The Cambodian fighting

[KhorTose]

Last year I ran across this lecture and justI posted this on another web site in response to a statement by Z909, but can't help but feel it belongs here. It has to do with the essential requirement that government have external threats. With a corollary that the more a government has internal dissent the more it needs an external threat to justify it's existence. I give you professor Rodney Barker of Gresham College who is not the first to come to this conclusion, but presents it very well. Here is an excerpt.

 

Barker wrote:Government, and obedience to it, is normally justified by the dangers which are thereby prevented

This was the case put by Thomas Hobbes, writing in 1651 in a Europe in a turmoil of civil wars, where firm government could seem the obvious and only response to the threat from all kinds of internal and external enemies, and where the existence of those enemies and those threats was the clearest possible justification for governments to command, and subjects to obey:..................................

Government is necessary because otherwise each person would be an enemy to every other

There are of course real threats. Crime exists within societies, and other societies which threaten them with invasion or raids on their resources.

So a prima facie case will always exists for national unity in support of government, the muting of criticism, and extensions of governmental power.

But it is not simply that government is a response to the existence of threats and enemies. Governments frequently spend a lot of energy in giving graphic accounts of enemies and the threats they pose.

If there were no threats, there would on this scenario be no need for government. Hobbes was right, but only half right. Government may be necessary because otherwise people will be threatened, harmed, robbed, and killed by those who can accurately be described as their enemies.

But from the side of government, the greater the threat, the firmer the grounds on which the case for government is based, the greater the justification for calling for loyal obedience

The more grave the threat is presented as being, the more threatening or wicked the described enemy, the greater the case for unity, the greater the case against criticism and dissent, the greater the case for governmental power.

That of course raises a fundamental question about what Government is, what it does, and what it is for.

The essential functions of government: internal order; justice; external defence; the well being of subjects. One and three are responses to enemies, and therefore the depiction of enemies justifies and requires governmental action

So Hobbes's argument can be reversed:

Not so much government as a response to enemies, as Government as dependent on enemies, and the governing identity as constantly enhanced by enmity narratives.

Without threats and enemies, without foreign perils and internal crime and disorder, government would be reduced to a welfare organization.

 

You can hear the lecture on this web site:

http://www.gresham.a.../lectures-and-e ... ed-enemies

[Guest fountainhall]

I agree with this theory – but only up to a point, for surely history has shown that external threats, real or imagined, can also backfire on governments as well as the individuals who run them.

 

Threats to a nation’s survival and wars which those in power claim to be in the national interest are one of the oldest plays in the book, it seems to me. There are so many examples throughout history of such threats which come at suitably convenient times for the party in power. One of the most notable in recent decades must surely be the Falklands War and its effect on Margaret Thatcher. She may not have started it (although some historians assure us she was warned it was coming and did nothing to stop it), but her response to it completely reversed the opinion polls in the UK. Without it, she was a certainty for defeat at the next election. As a result of it, she won by a landslide.

 

External events, even if they are no direct threat, also influence elections through the fear factor. In 1964, Britain’s Conservative government under Alec Douglas-Home was also heading for a major defeat. Hours before the polls opened, the news came through that the Soviet Union had kicked out Kruschev and installed Breshnev in his place. At the height of the Cold War, this instilled considerable fear. Partly as a result, some speculate many voters became afraid of change. The opposition Labour Party barely won power with a minute majority of just 4 seats, far less than had been predicted. 18 months later, with no external threats, the Labour Party increased its majority to almost 100.

 

Equally, many will argue that the interminable focus on an alleged War on Terror plus the wars in Iraq and Baghdad ensured that John Kerry had zero chance of winning in 2004 against George Bush.

 

But external threats can also backfire – or, at least, not have the desired effect, if they cannot be controlled. The Korean War and the public spat with McArthur, allied to the McCarthy-generated mass hysteria about Communism within the USA, must surely have doomed any chance of the Democratic Party holding on to the Presidency. Events in Iran in 1980 undoubtedly sealed the demise of Jimmy Carter, as did those in Vietnam of Lyndon Johnson.

 

As to Thailand’s border skirmishes with Cambodia, can any one really have even the slightest doubt that is comes at the most convenient time for the powers-that-be? But perhaps they should look back a few centuries to realise that a nice bit of looting, pillage and rape on this side would be even more effective in swinging public opinion. Or perhaps that's on the agenda for the next few weeks

[Guest]

As to Thailand’s border skirmishes with Cambodia, can any one really have even the slightest doubt that is comes at the most convenient time for the powers-that-be?

Ideally, the Thai population would see straight through this ruse & be complaining to their MPs, rather than supporting the government.

