International Court of Justice's building in The Hague, The Netherlands.By Khmerization
Source: Free Press Magazine
Cambodian communities across the world are planning to stage a rally in front of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, The Netherlands, against what they called the Thai "aggression" against Cambodia and the Thai "invasion" of Cambodian territory.
According to a statement circulated online, the rally will be held on 28th and 30th May to condemn the Thai violation of the 1972 ICJ verdict and for damaging the Unesco's heritage-listed Preah Vihear temple during clashes with Cambodian troops from 4-7 February 2011.
On 15th June 1962, the ICJ had adjudicated to the give the ownership of Preah Vihear temple and is "vicinity" to Cambodia. However, on 15th July 2008, a week after Unesco had inscribed the temple as a world heritage site, Thailand sent thousands of troops to occupy the temple's "vicinity". Since then, there are a number of deadly clashes resulting in Thai troops deliberately targetting the temple by firing poison gas and cluster bombs into the temple compound, causing extensive damages to the structure of the millennium temple.
Source: Free Press Magazine
Cambodian communities across the world are planning to stage a rally in front of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, The Netherlands, against what they called the Thai "aggression" against Cambodia and the Thai "invasion" of Cambodian territory.
According to a statement circulated online, the rally will be held on 28th and 30th May to condemn the Thai violation of the 1972 ICJ verdict and for damaging the Unesco's heritage-listed Preah Vihear temple during clashes with Cambodian troops from 4-7 February 2011.
On 15th June 1962, the ICJ had adjudicated to the give the ownership of Preah Vihear temple and is "vicinity" to Cambodia. However, on 15th July 2008, a week after Unesco had inscribed the temple as a world heritage site, Thailand sent thousands of troops to occupy the temple's "vicinity". Since then, there are a number of deadly clashes resulting in Thai troops deliberately targetting the temple by firing poison gas and cluster bombs into the temple compound, causing extensive damages to the structure of the millennium temple.
9 comments:
the dark secret of the "The King Never Smiles': L'etat, c'est moi"
Bhumibol was born in 1927 in Boston to Prince Mahidol, the half brother of the then Thai king. Brought up on French, English, Latin, and German vocabulary in Switzerland, he showed greater ability than Ananda, his older brother, who acceded to the throne in 1935. With hobbies like photography, fast cars, and jazz music, he was initially more like a European bon vivant than the sibling of a Buddhist dhammaraja (virtuous king) of the Chakri dynasty.
On June 9, 1946,at 9:20AM King Bhumibol's brother was found shot to death in his bed, with his own handgun nearby. Officially the death is simply ruled "mysterious.". Ananda Mahidol was shot with Colt.45 in the forehead while lying flat on his back in bed Although there's implicates Bhumibol in his brother's death, the matter remains clouded in part because insulting the dignity of the king can lead to criminal prosecution in Thailand, Bhumibol uses Thailand's lese majeste law to imprison anyone who dares to talk about his brother's murder.
In 1951, the Thai military undertook a coup and stripped Bhumibol of the powers that he was slowly regaining. THE KING WAS THREATENED WITH REMOVAL OR EXPOSURE AS ANANDA'S KILLER if he did not cooperate with the junta and maintain an air of normality for the next four years. Shrinking from an overt fight, the palace reverted to reinforcing the traditional religious bases of royal support. "By not being seen to seek political power, the throne would prove itself an able rival to the generals" (p. 119). Through canny self-promotion, the king stole a notch over corrupt army men as a true Buddhist visionary. Simultaneously, the palace exploited rivalries within the junta and authored a special relationship with the C.I.A.-affiliated Border Patrol Force.
1
Starting with Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, the 1957 coup inaugurated a tradition of king-worshipping autocrats. A confident Bhumibol declared that Western democracy was alien and unnecessary and warned of the coming "red menace." Triumphal state visits to non-communist countries in the 1960's sealed his external political recognition and were televised back home in public relations blitzes. The palace awarded decorations calculatedly to deepen its constituency among the wealthy and influential classes. Royalists reinforced the king's divinity and exaggerated brilliance by commandeering government ministries of education and religion. With the monarchy back at the center of Thai national culture, Sarit's successor generals had no choice but to defer to the king for their own legitimacy.
