Cambodia, Thailand fighting mini-war over a Buddhist temple

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12378523


Cambodia nationalism fired by temple row with Thailand
By Charles Scanlon
BBC News, Preah Vihear

The ancient temple has become a military encampment for the Cambodians
Continue reading the main story

Cambodia says an 11th-Century temple has been damaged during continued cross-border clashes with Thai troops.

An official statement said damage to the disputed Preah Vihear temple was caused by Thai artillery bombardment. Thailand has so far not commented.

The fighting has claimed five lives since Friday and thousands of villagers have been evacuated.

Cambodian troops have turned the 900-year-old ruins of the temple into an armed camp. They are perched high on a ridge with a commanding view of the dusty Cambodian plains but are highly vulnerable to fire from Thai positions just a few hundred metres away.

"I had just finished my lunch when the shells started to land," said Private Kun, one of about a hundred soldiers lounging in the temple complex between battles. "We all scrambled to get inside the bunker."

The soldiers said that rockets, mortar rounds and artillery shells rained down for about three hours during the first day's fighting on Friday. The bombardments were less sustained during the following days.
“
Start Quote

When Ta Mok was in charge here, the Thais never dared to attack us”

Fires have blackened much of the scrub on the hillside and the ground is littered with shell fragments. A pagoda further down the hill - just opposite the Thai front line - suffered a direct hit.

A group of soldiers playing cards in one of the Hindu temple's stone chambers said they thought the Thais wanted to capture the temple because it would bring in tourist dollars. Poorly paid Cambodian soldiers are acutely aware of the vast sums being earned in the thriving tourist trade at the temples at Angkor Wat just a three-hour drive away.

There has been heightened tension in the region since Cambodia won World Heritage status for the temple in 2008.

The most recent tension was sparked this month when a Cambodian court sentenced two members of a Thai nationalist movement to up to eight years in prison after finding them guilty of espionage.

There has never been more than a trickle of tourists to the temple at Preah Vihear - because of its remoteness and the obvious dangers - and that has stopped entirely now.

The Cambodian army appears to be reinforcing its positions in the area.

Tanks can be seen in the deserted villages and along side roads, their barrels pointed in the direction of the Thai frontier. Armoured vehicles were also on the move along the main road shortly before the latest round of fighting began.

Growing nostalgia
This used to be one of the most isolated and poorest parts of Cambodia, but the government has now completed work on the new road - the region's first reliable connection with the rest of the country.


Local people are being asked to move further away from the disputed area
Many say the road has added to tension with Thailand. It clearly helps the military build up its forces quickly.

"About 16 Thai soldiers just started moving down the road towards us, and so we opened fire at them with rocket propelled grenades," said Private Dan Viseth, who was manning a position at a road junction at the foot of the ridge.

"It's the first time I've ever fired on Thais," he said.

This part of northern Cambodia was the last redoubt of the Khmer Rouge who ruled Cambodia in the late 1970s and held out in this area well into the 1990s.

The regime was responsible for the deaths of more than a million Cambodians during the 1970s.

Some of the soldiers are former Khmer Rouge fighters who were integrated into the national army.

"When Ta Mok [a feared Khmer Rouge leader] was in charge here, the Thais never dared to attack us," says the owner of a makeshift restaurant in Slek Ro, a refugee camp where people were moved during earlier outbreaks of fighting.

"Now that we've sent these young soldiers, the Thais will take advantage."

Now the people in this dusty, forlorn encampment are being asked to move even further back from the border.


Government trucks have been evacuating the villages. The women and children went on Friday but many men are reluctant to leave their businesses despite the dangers.

A salvo of rocket fire landed close to the houses at Slek Ro during the fighting on Saturday.

Nationalist passions have been aroused by the latest fighting - with real anger directed at the old enemy, Thailand.

But there is also frustration with the perceived ineffectiveness of the Cambodian government. The result, at least in this isolated corner of the country, appears to be growing nostalgia for one of the twentieth century's most notorious regimes.

(1) I wonder how much influence the Thai bourgeoise movement (the yellow shirts) has on this. They seem very nationalistic, compared to the more peasant based Red Shirts (whose political hero is a multibillionaire social democrat, Thaksin, who was overthrown and began jetting around the world buying football teams and even working for the Cambodian govt at one point)

(2) It seems that the descendants of the Vietnamese-installed Socialists are incompetent and corrupted. On the other hand, the peasant communists of the khmer rouge were great soldiers and guerillas but also mass murderers. In addition, the current Cambodian government is selling vast tracts of forest and farmland to foreign governments, kicking out the locals, and building up an exploitative lumber industry that seems ecologically unsustainable from what i've read in other articles. Is there actually a good leftist alternative there?

(3) This war clearly has both nationalist and economic issues. How big are the economic issues here? The Buddhist Temple is clearly a source of solid income for whoever controls it. In a way, if you are Capitalist, the perfect kind of Capital you could come across is a centuries-old ruin, because it takes very little to prepare for business or to maintain. But in terms of cost-benifit analysis, would it bring in greater income than the defense spending required if this flares up? I'm imagining the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia over a few farming villages on the border (a huge waste of cash, manpower and labour obviously for these two very poor countries)

(4) Would the powerful neighbors of Thailand and Cambodia, IE India, China, Vietnam, or more distant powers like the US actually allow for a flare up between Thailand and little Cambodia?

(5) Isn't it ironic that a nation that claims Buddhism as a national religion, would attack a neighboring buddhist country for nationalist reasons, specifically the control of an ancient temple? I imagine a large number of Buddhist thinkers and theologians are rolling in their grave.

