Oh, and I don’t know Vietnam all that well, but I know it better than you people.”
No you don’t. Otherwise you would not have called the Vietnamese people “What a bunch of dumb f*#king people,” Mr. Nuckols.
And, “but an American life is, on average, more valuable than a Vietnamese life.” Are you serious, Mr. Nuckols?
“You;ve got a Somali infant with no family dying of disease, an old American geezer with no family or friends about to kick the bucket in his old folks home, and a young woman with two children and a husband, who all love each other deeply and are healthy, and the woman’s a prominent string theorist (OK so it’s not all that realisitc a scenario) and you gotta choose one person to live. Who do you pick?”
Although you may think you are some kind of God, Mr. Nuckols, YOU don’t get to “pick” anyone.
And as to, “I express myself clearly, honestly and intelligently,”, I don’t think so. But that is probably just stupid ole me not understanding your nuggets of wisdom.
No, I’m asking *you* to pick. Let’s make it simpler. You’ve got a zygote, and a mother of three children. Which “life” is more valuable? Got it? And if you say “I don’t think so,” I thinks you needs to be a bit more specific : )
Mr. Nuckols:
While, in your grandiose scheme of dreams, you may decide who gets to live and die, I don’t feel qualified to do so.
By the way, in all your readings have you ever heard of a “false choice”? Well you just posed one in a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on the issue.
Anyway, this exchange has been quite “enlightening,” but I have other, more interesting things to do now. So, I bid you well, Mr. Nuckols.
The Rules at TMV are no vulgarity and much more. The clear courtesy warnings have not been heeded. The commenters’ field will remain civil here, and there are millions of sites online where persons can go daily to ridicule /condemn entire groups of human beings by heritage alone. Not here.