The king personally negotiated the terms for allocating Thai soldiers to the American war in Vietnam in 1967 Stressing dhamma-based selflessness and unity, he derided pro-democracy and antiwar agitators. In 1971, the palace blessed yet another coup amid rising turbulence. During the mass protests for a new constitution in 1973, Bhumibol persuaded the generals to offer sops to get the students off the streets. Eventually, when the demonstrators forced the junta to flee the country, the king paradoxically claimed the moral high ground for restoring democracy.
In 1976, Bhumibol gave a quiet nod to the removal of the prime minister by conservative forces opposed to the "leftward drift." The close palace-military relationship exacerbated rampant indiscipline and excesses of the army brass. Street enforcing fascist movements arose directly under the monarch to terrorize the left and anyone who dared question the regime. Bhumibol overruled the interim prime minister's démarche to the U.S. to withdraw its forces from Thailand, a humiliation that led to his loss in the elections. Rightist monks with palace links went to the extent of claiming that killing students and communists was a "Buddhist duty" (p. 232).
2
Starting with Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, the 1957 coup inaugurated a tradition of king-worshipping autocrats. A confident Bhumibol declared that Western democracy was alien and unnecessary and warned of the coming "red menace." Triumphal state visits to non-communist countries in the 1960's sealed his external political recognition and were televised back home in public relations blitzes. The palace awarded decorations calculatedly to deepen its constituency among the wealthy and influential classes. Royalists reinforced the king's divinity and exaggerated brilliance by commandeering government ministries of education and religion. With the monarchy back at the center of Thai national culture, Sarit's successor generals had no choice but to defer to the king for their own legitimacy.
The king personally negotiated the terms for allocating Thai soldiers to the American war in Vietnam in 1967 Stressing dhamma-based selflessness and unity, he derided pro-democracy and antiwar agitators. In 1971, the palace blessed yet another coup amid rising turbulence. During the mass protests for a new constitution in 1973, Bhumibol persuaded the generals to offer sops to get the students off the streets. Eventually, when the demonstrators forced the junta to flee the country, the king paradoxically claimed the moral high ground for restoring democracy.
2
In 1976, Bhumibol gave a quiet nod to the removal of the prime minister by conservative forces opposed to the "leftward drift." The close palace-military relationship exacerbated rampant indiscipline and excesses of the army brass. Street enforcing fascist movements arose directly under the monarch to terrorize the left and anyone who dared question the regime. Bhumibol overruled the interim prime minister's démarche to the U.S. to withdraw its forces from Thailand, a humiliation that led to his loss in the elections. Rightist monks with palace links went to the extent of claiming that killing students and communists was a "Buddhist duty" (p. 232).
On Oct. 6, 1976, with the king's storm troopers in front, a horrifying massacre of more than 100 persons was committed as palace favorite generals again seized the reins. Handley assesses that frustration at the failure of the crown's investments and pet development schemes was the key to the king's descent into "reactionary panic" (p. 247). With Bhumibol's imprimatur, a surge of arrests, searches, and assassinations were carried out for alleged "royal desecration." The Democracy Monument in Bangkok was intended to be razed to the ground "because it was not associated with anything royal" (p. 261). A protest "could be permitted if it was an act of allegiance to the king" (p. 266).
3
In 1976, Bhumibol gave a quiet nod to the removal of the prime minister by conservative forces opposed to the "leftward drift." The close palace-military relationship exacerbated rampant indiscipline and excesses of the army brass. Street enforcing fascist movements arose directly under the monarch to terrorize the left and anyone who dared question the regime. Bhumibol overruled the interim prime minister's démarche to the U.S. to withdraw its forces from Thailand, a humiliation that led to his loss in the elections. Rightist monks with palace links went to the extent of claiming that killing students and communists was a "Buddhist duty" (p. 232).