[scarletghoul]

Interesting story. Its so tragic, despicable, and ridiculous that two countries in the twenty-first century are sending their youth to kill each other for one fucking building.

(1) I wonder how much influence the Thai bourgeoise movement (the yellow shirts) has on this. They seem very nationalistic, compared to the more peasant based Red Shirts (whose political hero is a multibillionaire social democrat, Thaksin, who was overthrown and began jetting around the world buying football teams and even working for the Cambodian govt at one point)
There have been yellow shirt rallies in Bangkok demanding the government take a 'tougher line' on this issue. The yellow shirts are a fascist movement in my opinion. The red shirts are mostly the poor sections of society and contain a wide spectrum of 'leftist' politics. Though the corrupt billionaire populist Thaksin is the main figure, there are also other forces, including some of the Communists who were waging a Protracted Peoples' War into the 1990s.


(5) Isn't it ironic that a nation that claims Buddhism as a national religion, would attack a neighboring buddhist country for nationalist reasons, specifically the control of an ancient temple? I imagine a large number of Buddhist thinkers and theologians are rolling in their grave.Same with wars over Christianity.. unfortunately even the nicest religion can be morphed into evil politics when institutionalised.. i'm sure they have crazy buddhist fundamentalists justifying this war

[Patchd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12378523

(1) I wonder how much influence the Thai bourgeoise movement (the yellow shirts) has on this. They seem very nationalistic, compared to the more peasant based Red Shirts (whose political hero is a multibillionaire social democrat, Thaksin, who was overthrown and began jetting around the world buying football teams and even working for the Cambodian govt at one point)

Well the Thai bourgeoisie are definitely picking up on this issue, more so I think as a means to divert attention from Abhisit and the coup government. This has been an ongoing issue since the 60s for the Thais and Khmers, but has only just resurfaced in popular culture in 2008, two years after the coup occured. To dispel that myth though, both the redshirts and yellowshirts are loose groupings, a network if you will. Obviously both have been characterised by Abhisit and Thaksin and the PAD and UDD parties, thanks to ours and their media.


(3) This war clearly has both nationalist and economic issues. How big are the economic issues here? The Buddhist Temple is clearly a source of solid income for whoever controls it. In a way, if you are Capitalist, the perfect kind of Capital you could come across is a centuries-old ruin, because it takes very little to prepare for business or to maintain. But in terms of cost-benifit analysis, would it bring in greater income than the defense spending required if this flares up? I'm imagining the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia over a few farming villages on the border (a huge waste of cash, manpower and labour obviously for these two very poor countries)The economic issues may extend further than simply gaining control over a temple, a war may entirely change the way the Thai and Cambodian governments deal with one another, diplomatically and economically. Thailand, like other countries in the region is looking to gain further control in their region, ie. Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia. So if there is a decision to conduct war it could well be for the purpose of cementing their newly gained power and control over this region.

EDIT: In response to scarletghoul, the 'People's War' waged by the CPT had largely died out by the early 80s after the King had granted the fighters amnesty. The 90s didn't really see much action on that front, but there were important events like the 92 massacre and the economic crisis later on in the decade which led to further anti-union and worker laws to be brought in. The CPT isn't without criticism though, they were highly nationalist and many of its original cadre had come from a nationalist and officer-military background after the CPT became 'Thaified' (it had originally been comprised entirely of Vietnamese and Chinese communists in Thailand, preceded by the South Seas Communist Party which was controlled by comintern and its Asian base in China). There was a continuous drive to correct the accusation by the capitalists that communism was 'un-Thai', unfortunately the way they went about it was to adopt aspects of Thai nationalism into their politics as opposed to denouncing nationalism and 'Thai-ness' in the first place.

[Nolan]

I fail to see how a temple could be valuable enough to fight a war over.

[Rusty Shackleford]

but the resulting casualties will stoke sentiment for war.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well the Thai bourgeoisie are definitely picking up on this issue, more so I think as a means to divert attention from Abhisit and the coup government. This has been an ongoing issue since the 60s for the Thais and Khmers, but has only just resurfaced in popular culture in 2008, two years after the coup occured. To dispel that myth though, both the redshirts and yellowshirts are loose groupings, a network if you will. Obviously both have been characterised by Abhisit and Thaksin and the PAD and UDD parties, thanks to ours and their media.


This is worrying. If it becomes a "nationalist issue", it risks distracting people from the actual social and economic issues, as well as the anti-democratic activities of the current government, and it means the Thai won't negotiate on it. There's nothing harder than getting a nationalistic population to find a peaceful resolution to a conflict with a certain group of people. As far as nationalist violence is concerned, once you let the cat out of the bag you're never getting it back.


In response to scarletghoul, the 'People's War' waged by the CPT had largely died out by the early 80s after the King had granted the fighters amnesty. The 90s didn't really see much action on that front, but there were important events like the 92 massacre and the economic crisis later on in the decade which led to further anti-union and worker laws to be brought in. The CPT isn't without criticism though, they were highly nationalist and many of its original cadre had come from a nationalist and officer-military background after the CPT became 'Thaified' (it had originally been comprised entirely of Vietnamese and Chinese communists in Thailand, preceded by the South Seas Communist Party which was controlled by comintern and its Asian base in China). There was a continuous drive to correct the accusation by the capitalists that communism was 'un-Thai', unfortunately the way they went about it was to adopt aspects of Thai nationalism into their politics as opposed to denouncing nationalism and 'Thai-ness' in the first place.

