Steely Dan

I know we are probably not allowed to give links but google transparency international map and the guardian newspaper as they have an interactive world map of relative corruption by Country. One thing that really does stand out is the stunning inverse correllation between a Countries wealth/social development and the degree of corruption.

For example using 2010 figures.

Singapore, New Zealand, Denmark 9.3

Somalia 1.1, Burma, Afghanistan 1.4

Thailand should not rest on it's laurels as 3.5 puts it below Montenegro 3.7, though I suspect one man may single handedly redress the balance there. The most depressing thing is the recent survey of Thai citizens which found 62% of people tolerate corruption providing the economy is ok - well okay relative to who, Laos/Cambodia or should Thailand at least aspire to close the gap with the likes of South Korea and Japan?

"The supreme commander also shrugged off the accusation made by the People’s Alliance for Democracy that Second Army Region Commander Lieutenant General Thawatchai Samutsakorn had vested interests in the disputed border areas.

The PAD earlier alleged that a certain influential military officer in the Second Army Region, implying that it was the second region commander, had been receiving 300,000 THB each month from Cambodian authorities."

It's a shame the second army regional commander fails to follow the clear chain of command which has the PAD leadership at the top.

A friend of mine who works for a certain Thai bank was sent to Cambodia some years ago to open a branch. The project failed when the agents who were lent the money to further lend to borrowers in various provinces, defaulted or disappeared. My friend concluded Cambodians could not be trusted. This was in contrast to Laos where a branch was opened with no serious problems.

On another note, a neighbour in Ban Pai is married to a Thai from Buriram. One day I noticed two dogs locked in a fierce fight on their property. I recommended throwing water on the dogs but the husband refused.The neighbour said,'He's Khmer,they're bloodthirsty and cruel'.

In my experience that is quite a common perception of Khmers in Thailand,and of course it was only 35 years ago that the Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of their own population.

I think what you describe would be confirmed by most knowledgeable people.The trouble with the Cambodians is that they are heirs to a genuinely great civilisation, a country which lost its way and became instead a small marginal player.I think one can observe in Cambodia a characteristic also seen in human beings, namely the lack of achievement manifesting itself in bitterness and aggression.None of this given Cambodia's history is particularly surprising.What does stick in the gullet however is Thailand, with all its comparative advantages descending to the same puerile level, even when headed by a sophisticate like Abhisit.Of course we know the PAD leadership and the wacky reactionary end of the military are vomit inducing but even so it's sad that wiser heads have not intervened to dissuade these cretins from demeaning the country they profess to love.

And how many centuries ago were the Khmers a great civilisation? Well lets say 1000 judging from the age of the disputed temple. The trouble is that nationalists of all Countries have a chip on their shoulders which obliterates any logic. Perhaps the Khmers do have a chip on their shoulders but let it not be forgotten that Thailand had to horse trade great tracts of territory itself in order to prevent being colonised, and prior to that they were sporadically ruled by the Burmese so Thais too could be argued to have chips on their shoulders. As the title of the thread alludes to, it is not helpful to categorise the Cambodians as somehow inferior to Thais, such thoughts through the eyes of nationalists makes losing territory to them seem even more unbearable and it is easier to look for scapegoats than realise that Thais in years past made decisions which resulted in the current situation. Perhaps had Thailand played hardball with the French Thailand too could have been a French colony, but instead they came to an arrangement which was probably seen as preferable, though I must admit I wouldn't mind a decent choice of wine being available at reasonable prices as has always been the case in Cambodia and Laos.

Under similar charges and circumstances, yellow shirts had been freed but not the red shirts, he said.

Well, the yellow shirt has not escaped to Cambodia.

The yellow shirts seem intent on invading Cambodia, no doubt to flush out red shirt fugitives who are living there.

It only takes one or two, clandestine, and non-army / non-govt. teams of snipers or grenadiers, to touch this off each time peace comes. Someone has a vested interest in this staying flared up. It could be revenge, or prevention of profiting by their competition in some business, like casinos etc.

That could mean it is neither the Thai Army or Hun Sens forces. Everybody here seems to go on the assumption that one or the other side is kicking it off again, when it could as easily be a third party with other motivations. And that can easily explain why BOTH sides cry, 'they started firing first, we just retaliated'

Could I claim today's memorial award by pointing out that the hot season is fast approaching which usually means the reds are preparing to rampage through Bangkok in time for Songkran so perhaps Thaksin has had a word with Hun Sen about opening up a second front against the Thai government this year and so expect to see shadowy figures appear on the border picking off troops from both sides in order to keep the pot boiling.