On Oct. 6, 1976, with the king's storm troopers in front, a horrifying massacre of more than 100 persons was committed as palace favorite generals again seized the reins. Handley assesses that frustration at the failure of the crown's investments and pet development schemes was the key to the king's descent into "reactionary panic" (p. 247). With Bhumibol's imprimatur, a surge of arrests, searches, and assassinations were carried out for alleged "royal desecration." The Democracy Monument in Bangkok was intended to be razed to the ground "because it was not associated with anything royal" (p. 261). A protest "could be permitted if it was an act of allegiance to the king" (p. 266).
3
In 1976, Bhumibol gave a quiet nod to the removal of the prime minister by conservative forces opposed to the "leftward drift." The close palace-military relationship exacerbated rampant indiscipline and excesses of the army brass. Street enforcing fascist movements arose directly under the monarch to terrorize the left and anyone who dared question the regime. Bhumibol overruled the interim prime minister's démarche to the U.S. to withdraw its forces from Thailand, a humiliation that led to his loss in the elections. Rightist monks with palace links went to the extent of claiming that killing students and communists was a "Buddhist duty" (p. 232).
On Oct. 6, 1976, with the king's storm troopers in front, a horrifying massacre of more than 100 persons was committed as palace favorite generals again seized the reins. Handley assesses that frustration at the failure of the crown's investments and pet development schemes was the key to the king's descent into "reactionary panic" (p. 247).
3
With Bhumibol's imprimatur, a surge of arrests, searches, and assassinations were carried out for alleged "royal desecration." The Democracy Monument in Bangkok was intended to be razed to the ground "because it was not associated with anything royal" (p. 261). A protest "could be permitted if it was an act of allegiance to the king" (p. 266).
In 1977, when moderate generals staged a coup without Bhumibol's consent, the king snubbed the new order. With characteristic persistence, he stepped up ritual appearances, resumed rural development activities, and rebuilt the palace's circle of allies. In 1980, Gen. Prem Tinsulanonda was installed in power via a "royal coup" to run a "government of the king." The Bhumibol-Prem partnership fostered unprecedented adulation for the throne, turning even strictly religious holidays into royal grandstanding. Government departments marshaled large public displays of fealty and the entire resources of the state were placed at Bhumibol's disposal for economic projects whose credit accrued to the king alone. The effect was that more and more Thais "looked beyond the government to their king to escape from misery" (p. 291).
4
Numerous personal scandals of the royal family were covered up in the 1980's as the king's dedication to Buddhism was over-advertised. However, the growth of an urban middle class meant that the public was skeptical of the throne's partisanship in the legislature. Poor farmers, scientists, intellectuals, and N.G.O.'s attacked royalists for their long history of environmental destruction and mistreatment of displaced persons. Unsigned leaflets circulated on Bhumibol's 60th birthday decrying royal self-perpetuation and misbehavior. It coincided with revelations of the sale of royal honors for commercial benefit.
The elected civilian government of 1989 bowed to changes in Thai society and played down old royal culture. Royal favorites were shunted out of office and the king's commercial interest monopolies were broken. Army commanders tried to harness the palace's discontent and Bhumibol was receptive by openly expressing disappointment with the government. Following the script of earlier takeovers, once the king indicated that a coup was acceptable, palace-favored generals took over again in 1991 to save Thailand from "parliamentary dictatorship." Bhumibol went on to call democracy a "highbrow ideal that could weaken society" (p. 343).
6
He did not question methodical suppression of
pro-democracy protesters and laid the ideological foundation for a massacre in May 1992 that killed several dozens of marchers. Unrepentant generals remained in power knowing that Bhumibol had a "consistent bias against popular movements" (p. 359). The king rejected knowledgeable Thai and foreign opinions that the country badly needed democratic institutionalization.
In the early 1990's, Bhumibol admonished Chuan Leekpai's government as incompetent and utilized the military to thwart the civilian government. Against the official policy line, the king encouraged the Thai army to assist the military junta in Burma and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. N.G.O.'s were subjects of special royal ire for opposing his ill-conceived hydroelectric dams. To woo urban Thais, Bhumibol invested substantial sums into countering Bangkok's traffic snarls. By going public with pseudo-economic ideas christened as the "New Theory," he sought to establish his image as a genius in science and magic.
reference
Sreeram Chaulia October 4, 2006
Post a Comment