This is very interesting. I'm thinking of the Pathet Lao, and how they "proved" their Lao-ness by embracing Buddhist culture instead of crushing it as the Cultural Revolutionaries did in China. What aspects of Thai-ness specifically did the CPT embrace? It is also true that cultural chauvinism was a common way for Communist leaders to avoid the charge of internationalism (as if internationalism was a bad thing) ... I'm thinking of Stalin's appeal to Russian culture to help unify the country during WWII (with a creepy dose of old fashioned russian anti-semitism on his part), despite himself being Georgian.


Interesting story. Its so tragic, despicable, and ridiculous that two countries in the twenty-first century are sending their youth to kill each other for one fucking building.

...

Same with wars over Christianity.. unfortunately even the nicest religion can be morphed into evil politics when institutionalised.. i'm sure they have crazy buddhist fundamentalists justifying this war

This is true. And the paradox is that the religious institutions in of themselves may not even be the ones advocating for violence; I doubt it is the Thai Sangha and Cambodian Sangha which are pushing for war (Sangha being the Sanskrit word, I think, for "Monastic Community"). It seems from historical example these religious wars are just as often commanded and fought by "the faithful" as the actual religious communities themselves. This goes for Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. On the other hand, there are always counter-examples of warrior priests and warrior monks from these faiths.


There have been yellow shirt rallies in Bangkok demanding the government take a 'tougher line' on this issue. The yellow shirts are a fascist movement in my opinion. The red shirts are mostly the poor sections of society and contain a wide spectrum of 'leftist' politics. Though the corrupt billionaire populist Thaksin is the main figure, there are also other forces, including some of the Communists who were waging a Protracted Peoples' War into the 1990s.

I imagine that the Thaksinites still dominate the red shirts, even if it is a broader movement? Anyways, I hope the movement can break from its billionaire patron (though I suppose, as mentioned, it's less of a "movement" than a "coalition of movements").


I fail to see how a temple could be valuable enough to fight a war over.

If each tourist buys a $5 ticket ((Angkor Wat costs $20 for a day ticket, presumably this temple would be far cheaper due to its smaller size and less renown status) (http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/Cambodia/Khett_Siem_Reab/Angkor_Wat-1202517/General_Tips-Angkor_Wat-Temple_Entry_Pass-BR-1.html), and lets guess that on average a tourist spends $10 on food or tourist trinkets, then we're taking about $15 per person. On top of this, they would need to stay in local hotels or take local bus services, say another $25 on top of that initial 15, so perhaps $40 per tourist. And there are all sorts of other variable economic gains, such as local vendors who sell overpriced goods to tourists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat#Angkor_Wat_today

According to wiki, in 2005 angkor got half a million visitors per year. Say the temple on the border with thailand gets 10% as many visitors (angkor wat is more famous and architecturally amazing, so would get more visitors naturally). That would be over 50,000, or over $20,000,000 annually of foreign income, which would go to preservation for the temple and the livelihoods of locals. I'd say that's still good money, although I doubt it would make up for the loss of trade between Cambodia and Thailand.

Temple maintenance is a big issue; it probably costs quite a bit of money to keep the temple against nature, to protect it from looters, and to stop other types of damage such as graffiti. Although the war obviously doesn't help; apparently Thai artillery fire already collapsed part of the temple.


but the resulting casualties will stoke sentiment for war.

This is the real worry here. Its easy to stop a war before many people have died, but once the bodybags start coming, there's a snowball effect.

Also, I wonder if Vietnam and Laos would side with Cambodia; even though Cambodia has a (highly corrupt) Social-democrat government, it is the descendent of the Communist party installed by the Vietnamese to replace the Khmer Rouge (they obviously wouldn't have to side militarily, only diplomatically; even that would have an impact).

[Nolan]

The problem if this escalates is the spending on the war will neutralize any profits to be made. Not to mention the damages to Cambodian and Thai infrastructure as well as the temple itself.

I wonder how the other regional powers will react. Though I don't see why Vietnam would necessarily side with Cambodia. Most likely they'll stay neutral and "urge constraint."

[scarletghoul]

Not to mention the damages to Cambodian and Thai infrastructure as well as the temple itself.
Its kinda funny (and sad), I can imagine them having a proper war trying to shoot and bomb as many people as possible while making sure not to damage the building

[Patchd]

This is worrying. If it becomes a "nationalist issue", it risks distracting people from the actual social and economic issues, as well as the anti-democratic activities of the current government, and it means the Thai won't negotiate on it. There's nothing harder than getting a nationalistic population to find a peaceful resolution to a conflict with a certain group of people. As far as nationalist violence is concerned, once you let the cat out of the bag you're never getting it back.

This is very interesting. I'm thinking of the Pathet Lao, and how they "proved" their Lao-ness by embracing Buddhist culture instead of crushing it as the Cultural Revolutionaries did in China. What aspects of Thai-ness specifically did the CPT embrace? It is also true that cultural chauvinism was a common way for Communist leaders to avoid the charge of internationalism (as if internationalism was a bad thing) ... I'm thinking of Stalin's appeal to Russian culture to help unify the country during WWII (with a creepy dose of old fashioned russian anti-semitism on his part), despite himself being Georgian.

Nationalism has been ingrained into the Thai collective mentality since the constitutional (read: bourgeois) revolution (read: coup) in 1932, and it has become a useful tool since. In more recent times, the fires of nationalism has been stoked up even more thanks to the ongoing insurgency in the South of the country between the Thai state and a muslim insurgency.