ICJ resolution said Pra Viharn Shrine and its vicinity is Cambodian , The Thai accept it. But where the border line lays (including the said vicinity) is still in dispute as both countries agree to have the joint committee set up to define it. Therefore, both countries should refrain from settle in the area until the border line is drawn. At that is where the armed forces should do their duty not to let the Khmer getting into the area from the start. They sit upon it, and did not do that. When PAD rally against Authority handling the case, this darn General challenged the people to go fight the Khmer themselves. This is a shame. Like a boxer who no longer have the gut to fight turn to the fan and challenge them to get in the ring instead.

Your choice of analogy is somewhat unfortunate comparing war with a sport. People don't usually get killed in sport unlike war and people watch sporting events for entertainment, which I don't suppose is so when viewing war footage?!

I see the twittering Hi-So unlicenced 15 year old memorial regulation has been passed, which should certainly be good news for the boys in brown.

" UNESCO and its World Heritage Committee need to reconsider the unilateral registration of the temple by Cambodia."

Why ???

The temple site belongs to Cambodia -- the World Court made thia decision 48 years ago -- Thailand had 10 years to appeal and did nothing .

It is time to move on !

As I mentioned elsewhere, whether or not ownership is disputed does not appear to be on UNESCO's radar judging by the Potala Palace in Lhasa being listed. And (if I may stray mildly off topic for a moment) judging by the completely arbitary and unaccountable nature of ALL of Thailand's regulatory organs (Customs being about the worst) I find it ironic that PAD nationalists seem quite happy to unilaterally overturn international or multinational rulings because they seem some perceived injustice when injustice is a part and parcel of everyday life here.

It's almost tragi-comic to see the PAD try to distinguish their position as being right wing of Abhisit, where Abhisit has been about as asertive as a leader could be in arguing Thailand's case. I do think in order to marginalise the PAD Abhisit has been shunted too far to the right for his own good, particularly with regard to asking Unesco to de-list the temple due to contested ownership. This is not Unesco's remit as clearly demonstrated by the Potala Palace in (ahem) Tibet autonomous ( ) region being listed in spite of China invading and annexing a hitherto independant state.

I hope Abhisit can take fresh look at the situation, though this may now be difficult due to that national blindspot - 'face' - even if an Oxford eductation makes rising above it possible I don't know whether Thai public oppinion can quickly gain such maturity in the face of a historical enemy.

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

It is a good article but the best I have seen is Shawn Crispin's from the Asia Times which analyses the links between the PAD and the military, and their reasons for stirring up trouble.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB08Ae01.html

Very good article, thanks for posting. It is a classic magicians trick to have the audience focus their attention away from what the other hand is doing and what better diversion than a temple claimed by the historic enemy Cambodia. I'm sure many PAD supporters have not worked out the motivations driving their leaders, except perhaps for the 82 currently in jail. One thing stands out though and that's that both popular protest movements have democracy in their name but are anything but democratic.

But the border crossing is not at the temple, so what relevance does the border crossing have to the temple.

I doubt they had much in the way of cross border traffic in 1908 considering that the border wasn't even defined then.

Initially, IMO, the Thais didn't even realise that the map was wrong (as far as the 1904 treaty was concerned). Also, the maps were presented after the border commission were disbanded, so there is a question as to whether they were actually officially accepted. The Thais were pretty much in control of the temple until 1962, since the Cambodians couldn't get to it anyway.

I can see we are in danger of getting caught in an infinite loop. The only things clear to me are that the ICJ ruled the temple to be in Cambodia and as a part of their deliberations concluded the 1908 map was accepted by both sides (rightly or wrongly). The ICJ were aware of the wording of the 1904 agreement and still came to this conclusion. I have not seen the 1908 map but I suspect if it were used to demarcate the border today the result would not suit Thailand, though I admit to not being certain how great a discrepency is possible given the scale of the map and the thickness of the line drawn upon it.

However all of the inconsistencies between the 1904 agreement and the 1908 map were considered in 1962 and Thailand did not appeal the decision so all that's left to do is formally demarcate the border on either side of the temple - a process which Thailand seem to want to avoid judging by their rejection of 'internationalism' when it comes to mediation.

It's amazing how many "redneck" opinions are being offered. From people cursing the offender to crying for long prison terms. This is scary evidence of how well so many people have been indoctrinated by their governments and authority figures to believe that marijuana is the "Devil's Weed".