If (for example) Britain & France had a skirmish over a couple of hectares of land that just happened to contain a temple, their respective populations would be asking what the hell is the government playing at. Of course the Spanish complain about Gibraltar, but the population of that colony want to remain British and military conflict is unthinkable at present. By the way, who's ever heard of the Spanish wanting to hand over Cueta to Morocco?

 

On the Thai border, what we're talking about is a small piece of land that's neither of any strategic value nor inhabited by any Thais. The Thai media and Thai population should call their stupid leaders to account.

[KhorTose]

But external threats can also backfire

[Guest fountainhall]

Oh course they can backfire. Anyone who has studied WWI can tell you that.

I haven't read 'The Guns of August' yet, but enough others to know of the horrors we can hardly comprehend and how that War ended up completely changing the world - forever.

 

Digressing slightly, there is one stunning novel which wonderfully encapsulates the heady, carefree freedom of the early years of that century and compares them with the cataclysm which is to come. Sebastian Faulks' first novel 'Birdsong' focuses on an Englishman and a French woman who meet by chance and fall hopelessly in love. It then flashes forward to the sheer insanity of what follows in the trenches, interwoven with the pain of emotion gone wrong. Two sentences hit you between the eyes: ""This is not war. It is an exploration into how far men can be degraded." One of the candidates for my best book of all time!

[KhorTose]

You know it is obvious when even the Wall Street Journal calls Thailand a state going Rogue.

 

 

Fighting over the disputed territory surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple along the Thai-Cambodia border resumed last Friday, with both sides trading artillery fire and accusations of targeting civilian villages throughout the weekend. The Associated Press reports 12 soldiers confirmed dead.

 

The world may never know which side started the latest clash, since Thailand continues to resist allowing international observers to monitor the area. And both countries deserve some blame for stirring the pot at various times. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that the Thai military is doing nothing to ease the tension.

 

That much we know from the way that the military, and then Bangkok, vetoed initiatives to get the two sides talking. After the last major bout of fighting in February, Cambodia succeeded in bringing the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which promptly kicked it back to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Indonesia, the chair of Asean this year, has played shuttle diplomacy trying to bring the two sides together, but Bangkok continues to balk. That has allowed Cambodia to play the aggrieved and more reasonable party.

 

View Full Image

 

 

Thailand's unwillingness to even contemplate compromise may be due to the broader impasse in its domestic politics. In 2008, the royalist People's Alliance for Democracy, more commonly known as the yellow shirts, took up the temple issue as a cudgel against the government of Samak Sundaravej. The same group has now turned on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and is castigating him for not taking more aggressive action to recover the temple.

 

Meanwhile, the military is positioning itself as the main defender of the monarchy and Thai sovereignty. Tension between the military and the civilian government has been mounting since Mr. Abhisit announced elections would be held within the next few months. Bangkok is rife with rumors that a coup is imminent.

 

The military, palace and business elite all fear that supporters of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will win their fourth straight general election. The last three results were annulled by a coup and court rulings, and the red shirt supporters of Mr. Thaksin have become increasingly restive as a result of their disenfranchisement. Even if their Puea Thai Party wins, there is a strong chance they will not be allowed to form a government. So further unrest later this year seems likely.

 

In this context, a fight with Cambodia might seem an appealing way out of the deadlock. A limited war with a much smaller neighbor could unify Thais, as the red shirts would feel pressure to get behind the military in a time of national crisis. Mr. Abhisit, who has never won an election and is widely regarded as a figurehead within Thailand, could be dispensed with, and elections pushed off until the glow of victory and massive public spending restore the Bangkok elite's popularity.

 

Perhaps the Thai military understands how much could go wrong with such a scenario and is only engaging in brinksmanship. But even this runs the risk of accidental escalation. And once a conflict starts, Asean nations would be put in the impossible position of having to choose sides, which might tear the organization apart.

 

<a name="U402223993477FPF">Thailand's friends have a responsibility to dissuade the military from military adventures. It's also time they addressed the root cause of the problem. This conflict is a sign that the nation's internal political crisis is beginning to generate external costs, showing once again that Asean's credo of noninterference in domestic politics needs to be tempered with an awareness that promotion of democracy is part and parcel of regional stability.

 

Please someone tell me how to put this in quotes

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704677404576284680471555442.html

[Guest fountainhall]

Please someone tell me how to put this in quotes

Just copy the article you want to insert, click the 'quote' icon - 13th from the left on my screen - and then paste your article in between 'quote' 'unquote'. On the screen it looks like {quote}{/quote} but with square brackets.

[KhorTose]

Just copy the article you want to insert, click the 'quote' icon - 13th from the left on my screen - and then paste your article in between 'quote' 'unquote'. On the screen it looks like {quote}{/quote} but with square brackets.

 

Duuuuuhhhhh, Thank you.

[Guest]

Are the border crossings still open for tourists?

 

I still think Cambodia's a terrific destination & recommend a visit.

 

 

Cambodia Threads