I'm still finishing off a book (Commodifying Marxism: The Formation of Modern Thai Radical Culture, 1927-1958 by Kasian Tejapira) and just skimmed through what I've already read for an example; following WWII the Thai state was headed by mild social democrats, most notably Pridi Banomyong who was the Prime minister up until 1947/48 when he was deposed by Field Marshall Plaek Pibunsongkram in a coup. This coup however did not rid Thailand of its supposed 'democratic' nature as elections (although rigged) were still held and any state killings were merely extra-judicial and unlawful. It wasn't until 1957 and successfully in 1958 that Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat cemented the dictatorship which Pibunsongkram had created in legal terms.

Many Thai leftists and a significant wing of the CPT actually supported and praised Thanarat as a 'patriotic and democratic military commander' as an alternative to Pibunsongkram only to see the anti-communist laws extended and enforced ever more heavily.


On the other hand, there are always counter-examples of warrior priests and warrior monks from these faiths.Many people become monks in Thailand for the material benefit that comes with that position, despite that a criteria to be a monk (in Buddhist scriptures) is to possess only a bowl with which they beg with and the cloth with which they are clothed in and nothing else. Like in Sri Lanka though, there are militant groups of monks who push Thailand's national line, in the former some Buddhist groups (including clergy members) actively call for the ethnic cleansing of Tamils.


I imagine that the Thaksinites still dominate the red shirts, even if it is a broader movement?Yes they do unfortunately.

-----

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to add on the 'Pathet Lao' movement, the name itself directly translates into 'Nation Lao', or I guess the Laotian Nation if we were going to anglofy it. Many of the Communist guerilla groups in the region had nationalist tendencies and derived many of its members from nationalist movements. Early after WWII, many of the new CPT cadre came from the Free Thai Movement, a small national liberation group that operated with the help of allied funding acting against Japanese forces in the country, as well as its supporters. Many from that movement went into the Pridi Banomyong social democrat grouping as well, as well as military officers who were in the movement who joined the CPT. When I was younger and a Buddhist, I used to go to temple with my mum where I knew a former CPT member who had fought in the jungle, he had been a student and left to fight and left when the amnesty was granted, by which time he had got himself shot a few times, he showed me his wounds haha. He said the CPT was always 'slightly' nationalist as Thailand was a highly nationalist country and it was hard to be seen to not be patriotic. It is I guess an example of how self-Thaification by people who were targeted as un-Thai by the Thai ruling class, although I recognise the difference in the effect that nationalisms in communist movements have opposed to the nationalism of reactionaries, although I don't think that is a viable excuse for communists. Sorry for diverting the topic slightly, Thai communist/worker movement/modern political history is an interest of mine, which I have less knowledge in than I'd like.

[Mather]

Thailand, like other countries in the region is looking to gain further control in their region, ie. Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia.

Given that the political situation and government in Thailand is now a lot more reactionary and authoritarian and that the Thai experiment in modern bourgeois democracy (post 1991) has ended, is there any desire by the Thai ruling class to go to war?

I know that in the South East Asian region, Thailand has one of the larger and more better equipped armed forces. Even so, I don't think the major imperialist powers would let the Thai ruling class go expansionist a la Imperial Japan. Thailand could get away with a war and invasion of Cambodia, but Burma for example is tied closely with China and China would most likely react to any Thai invasion of Burma. Malaysia, being located in the strategic Straight of Malacca, would also likely see US intervention should Thailand try and invade Malaysia.

The global imperialist powers would maybe allow for Thailand to engage in small scale expansionism, but any Thai attempt to dominate the South East Asian region would inccur the wrath of imperialist powers against Thailand, much like the US did to Iraq in 1991.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Its kinda funny (and sad), I can imagine them having a proper war trying to shoot and bomb as many people as possible while making sure not to damage the building
well, there have been more absurd wars in the history of all wars

[Patchd]

The global imperialist powers would maybe allow for Thailand to engage in small scale expansionism, but any Thai attempt to dominate the South East Asian region would inccur the wrath of imperialist powers against Thailand, much like the US did to Iraq in 1991.
Sorry, just to clarify, when I said 'Thailand, like other countries in the region is looking to gain further control in their region' I didn't mean that it would come to war with all those around them, simply they are attempting to stretch their influence out to these countries, economically or politically. I can't provide sources unless I go looking for them, but I believe Thaksin's family have had large economic interests in Malaysia, and other bourgeoisie have similar stakes elsewhere.

I don't know if Thailand will go to war, I don't know how the US and Europe will react to a war, nor do I know how China, India and Russia will act towards one. There are fears of war though, and earlier today there was a small (as in less than 100) but spontaneous anti-war protest in front of Victory Monument in the capital with many English language signs suggesting student involvement aimed at drawing international attention. Giles Ji Ungpakorn, the exiled ISO member currently living in Britain has written a short statement on it (see here (http://links.org.au/node/2147)) recently.

[milk]

Isn't it ironic that a nation that claims Buddhism as a national religion, would attack a neighboring buddhist country for nationalist reasons, specifically the control of an ancient temple? I imagine a large number of Buddhist thinkers and theologians are rolling in their grave.

Why is it ironic?

Michael Vickery:


Probably more arrant nonsense has been written in the West about Buddhism than about any other aspect of Southeast Asian life. Like every other major religion, Buddhism as it is practiced in the countries where it has ancient roots is a concretion of certain admirable philosophical and moral principles with beliefs and practices which date from pre-Buddhist times, prejudices peculiar to the society, special relationships with ruling classes, and the ability to rationalize the pursuit of material gain, as well as a good many other actions which are contrary to its principles. That Buddhists may torture and massacre is no more astonishing than that the Inquisition burned people or that practicing Catholics and Protestants joined the Nazi SS.