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is more than one of those people, who are screaming for harsh treatment of the smoker, who have got behind the wheel of a car knowing that they've had too much to drink and shouldn't be driving, which is obviously a much worse and more dangerous offense than some tourist smoking a cannabis cigarette. However, alcohol is legal but cannabis isn't, so he put him in jail. Unbelievable! Even though there is vast evidence showing that alcohol is physically, mentally, and socially MUCH MORE damaging than cannabis, great numbers of people blindly accept the bullsh*t laws we have.

I humbly refer people to my profile quotation and observe that the two biggest killer drugs by far are the two legal (and taxed) ones, tobacco and alcohol.

Surely all that needs to be done is stick one of those ISO standards numbers on all exports, problem solved. :jap: P.S I would imagine China would be in a spot of bother too as I suspect their hygene standards are lower than those in Thailand.

If you carefully read the 1962 judgement it quite clearly concludes that the watershed was of no particular importance compared to the operational considerations of having an open border and cooperating to keep it open. The stakes only got raised with the Unesco listing, but I fail to see how that would overturn the 1962 ruling. The editorial quite rightly comments on Thai policy seeming confused and reactive to what Cambodia do, I would suggest it is also reactive to PAD's rantings and therefore a tug of war between ultra-nationalist warmongering and realpolitik is playing out with the small issue of face causing further paralysis and making it difficult indeed to diffuse the whole mess.

What relevance does an open border have to the temple?

The 1904 treaty said the border followed the watershed. The 1907 maps moved off the watershed. There are no specific references as to why that was the case.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

The natural inference was that she [Thailand] had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line.

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

Sigh. I suppose the Thais and Cambodians were operationally treating the border as if it had moved off the watershed due to how they were dealing with cross border traffic, which certainly didn't involve diplomatic protests let alone shelling each other, ergo the 1908 Map reflected this. It is a point of issue whether or not the Thais were intimidated into not complaining, but the majority ruling of the ICJ was that Thailand did not demonstrate their considering the watershed important due to the action (or inaction) of Thai authorities at the border.

At the heart of the problem is the overlapping claim along the Thai-Cambodian border near the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership the World Court decided three decades ago in favour of Phnom Penh

Three decades ago? 1962 makes it into five decades now. So, my question would be: "Who was the world court at this time?"

Did the French decide in favor of Cambodia, because they occupied this country? :jap:

The question should be why did they move off the agreed watershed when they did the maps in the first place?

If you carefully read the 1962 judgement it quite clearly concludes that the watershed was of no particular importance compared to the operational considerations of having an open border and cooperating to keep it open. The stakes only got raised with the Unesco listing, but I fail to see how that would overturn the 1962 ruling. The editorial quite rightly comments on Thai policy seeming confused and reactive to what Cambodia do, I would suggest it is also reactive to PAD's rantings and therefore a tug of war between ultra-nationalist warmongering and realpolitik is playing out with the small issue of face causing further paralysis and making it difficult indeed to diffuse the whole mess.

Regarding damage to the temple. Both sides are lying, it's just that the Cambodians are being more ambitious with their lies. It's so true that in war the first casualty is the truth.

Here is another possibility nobody has yet commented on:

_______________________________________________________

Editorial: What Egyptians Really Want

Posted 07:20 PM ET

Islamofascism: Romantics in Western media expect "democracy" to flower from the anti-Mubarak rioting in Cairo. But polling shows Egyptians actually seek strict Islamic rule.

According to a major survey conducted last year by the Pew Research Center, adults in Egypt don't crave Western-style democracy, as pundits have blithely trumpeted throughout coverage of the unrest.

Far from it, the vast majority of them want a larger role for Islam in government. This includes making barbaric punishments, such as stoning adulterers and executing apostates, the law of their country. With the ouster of their secular, pro-American leader, they may get their wish.

Among highlights from the Pew poll:

• 49% of Egyptians say Islam plays only a "small role" in public affairs under President Hosni Mubarak, while 95% prefer the religion play a "large role in politics."

• 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.

• 82% support stoning adulterers.

• 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off.

• 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.

• 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.

• Nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas.

More here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/562840/201102101920/What-Egyptians-Really-Do-Want.htm

Obama has in my oppinion seriously miscalculated by turning against Mubarak. There are echoes here to when Jimmy Carter cut the Shah of Iran loose only to have the mad Mullahs take over. The phrase better the devil you know springs to mind and if Obama thinks the carrot/stick of U.S funding will result in a pro-U.S Egypt I think he's sadly deluded.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels!

You beat me to it.

"Special compartments in the man's bags contained 88 Indian Star tortoises, a protected species, 33 Elongated tortoises and one Ploughshare -- the world's rarest type of tortoise, Wildlife trade group Traffic said.

