Friday, July 30, 2010
Op-Ed by MP
NATIONALISM at its heart is an emotive force and can be a dangerous aberration as the tone of some of the reports we have coming from the Thai press and media would seem to indicate.
Most Thais have learned through selective history texts only of 'Thai territories' lost to the French at the turn of the last century. Indeed many Thais have been led to believe that all of present-day Cambodia had once been part of their domain. Some prominent Thai officials have even claimed that the Thais love Cambodia more than the Cambodians themselves love their own country. If this refers to the Thais' insatiable appetite for more portions of Khmer land or to the disunity and incompetence in sections of the Cambodian elite down the centuries, then it is perhaps a claim difficult to dismiss out of hand. The point is, if the Thais feel genuine grievances over these so-called 'lost territories' which had been under continued Thai/Siamese subjugation or influence for perhaps a few hundred years at the most, how much greater might be the sense of injustice and grievance the Khmer people have had to bear over territories ceded by one means or another to both Vietnam and Siam, and in view of the fact that these territories had also been known to be part of the Khmer Universe since before recorded history?
The ICJ's resolution could not have been 'murky' or 'unclear' about the Temple's environs or its proximities including ludicrous references - in some sections of Thai influenced media - to 'the land underneath the Temple' itself. Not if the Resolution rules that the Temple stood on Cambodian soil - unless one imagines that the Temple can be sustained in mid-air?
In fact, any structural dimension of this Temple whether it consists of a causeway or staircase forms an integral part of the Temple as a whole and must be considered inextricably linked to it. Otherwise, what we have is a dismembered rather than a single compact structure. On the other hand, If the Temple is more accessible from the Thai side of the border it is more an evidence of the ICJ’s or the Franco-Siamese Treaty’s shortcomings in ensuring that Cambodia would have ownership over the house as well as the entrance path leading up to it than any supporting factor in favour of the Thais’ claim to the area, or indeed the fault of geography itself.
Of course, at the time of the Temple’s construction, Thailand or Siam had not even existed on the mainland of South East Asia. Moreover, as I understand it the ‘watershed principle’ is only meant as a general operating norm subject to variations as to existing topographic, cultural features or details where necessary, exemplified perfectly in this case by the Temple complex as such, and I think this basic assumption is what is subsumed in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1906-1907 and what underlies the ICJ's judgement of 1962 in Cambodia's favour.
The Khmer people may be a little lost and confused after centuries of wars and strife (starting with the cultural genocide committed against the Khmers by the Siamese Kingdom of Ayutthaya around mid 14th century onward) as to certain forms of cultural identity, but they would never have sufficient cause to resort to applying alien appellations such as the prefix ‘Hindu’ by which to identify their historical roots and ancestral heritage. That such a term is used at all is indicative of both intellectual dishonesty and a shameless, contrived instance of Thai political correctness gone mad. One could write many books about the Hindu civilisation, but they would be more pertinent to that dawn of Indian civilisation that arose over several thousand years ago in the Hindus Valley somewhere on the Indian sub-continent, than it is to the sacred Prasats built by the Khmer kings, even if Brahmanism – but not this religious influence alone - can be said to have informed their world view or religiosity.
The latest news is that the WHC has postponed its discussion of Cambodia’s management plan proposal to another year on technical procedural grounds. This decision should not be allowed to overly impinge upon or hinder Cambodia’s desperate need for economic investment and rebuilding in the area concerned notwithstanding Bangkok’s delaying tactics and objecting nuisances of which Cambodia already has more than enough.
Legally or technically, it may appear that the Thais are not after the Temple itself, but only the so-called ‘disputed’ surrounding areas. Yet, if the Thais are to have their way over this dispute, it is the actual intrinsic capital that the Temple contains as mediated through its commercial and economic appeal and repercussions that will ultimately sooth their appetite. So yes, in other words, it is the Temple that they really want first and foremost, over and above even considerations of national sovereignty or security; something they have ostensibly invoked to front their true motives, fooling the Thai public and international opinion alike in the process.