For those who wished to reject their religion, for whatever reason, poverty or modernism, it was, however, better to be Buddhist than Christian, for the former contains a nice escape clause for the backslider. As Pin Yathay put it, "you are responsible for yourself; you are your own master ... Buddha is not a god . . . only a guide. He shows you the way ... it is for you to convince yourself that the way he indicates is good." Thus for those who rejected it there was no superior or moral force to accuse or punish them. If in rejecting religion they also committed crimes, they would not be punished by a deity. They might risk cosmic demotion in a future life, but it was also possible to calculate that later good works could offset the bad on the cosmic balance sheet. Besides, the non-Buddhist folk practices which were a part of every Cambodian's religious heritage provided many other sources of protection, both physical and spiritual.

[milk]

This is true. And the paradox is that the religious institutions in of themselves may not even be the ones advocating for violence; I doubt it is the Thai Sangha and Cambodian Sangha which are pushing for war (Sangha being the Sanskrit word, I think, for "Monastic Community"). It seems from historical example these religious wars are just as often commanded and fought by "the faithful" as the actual religious communities themselves. This goes for Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. On the other hand, there are always counter-examples of warrior priests and warrior monks from these faiths.

Institutions enjoying special relationships with ruling elites and used to rationalise the actions of such elites, although ethnic or religious rivalries can disguise competing economic class interests, as the forms in which they are expressed.

See also General Lon Nol's manifesto Le Neo-Khmerisme during the Cambodian civil war, putting forward a Buddhist warrior masculinity, a sort of Khmeritude calling on young men to fend off the invading atheists from the North (the Vietnamese Communists) or Thmil. Pagodas also acted as recruiting stations for the the republican army.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5927/neokhmerisme.jpg

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The problem if this escalates is the spending on the war will neutralize any profits to be made. Not to mention the damages to Cambodian and Thai infrastructure as well as the temple itself.

I wonder how the other regional powers will react. Though I don't see why Vietnam would necessarily side with Cambodia. Most likely they'll stay neutral and "urge constraint."

One would guess that the economic impact of the war would be worse than the benefit, but it kind of depends how hard either side will fight for it before deciding that it's no longer worth it.

As for the Vietnamese, basically (1) because the Vietnamese installed the current government, and so there is a historical connection, and (2) because the Vietnamese probably have a diplomatic and strategic interest in the well-being of its direct neighbors, as well as their goodwill.


Its kinda funny (and sad), I can imagine them having a proper war trying to shoot and bomb as many people as possible while making sure not to damage the building

probably. As glenn beck likes to point out, the US forces didn't bomb babylon (he thinks they did it for crazy millenarian religious reasons, but of course the reality is that they didn't for archaeological and cultural reasons). But it sounds like the Cambodians have fortified the temple itself, meaning the Thai will badly damage the temple if they attack with anything heavier than small arms (which still damages the temple).


Nationalism has been ingrained into the Thai collective mentality since the constitutional (read: bourgeois) revolution (read: coup) in 1932, and it has become a useful tool since. In more recent times, the fires of nationalism has been stoked up even more thanks to the ongoing insurgency in the South of the country between the Thai state and a muslim insurgency.

I'm still finishing off a book (Commodifying Marxism: The Formation of Modern Thai Radical Culture, 1927-1958 by Kasian Tejapira) and just skimmed through what I've already read for an example; following WWII the Thai state was headed by mild social democrats, most notably Pridi Banomyong who was the Prime minister up until 1947/48 when he was deposed by Field Marshall Plaek Pibunsongkram in a coup. This coup however did not rid Thailand of its supposed 'democratic' nature as elections (although rigged) were still held and any state killings were merely extra-judicial and unlawful. It wasn't until 1957 and successfully in 1958 that Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat cemented the dictatorship which Pibunsongkram had created in legal terms.

Many Thai leftists and a significant wing of the CPT actually supported and praised Thanarat as a 'patriotic and democratic military commander' as an alternative to Pibunsongkram only to see the anti-communist laws extended and enforced ever more heavily.


This is interesting. I should read more about it. Are the remnants of the CPT able to organize? I suppose its hard to legally and openly be a real Communist in a country that has a harsh lese majeste laws.



Many people become monks in Thailand for the material benefit that comes with that position, despite that a criteria to be a monk (in Buddhist scriptures) is to possess only a bowl with which they beg with and the cloth with which they are clothed in and nothing else. Like in Sri Lanka though, there are militant groups of monks who push Thailand's national line, in the former some Buddhist groups (including clergy members) actively call for the ethnic cleansing of Tamils.


That's a shame. But its not surprising. I remember when I was in Varanasi, there was a Brahmin who sold opium out of his temple, and there were always rumours of mugger Sadhus. Or in the Christian churches, we know of how many priests who have used their power for sexual or financial gain (I alway figured you had issues of sex abuse in buddhist monasteries as well-while most religious people seem authentic, there's always been a number of crooks who have used the robes of faith as a disguise).

As for calling for violent action-is that a minority, or a majority of the religious establishment? I remember thinking that, but I met a Sri Lankan monk who told me he just prayed for peace and that the whole war was stupid (a more Buddhist position). You'll find a few idiots in any community, the issue is whether the moderates ignore them, or whether the youngsters continue to fall for the rhetoric of the idiots.



Yes they do unfortunately.