Among the many snakes found were two Boa Constrictors and 34 Ball Pythons, while 18 Baboon Spiders, packed individually in plastic containers, squirrels, lizards and an African Grey Parrot were also discovered."

It seems scarcely credible he could cram so much into his bags - I think I'll have to consider the feasibility of Noah cramming two of every species into an ark in light of this.

P.S I don't suppose Noah stocked up at Chatuchak.

Khun Abhisit, You are an intelligent man but you are in danger of being sidetracked into a no win situation by Hun Sen (& Thaksin?) on one side and the PAD loons on the other. There is no profit in giving the Cambodians any excuse for firing at Thai territory and there is certainly no profit in letting PAD activists get anywhere near the border. Why not pull all troops back by several kilometers and even allow the UN in to monitor this? They will soon lose interest if there is no shooting and then the ball is back in Hun Sen's court. If he tries to establish facts on the ground by building a road to the temple simply close the border and stop any flights to Cambodia, this would undoubtably cause hardship to Thais but it would cause Hun Sen to lose popularity far quicker as Cambodia is dependant on Thailand more than the other way round. Just the threat of this would be enough to force Cambodia to enter into bilateral talks.

Just my two bahta worth.

it is clear that Thailand is considered to have aquiesed to the 1907 French map

It is clear, too, that it has acquiesced to a Treaty saying that "watershed line" would be used ...

There's a flaw that cannot be put under the carpet, either change the Treaty and keep the map or

forget the Treaty and keep the map !

PS: In colonial times, it was the colonial power who was always right, even in its mistakes, because

the "other ones" were under-men, people to beat to make them just do what one want !

If you read the 1962 Judgement by the ICJ it clearly states that even if the watershed line was mentioned in the original treaty this was trumped by the subsequent map and Thailand not disputing it.

Here is an extract from the ICJ judgement.

From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.

Your point about colonial bully boys is of course true as it is just about everywhere in the world where colonial powers have dictated borders, but the ICJ decided in Cambodia's favour despite dissenting comments that Thailand was afraid to contest the map.

Such a pitifully....

unfulfilled old man of war....

who also used to sleep and eat and beg inside Thai territorial.... for mercy and free handouts....

under Thai soldiers' protection and mercy.... inside Thai territorial..... just about two decades ago....

But in 2010.... the same man desires to claim those patches of land as his own....

Only HuSan would do that.... at the drop of his hat....

Yes there's gratitude for you. After giving refuge to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge when the the Vietnamese kicked them out of Cambodia this is how Hun Sen reciprocates.

P.S This is not a part of Thai history which should be much cause for pride, If I were Thai I'd want to change the subject.

Why do so many people think Cambodia is "in the right" on this issue. Is it their great record of human rights, and free and fair elections? Their long history of stability and social justice? Their cool, calm, measured responses from their leadership?

You guys are out to lunch.

In a beauty contest Abhisit comes out streets ahead of Hun Sen, even if it's a close call between the PAD leaders and Hun Sen, however this is all completely irrelevant if you read the ICJ judgement it is clear that Thailand is considered to have aquiesed to the 1907 French map. I haven't seen the map, but if it allows Cambodia to build a road to the temple then Cambodia are legally right end of story. If however the topography of the region does not enable the Cambodians to build a road without encroaching on Thai territory then Thailand has every right to dictate access. Bring on the map, the French have offered a copy afterall.

In most Countries it is the responsibility of the protesting group to get written permission from the authorities concerning when and where they plan to protest not the other way round. The sheer arrogance of PAD is starting to annoy me and I'm not Thai, so I can only imagine what Thai public oppinion of them is.

The very fact that at that time the court refused to rule on the surrounding territorial as belonging to the Camb, should shed some light

that the court did not consider it to be Camb....

Otherwise, she would have rule then in Camb favor.... without a doubt....

The very fact that Thailand did not appeal the ICJ decision should tell you Thailand feared the same outcome for the surrounding land as they got with the temple, hence best to keep quiet and try to play on the ambiguity at a later date.

Anyway no wonder the Cambodians want this to go to the U.N in light of the French helpfully offering to dig the old 1907 map out. In light of this I suspect Thailand may not like that outcome, though I hasten to add that from all I've read it would appear that the original ruling unfairly favoured Cambodia for reasons to do with the colonial history of the region.

The biggest irony to me is that Thailand probably had their best chance of a favourable outcome through bilateral negotiations but PAD agitation and provocation allowed Hun Sen to engineer border fighting and therefore an excuse to get the U.N in to rule in their favour (which is their expectation). It's no use playing draughts if everyone else is playing chess.