How could any decent soul be swayed by a ruling elite that has seen nothing wrong in formally churning hard foreign currency out of the flesh and humiliation of thousands of poor vulnerable young women; who even jest that ‘the flesh industry’, whatever else it implies, is still nonetheless ‘good for the national balance of payment’? Even our much derided and uncultured Prime Minister who had never been to Eton or Oxbridge for learning has shown far better moral scruples on this subject of vice, even if he has been somewhat ineffectual in matching his rhetoric with action.
There is nothing wrong with the proposed Management Plan in the area around the Preah Vihear temple. After Siem Reap and Angkor Wat, Preah Vihear has the potential to become Cambodia's second most popular tourist destination owing perhaps to its breath-taking location and topography and therefore any resulting economic benefit will have been felt far beyond the immediate region, not excluding Thai businesses and local people on either side of the Dangrek Range. Cambodia also has every right to construct highways and erect facilities to integrate this landmark region into her own national setup in order to engender or stimulate rural development.
One could only hope that there are cooler heads and more sensible forces within the Bangkok administration than the ones penning one-sided – if amusing - pieces that have been appearing on the pages of The Nation and Bangkok Post newspapers in the last few years. Politicians –like most mortals - are capable of reacting and/or succumbing to pressure exerted upon them through the media. The most potent and sinister influence that could drive the Thais into a fateful armed collision with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple issue again, however, will have to be their own self-perpetuated delusion that their nation’s habitual imperial rise – manifest destiny - in the region has been rather unnecessarily inconvenienced by a small, poverty-ridden nation like Cambodia. Such a scenario is of course something to be dreaded, not least because of war’s inevitable ‘collateral’ exactions upon humanity.
The Khmer people have been no strangers to such things as grief and suffering, but if come under attack they will likely summon all their resolve and strain their every sinew to defend their sacred ancestral grounds. As for the Thais, should they decide to make good their threat, my hunch is, Preah Vihear could prove ‘a bridge too far’ for them.
Op-Ed by MP
NATIONALISM at its heart is an emotive force and can be a dangerous aberration as the tone of some of the reports we have coming from the Thai press and media would seem to indicate.
Most Thais have learned through selective history texts only of 'Thai territories' lost to the French at the turn of the last century. Indeed many Thais have been led to believe that all of present-day Cambodia had once been part of their domain. Some prominent Thai officials have even claimed that the Thais love Cambodia more than the Cambodians themselves love their own country. If this refers to the Thais' insatiable appetite for more portions of Khmer land or to the disunity and incompetence in sections of the Cambodian elite down the centuries, then it is perhaps a claim difficult to dismiss out of hand. The point is, if the Thais feel genuine grievances over these so-called 'lost territories' which had been under continued Thai/Siamese subjugation or influence for perhaps a few hundred years at the most, how much greater might be the sense of injustice and grievance the Khmer people have had to bear over territories ceded by one means or another to both Vietnam and Siam, and in view of the fact that these territories had also been known to be part of the Khmer Universe since before recorded history?
The ICJ's resolution could not have been 'murky' or 'unclear' about the Temple's environs or its proximities including ludicrous references - in some sections of Thai influenced media - to 'the land underneath the Temple' itself. Not if the Resolution rules that the Temple stood on Cambodian soil - unless one imagines that the Temple can be sustained in mid-air?
In fact, any structural dimension of this Temple whether it consists of a causeway or staircase forms an integral part of the Temple as a whole and must be considered inextricably linked to it. Otherwise, what we have is a dismembered rather than a single compact structure. On the other hand, If the Temple is more accessible from the Thai side of the border it is more an evidence of the ICJ’s or the Franco-Siamese Treaty’s shortcomings in ensuring that Cambodia would have ownership over the house as well as the entrance path leading up to it than any supporting factor in favour of the Thais’ claim to the area, or indeed the fault of geography itself.