Is there a real leftist alternative from the Red Shirt then?



EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to add on the 'Pathet Lao' movement, the name itself directly translates into 'Nation Lao', or I guess the Laotian Nation if we were going to anglofy it. Many of the Communist guerilla groups in the region had nationalist tendencies and derived many of its members from nationalist movements. Early after WWII, many of the new CPT cadre came from the Free Thai Movement, a small national liberation group that operated with the help of allied funding acting against Japanese forces in the country, as well as its supporters. Many from that movement went into the Pridi Banomyong social democrat grouping as well, as well as military officers who were in the movement who joined the CPT. When I was younger and a Buddhist, I used to go to temple with my mum where I knew a former CPT member who had fought in the jungle, he had been a student and left to fight and left when the amnesty was granted, by which time he had got himself shot a few times, he showed me his wounds haha. He said the CPT was always 'slightly' nationalist as Thailand was a highly nationalist country and it was hard to be seen to not be patriotic. It is I guess an example of how self-Thaification by people who were targeted as un-Thai by the Thai ruling class, although I recognise the difference in the effect that nationalisms in communist movements have opposed to the nationalism of reactionaries, although I don't think that is a viable excuse for communists. Sorry for diverting the topic slightly, Thai communist/worker movement/modern political history is an interest of mine, which I have less knowledge in than I'd like.

This makes a lot of sense. It's a catch-22, if you are critical of your nation, you get side-lined as a radical. If you're not, you ignore issues which seriously need reform.

However, perhaps its an issue of consciousness? If so many Thai people are really so nationalist, are they culturally ready for Marxist revolution? And if that is the case, then it might be tactically appropriate to adopt nationalism insofar as you also embrace an educational system that over time will break down the nationalist ideologies that hold the people in a spell.

Also, do you know if SE Asian communist parties banned religion for party members? I know in the USSR and the PRC disallowed religious practice for party members, but I also know that the Pathet Lao encouraged Buddhism, and you seem to be saying you met a CPT member (or at least ex-CPT) at a temple.


Given that the political situation and government in Thailand is now a lot more reactionary and authoritarian and that the Thai experiment in modern bourgeois democracy (post 1991) has ended, is there any desire by the Thai ruling class to go to war?

I know that in the South East Asian region, Thailand has one of the larger and more better equipped armed forces. Even so, I don't think the major imperialist powers would let the Thai ruling class go expansionist a la Imperial Japan. Thailand could get away with a war and invasion of Cambodia, but Burma for example is tied closely with China and China would most likely react to any Thai invasion of Burma. Malaysia, being located in the strategic Straight of Malacca, would also likely see US intervention should Thailand try and invade Malaysia.

The global imperialist powers would maybe allow for Thailand to engage in small scale expansionism, but any Thai attempt to dominate the South East Asian region would inccur the wrath of imperialist powers against Thailand, much like the US did to Iraq in 1991.

The threat here is that this temple has a lot of economic and cultural gain for a small area. It's not a huge conquest, and people outside of the two nations wouldn't notice if flags switched sides. But it probably has a huge cultural impact within thailand or cambodia. So maybe they don't have an appetite for a broader imperial mission, but they still might try to bully their neighbors for tidbits of land.


Why is it ironic?



Institutions enjoying special relationships with ruling elites and used to rationalise the actions of such elites, although ethnic or religious rivalries can disguise competing economic class interests, as the forms in which they are expressed.

See also General Lon Nol's manifesto Le Neo-Khmerisme during the Cambodian civil war, putting forward a Buddhist warrior masculinity, a sort of Khmeritude calling on young men to fend off the invading atheists from the North (the Vietnamese Communists) or Thmil. Pagodas also acted as recruiting stations for the the republican army.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5927/neokhmerisme.jpg


Ironic mostly because it goes against the ideals of Buddhism. I know of warrior monks though, I've read of Japanese history. Nice bit on Cambodian history, I didn't know the role religion played there in conservatives fighting the invading commies. I did know of the warrior monks of Japan who were quite interesting too as far as Buddhist fanatics are concerned, but a few centuries earlier. But to be fair to the buddhists, it also seems (From my understanding of history) that the Khmer Rouge were far harsher to the Buddhists than the Pathet Lao or the CPV.

Its interesting that the general would use Buddhism to justify the war effort though, if just because that makes the Buddhists complicit in the war and therefore seen as *taking sides*, and therefore victims of possible retribution if the "other side" wins. Did they really have a choice in this, or was it something they embraced with gusto?

It's just ironic for the same reason Christian violence is ironic. Anyone who uses a man who forgives prostitutes, the poor and pagan roman soldiers as well as their stooge tax collectors probably isn't the kind of guy you should use to justify large scale religious genocide.

[milk]

A good book to get would be Buddhism under Pol Pot by Ian Harris.

Buddhism shouldn't be seen as the 'nice' religion, it's merely just another where, if it has sunk roots in a society, it is vulnerable to not only being shaped by the non-Buddhist peculiarities found in the culture of a particular society, but also being intertwined with a ruling elite, institutionalised and then identifies with the interests of that ruling elite and its perpetuation. Like other religions it is used (among other things, it is not the sole one) to justify the power and actions of those elites. An array of things, as noted above, which are contrary to its principles.

[Dimentio]

Neither Buddhism or Hinduism advocates total outer peace. They advocate inner, individual peace. That means that you are peaceful inside while you are putting a city on fire on the outside.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A good book to get would be Buddhism under Pol Pot by Ian Harris.

Buddhism shouldn't be seen as the 'nice' religion, it's merely just another where, if it has sunk roots in a society, it is vulnerable to not only being shaped by the non-Buddhist peculiarities found in the culture of a particular society, but also being intertwined with a ruling elite, institutionalised and then identifies with the interests of that ruling elite and its perpetuation. Like other religions it is used (among other things, it is not the sole one) to justify the power and actions of those elites. An array of things, as noted above, which are contrary to its principles.

No it shouldn't be seen as a "nice" religion. There's no "nice" religion, or political philosophy that matter. I'd say many have misused Marxist philosophies in the past and still to this day. It doesn't mean I'll stop being interested in the system on a philosophical level, however. There are certainly very interesting things within the core of Buddhist philosophy, aside from the institutionalization of it.

What I think is interesting should be the question of the social and economic forces which corrupt religious institutions to begin with. First, in many religions including Buddhism there is the desire to dominate other religious communities and promote their own "unitary" message of truth, or at least carve out their own space. I'd also argue that religious institutions are somewhat indebted and beholden to the economic powers at be, or become powerful economic powers themselves (however, excessive corruption as a result of land or material wealth can precipitate their downfall, as people no longer take the clergy seriously). Likewise, the Catholic church became complicit in the crimes of European states, became rich and corrupt, and created the conditions for the reformation against its power.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I should check it out.


Neither Buddhism or Hinduism advocates total outer peace. They advocate inner, individual peace. That means that you are peaceful inside while you are putting a city on fire on the outside.

That's a hell of a broad statement. Both religions include quite militant texts, but there have also been pacifistic movements rising out of both. One can make the argument that there are more pacifistic religions out there, ie Jainism. But its certainly true that as well as militant texts, there are clearly calls to peace and against violence inherent in both religions.

It's certainly true that thinkers, theologians and mythologers in both have spoken out on the horrors of war and violence (ie, Gandhi, who combined Jain and Hindu thought with various other beliefs). It is also true that there are quite militant texts or myths, such as the Ramayana or Mahabharata. Picking either of these groups as the "Definitive" thinkers is short sighted, as both are religious traditions that include around a billion followers (though many of the Buddhists are more lay-Buddhists) and therefore very diverse.

[milk]

On the folk traditions of spirits and magical powers also a part of Khmer culture, there is a footnote from the civil war, when Lon Nol had a helicopter fly around in a circle, around the outskirts of Phnom Penh while releasing purple-coloured sand, believing it would give the city magical protection from the Khmer Rouge army that had surrounded it, and by then were within a close enough range to pound it with shells and rockets.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

On the folk traditions of spirits and magical powers also a part of Khmer culture, there is a footnote from the civil war, when Lon Nol had a helicopter fly around in a circle, around the outskirts of Phnom Penh while releasing purple-coloured sand, believing it would give the city magical protection from the Khmer Rouge army that had surrounded it, and by then were within a close enough range to pound it with shells and rockets.

Sounds like the burmese junta. From what articles say, they're completely caught up in folk superstition and ritual. This seems to be despite the fact that they were more than willing to attack protesting monks a few years ago. I suppose the folk superstition makes them sleep more easily at night. I don't know how much of their belief system is buddhist or local mysticism, but I suppose there's rarely (never?) a clear, definitive distinction.

[PhoenixAsh]

Neither Buddhism or Hinduism advocates total outer peace. They advocate inner, individual peace. That means that you are peaceful inside while you are putting a city on fire on the outside.

In fact Dharma law which must be adhered to by all Buddhists, and especially monks, states that violence must be avoided at all costs and should be used only in self defence with the minimal force necessary (fe. Shaolin) to do so and may not lead into the killing of any living being.


There are several Mahavamsa texts in which violence is seen as something that can not always be avoided in times of war...but even these texts offer only a tacit consent towards violence in self defence and limit these events to threats to the continued existence of buddhism.

Karmic law states that using violence, especially with deadly results, will result in loss of position and regrade in rebirth to a lesser form.

Buddhist using voilence are not following Canon and can not achieve enlightenment.

Buddhism also holds the position of compassion towards wrong do-ers. So transgressions into dahrma and karmic laws will not be punishable by worldly law....and should be met with loving kindness and compassion.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also small but very, very significant correction: preah vihear is a HINDU and NOT a Buddhist temple. Its dedicated to Shiva.

It was used by Khmer Buddhist later....which is a synergy of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, and ancestor worship.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Also small but very, very significant correction: preah vihear is a HINDU and NOT a Buddhist temple. Its dedicated to Shiva.

It was used by Khmer Buddhist later....which is a synergy of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, and ancestor worship.

And the Hagia Sophia is a church :cool:

It would be appropriate to call it either buddhist or hindu

[Mather]

Sorry, just to clarify, when I said Thailand, like other countries in the region is looking to gain further control in their region' I didn't mean that it would come to war with all those around them, simply they are attempting to stretch their influence out to these countries, economically or politically. I can't provide sources unless I go looking for them, but I believe Thaksin's family have had large economic interests in Malaysia, and other bourgeoisie have similar stakes elsewhere.

Of course. This has been apparent in the last 30 years where Thailand has developed into a regional power in the South East Asian region, it's main competitors being the more developed and powerful countries in the region such as Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam.


I don't know if Thailand will go to war, I don't know how the US and Europe will react to a war, nor do I know how China, India and Russia will act towards one. There are fears of war though, and earlier today there was a small (as in less than 100) but spontaneous anti-war protest in front of Victory Monument in the capital with many English language signs suggesting student involvement aimed at drawing international attention. Giles Ji Ungpakorn, the exiled ISO member currently living in Britain has written a short statement on it (see here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://links.org.au/node/2147)) recently.

If it comes to war Thailand would go for Cambodia. All the other countries that surround Thailand are either too powerful or have the backing of powerful imperialist states.

[Mather]

The threat here is that this temple has a lot of economic and cultural gain for a small area. It's not a huge conquest, and people outside of the two nations wouldn't notice if flags switched sides. But it probably has a huge cultural impact within thailand or cambodia. So maybe they don't have an appetite for a broader imperial mission, but they still might try to bully their neighbors for tidbits of land.

I don't think such a small building would be at the centre of concern for the Thai ruling class, if they choose to go to war with Cambodia they would take into account the greater interests of their class over a small disputed building.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think such a small building would be at the centre of concern for the Thai ruling class, if they choose to go to war with Cambodia they would take into account the greater interests of their class over a small disputed building.

You wouldn't think that an ancient battlefield was worth the Serbs going to war. People are willing to shed amazing amounts of blood for otherwise useless ground.

[Mather]

You wouldn't think that an ancient battlefield was worth the Serbs going to war. People are willing to shed amazing amounts of blood for otherwise useless ground.

Im sure that if Thailand and Cambodia go to war, then this temple will be used as a ruse for such a war.

All nations do this, officially the cause of a specific war will be down to some specific issue or local dispute (such as this temple). However the real reasons and causes of war are to be found in the inner workings and dynamics of capitalism and since Thailand and Cambodia are both capitalist states, this will apply to them as it does to any other country. The Thai ruling class would not risk their own power and the future of Thailand, which they both own and control, unless their class interests called for such a war and a small temple on the Thai border is in no way part of that class interest.

Of course they may use the temple as a ruse to whip up nationalist feelings amongst the Thai population against Cambodia, but that would only happen if the Thai ruling class is set on war.

Remeber that back in 2003 the US imperialists used the ruse of WMD in Iraq and spreading 'democracy' to the Middle East as the official reasons for going to war. Of course we all know that the real reasons for invading Iraq were different to the ones the US imperialists publically put out and in the case of Thailand I would expect the same dynamic to be applied should war break out in South East Asia.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

With the exception of the USS Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin, it seems that the government often does itself believe the pretext for war. That's whats really scary ... when the members of a government believes its own propaganda.

[Mather]

With the exception of the USS Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin.


I Disagree. US imperialism was already invlolved in Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin incident served as the best excuse for the Johnson administration to significantly increase the level of US involvement there. The wider dynamics of capitalism and imperialism ultimately decide the actions of the ruling class and if the materialist conditions of the day call for war then war will come regardless of the specifics of one incident, event or building. As I said before, these examples were used as the 'official' cause for war or an escalation of war, but they are just a ruse as much more wider forces are always at play when it comes to war.

[milk]

Here is a Buddhist-themed and anti-Vietnamese poster from (I think) the Khmer Republic period, that of course being the five years of civil war (1970-75).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xe_4UwSJDAQ/TVJnl0fzUqI/AAAAAAAAArQ/1oUuOcdTcak/s1600/12-CambodiaPoster594trim.jpg

I'll find out if the period for this poster is correct.

[daleckian]

Here is a Buddhist-themed and anti-Vietnamese poster from (I think) the Khmer Republic period, that of course being the five years of civil war (1970-75).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xe_4UwSJDAQ/TVJnl0fzUqI/AAAAAAAAArQ/1oUuOcdTcak/s1600/12-CambodiaPoster594trim.jpg

I'll find out if the period for this poster is correct.


Nice! where do you find this stuff? I can barely find anything on the Lon Nol period.

[milk]

I asked about it, elsewhere, and I have been corrected. It isn't from the civil war period, but was created later.

[milk]

Update: It actually is from the Civil War/Republican period. More info below, found in A Study of the History and Cult of the Buddhist Earth Deity in Mainland Southeast Asia by Elizabeth Guthrie.

PDF can be found here (ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4350/1/guthrie_vol_1_thesis.pdf).

Relevant excerpt:


Lon Nol publicly justified his actions by arguing that Sihanouk was a traitor who had allowed North Vietnamese troops onto Cambodia's sacred soil. His speeches and publications emphasised the religious aspect of the war: crimes against the Sangha, the destruction of Buddhist wat, and the occupation of the temples at Angkor by Vietcong and Khmer communist forces that he called the thmil or the hordes of Mara.

Cambodians were exhorted to drive these non-believers out of the country in a "holy war." During the Republican Period, 1970-1975, the earth deity appeared again, this time on war propaganda posters depicting the miiravijaya

In the poster, the Bodhisattva (meditating serenely in dhyiinamudrii) is being assaulted by Mara and a horde of demons dressed as Vietcong soldiers, riding on tanks and brandishing automatic rifles. The earth deity stands at the base of the Bodhisattva's throne, wringing a deluge of water from her long hair to drown the demons. A huge white crocodile crawls at her feet. The caption underneath the poster reads "the thmi! are Mara and will be annihilated."

A young Khmer art student designed the poster for a contest sponsored by the U.S. embassy. Thousands of these posters were printed in full colour, and distributed free of charge throughout the country on the Buddha's Birthday in May 1971 to commemorate the consecration of the Sakyamuni stupa in Phnom Penh.

Monks, politicians, soldiers, and civilians attended the ceremony, one of many held at this site during the war. Religious rituals took place, and the Cambodian people were exhorted to fight a religious war against the thmil.