Of course, at the time of the Temple’s construction, Thailand or Siam had not even existed on the mainland of South East Asia. Moreover, as I understand it the ‘watershed principle’ is only meant as a general operating norm subject to variations as to existing topographic, cultural features or details where necessary, exemplified perfectly in this case by the Temple complex as such, and I think this basic assumption is what is subsumed in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1906-1907 and what underlies the ICJ's judgement of 1962 in Cambodia's favour.
The Khmer people may be a little lost and confused after centuries of wars and strife (starting with the cultural genocide committed against the Khmers by the Siamese Kingdom of Ayutthaya around mid 14th century onward) as to certain forms of cultural identity, but they would never have sufficient cause to resort to applying alien appellations such as the prefix ‘Hindu’ by which to identify their historical roots and ancestral heritage. That such a term is used at all is indicative of both intellectual dishonesty and a shameless, contrived instance of Thai political correctness gone mad. One could write many books about the Hindu civilisation, but they would be more pertinent to that dawn of Indian civilisation that arose over several thousand years ago in the Hindus Valley somewhere on the Indian sub-continent, than it is to the sacred Prasats built by the Khmer kings, even if Brahmanism – but not this religious influence alone - can be said to have informed their world view or religiosity.
The latest news is that the WHC has postponed its discussion of Cambodia’s management plan proposal to another year on technical procedural grounds. This decision should not be allowed to overly impinge upon or hinder Cambodia’s desperate need for economic investment and rebuilding in the area concerned notwithstanding Bangkok’s delaying tactics and objecting nuisances of which Cambodia already has more than enough.
Legally or technically, it may appear that the Thais are not after the Temple itself, but only the so-called ‘disputed’ surrounding areas. Yet, if the Thais are to have their way over this dispute, it is the actual intrinsic capital that the Temple contains as mediated through its commercial and economic appeal and repercussions that will ultimately sooth their appetite. So yes, in other words, it is the Temple that they really want first and foremost, over and above even considerations of national sovereignty or security; something they have ostensibly invoked to front their true motives, fooling the Thai public and international opinion alike in the process.
How could any decent soul be swayed by a ruling elite that has seen nothing wrong in formally churning hard foreign currency out of the flesh and humiliation of thousands of poor vulnerable young women; who even jest that ‘the flesh industry’, whatever else it implies, is still nonetheless ‘good for the national balance of payment’? Even our much derided and uncultured Prime Minister who had never been to Eton or Oxbridge for learning has shown far better moral scruples on this subject of vice, even if he has been somewhat ineffectual in matching his rhetoric with action.
There is nothing wrong with the proposed Management Plan in the area around the Preah Vihear temple. After Siem Reap and Angkor Wat, Preah Vihear has the potential to become Cambodia's second most popular tourist destination owing perhaps to its breath-taking location and topography and therefore any resulting economic benefit will have been felt far beyond the immediate region, not excluding Thai businesses and local people on either side of the Dangrek Range. Cambodia also has every right to construct highways and erect facilities to integrate this landmark region into her own national setup in order to engender or stimulate rural development.
One could only hope that there are cooler heads and more sensible forces within the Bangkok administration than the ones penning one-sided – if amusing - pieces that have been appearing on the pages of The Nation and Bangkok Post newspapers in the last few years. Politicians –like most mortals - are capable of reacting and/or succumbing to pressure exerted upon them through the media. The most potent and sinister influence that could drive the Thais into a fateful armed collision with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple issue again, however, will have to be their own self-perpetuated delusion that their nation’s habitual imperial rise – manifest destiny - in the region has been rather unnecessarily inconvenienced by a small, poverty-ridden nation like Cambodia. Such a scenario is of course something to be dreaded, not least because of war’s inevitable ‘collateral’ exactions upon humanity.
The Khmer people have been no strangers to such things as grief and suffering, but if come under attack they will likely summon all their resolve and strain their every sinew to defend their sacred ancestral grounds. As for the Thais, should they decide to make good their threat, my hunch is, Preah Vihear could prove ‘a bridge too far’ for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment