Are more protests on the horizon for Thailand? Photo: CBC

I recently asked a journalist friend of mine with over 25 years of experience reporting across Southeast Asia, “Do you think it’s possible we’ll see a coup in Thailand soon?” His sardonic reply was, “A coup in Thailand? Well it’s not like that’s ever happened before.”

In its current state, Thai politics is at best dysfunctional and inefficient and at worse dangerously chaotic. There are many variables accounting for this combustible situation. In this post, I will attempt to contextualize the primary reasons why many analysts, including myself, are coming to hold the opinion that another round of politically motivated violence is right around the corner in Thailand.

Class Struggle

Firstly, as mentioned in an article I penned for the Southeast Asia Globe, Thailand is divided and segregated along class lines.

“The country can be divided roughly into two main groups: the poor, rural majority; and the Bangkok elite. Likewise, there are two main political parties which represent, in general terms, each interest: the former by the Pheu Thai party and its red shirt surrogates, and the latter by the Democrat Party, who too have their own group of cohorts known as the yellow shirts.”

This division has played out in various open demonstrations over the past six years. In 2008, the pro-monarchy Yellow Shirts were able to successfully shutdown Bangkok’s international airport by protesting on the runways. In 2009, the Red Shirts stormed an ASEAN Summit meeting in the resort town of Pattaya, resulting in delegates from other Southeast Asian nations having to be airlifted by helicopter from the roof of the hotel.

Both the Yellow Shirt and Red Shirts know that mass organizing is a strategy that works. Both sides know that “if [they] don’t get what [they] want, the best tactic now is to take to the streets and paralyse government and business”, wrote the Council on Foreign Relation’s Joshua Kurlantzick in a piece at Asia Unbound.

This class struggle has not, and will not go away anytime soon.

The King is Old and Frail                                                                                        

Historically a steady presence when matters of politics devolve into fighting and conflict, the King has had very little to say about recent events. That is because His Majesty is old and sick. A revered figure in Thai society, when the King does inevitably pass on, there will for certain be a vacuum of sorts in the Thai political system.

This is an unknown variable; there are myriad questions pertaining to issues of succession, legacy, and lèse majesté (LM), a law prohibiting criticism of the King which has become politicized and has taken on a life of its own in recent

Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Photo: Royal Thai Government

months. This past week, the international spotlight was once again cast on Thailand’s LM after the tragic death of Ampon Tangnoppakul, also known as “Ar Kong,” an elderly grandfather who had been sentenced to twenty years in prison for allegedly sending text messages defaming the monarchy. When the King dies it will cause chaos and augment an already tense and apprehensive situation.

The Role of the Military

It was the Army which overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup in 2006. That sparked a series of events which led Thailand down the confrontational and sometimes violent path that the country has taken over the course of the six years since. When Thaksin’s sister Yingluck was overwhelmingly chosen to be Thailand’s next Prime Minister in a democratic election in July 2011, the Army vowed to accept the election results.

However, it is a rocky relationship to say the least between Yingluck’s Pheu Thai government and the military. Thailand is a country which has been defined by coups since the nation became a constitutional monarchy in 1932; to date, there have been more than 20 military coups and the country’s constitution and been ripped up and redrawn several times. The military is an exceedingly powerful actor in Thai politics and always seems to be in an advantageous position to determine the fate of the country.

In a recent piece for The Diplomat, Mr. Kurlantzick writes:

“[T]he Thai armed forces are currently beefing up their strength, working to promote closer intra-army unity, and essentially preparing for a potential conflict with the elected government should Thaksin return to the country, or should the elected government try to carve into the army’s political independence.”

Thaksin’s Return

And what of Thaksin, who was convicted in absentia of corruption and graft and sentenced to two years in prison following his removal from office? He has been living in exile in London and Dubai on a passport issued by Montenegro since his ouster. With his sister at the helm in Bangkok, it is widely expected that Thaksin’s charges will be commuted, thus allowing the multibillionaire telecommunications mogul to return to Thailand.

Is Thaksin coming home? Photo: The Guardian

Such a development is bound to upset the Bangkok elite and opposition Democrat Party, which just announced they were voluntarily leaving a reconciliation panel established in the wake of the 2010 Red Shirt street protests which were met with a violent crackdown by the government of Democrat Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. That response resulted in over 90 deaths and millions of dollars in damage when protestors set fire to landmark buildings and government offices.

Some contend that, despite living in exile, Thaksin has been the man behind the curtain of the Yingluck administration, operating behind the scenes and out of sight to run the country.

Others thought very highly of Yingluck as she came into office after she skillfully maneuvered her way to the premiership during an arduous campaign season. However, she has been rather ineffective in bringing the country’s divided electorate together, she has failed to mollify tensions with the military, and her bungled handling of the floods which inundated Thailand last autumn and alienated her core constituency of poor, rural farmers have left many observers wondering if her political life will be much shorter than originally anticipated.

Violence in the South

Bombing in Yala, March 31st, 2012. Photo: The Star

Take a close look at the picture to the right. Now pretend you didn’t know I was writing this story on Thailand. Where would you guess a photo like that had been taken in the context of the current state of global affairs? Baghdad? Kabul? Homs, Syria? Perhaps some hellhole in northern Nigeria? Indeed, that is a photo of downtown Yala, Thailand, the country’s southernmost province and center of an underreported Islamic insurgency which threatens the very fabric of this nation’s delicate peace.

Thailand’s south is a whole other animal altogether. The country’s three southern most provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat were formally apart of Malaysia before being annexed by the Kingdom of Siam at the turn of the 20th century. It is an Islamic region in a country where the majority of people are Buddhists. It is a divide that has become manifest in instances of extreme violence and terrorism throughout the years. Islamists are known to engage in drive by shootings at random targets, as well as decapitate Buddhist monks collecting their alms in the morning and then parade the heads through the streets as a warning to others.

Thaksin cracked down hard on the Islamists during his time in power, a decision which triggered even more violence in response, leading to a brutal cycle of violence. The army, for its part, is likely to advocate a similar military solution to the violence in the south. Will Yingluck appease the military’s insatiable appetite for force in an internal conflict? If not, she may be looking down the same barrel her older brother did those six years ago.

What’s Next?

There are a lot of questions posed here, and not too many answers readily available.

The most cogent encapsulation of current Thai politics can be summed by my friend and colleague Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Associate Professor at Japan’s Kyoto University and a fellow at the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore: “The possibility for another round of violent confrontation is very real.”

What it does is show the mistakes on the French side and the tenacity of the Vietminh.
This film is short. It in no way can be considered exhaustive but it serves its function well: it is a fine introduction into one of the most important watershed moments in world history.
Battle for Dien Bien Phu shows how the Vietminh used low-tech methods to get the upper hand over the French. They used the Ho Chi Minh trail under jungle cover to shuttle soldiers and weapons to the French stronghold.
The movie uses footage from the Vietminh perspective and many survivors of Dien Bien Phu are interviewed.
It is interesting to note that this documentary was made curing the cold war and viewers should try to watch it with sensitivity to that period in history.
Again, this film is great for newcomers to world history and shows how a determined insurgency can defeat a modern army.
In short, the Vietnamese wanted it more.
Battle for Dien Bien Phu is available to rent.
Murphy can be reached at: Lojano@comcast.net

Photo: KhmerNz

I’m sure most of us are familiar with this famous quote from Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels: “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” Personally, I prefer the much more humorous George Costanza line in a Seinfeld episode when Jerry is trying to defeat a polygraph test being given to him by his girlfriend. “Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie, if you believe it.”

The Cambodian military police must be adherents to both of these strains of belief. It’s the only way one can explain their incredible and, one might say delusional explanation of the events of last Wednesday night in Koh Kong Province where environmental activist Chut Wutty was gunned down by one or more people in the employ of the Cambodian military, a story which has now gone global.

See if you can follow without having your head explode:

The military policeman who allegedly shot the activist, In Ratana, was also killed that fateful night. The preliminary report indicated that a bullet ricocheted off of Chut Wutty’s car and hit the policeman.

Let’s pause for a moment and digest that one. Have you ever heard of a bullet bouncing off a car and striking the person who initially pulled the trigger? Maybe in Hollywood. Is it possible? I suppose anything is possible. Is it likely? Probably not.

The military apparently didn’t think it was possible either. Within a day, the report changed to say that In Ratana had instead committed suicide, shooting himself twice with his own AK-47, once in the stomach and once in the chest.

Now I’m no expert on the matter, but I would think that if one wanted to kill oneself with a gun, the preferred method would be a single bullet to the head with a convenient handgun, ending everything quickly. I would not think it prudent to use an assault rifle to shoot myself not once but twice in my body, prolonging my pain and suffering.

Muddying the picture still further is the fact that the two female journalists accompanying Chut Wutty – Ukrainian/Canadian national Olesia Plokhii and native Khmer Phorn Bopha – were taken into police custody, after which they offered unclear reports of the night’s events to The Cambodia Daily. According to the journalists, they only heard two shots fired. This seems impossible if Chut Wutty was fatally shot at least once, and In Ratana shot himself twice. Right there that is already three shots. Moreover, despite being only meters away, they said they didn’t know for certain who fired the bullets.

The Cambodian government has announced that it will form a committee to investigate the events of the evening. However, the longer this drags on, the more questions will be asked. Is someone being protected by the military police and/or government? Why would In Ratana decide to end his own life? How many bullets were actually fired? And will there be statements from the two journalists?

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing press censorship abroad has gotten involved, presumably to assist Ms. Plokhii, an associate of mine who has not responded to email requests for comments so far. I believe there is more to this story, but the only way I think we will find out is if Ms. Plokhii exits stage right and tells her story outside Cambodia. Of course, she has to consider the fate of her colleague at The Cambodia Daily, Ms. Bopha, who has no option to leave the country as she is a Cambodian citizen.

Sadly, it seems quite possible that several hours of Cambodian police interrogation may mean that the truth of what happened will never be known.

The late Chut Wutty. Photo: Wikipedia

The director of a well-known Cambodian environmental organization seeking to highlight governmental negligence and corruption regarding the issue of illegal logging was brutally gunned down by military police this past Wednesday night.

Chut Wutty, director of the Natural Resource Protection Group (and a personal friend of this author), was shot and killed in a car after he refused to hand over his camera’s memory card to the policeman. He had been escorting two journalists from a local newspaper in a protected forest in Koh Kong province, site of an illegal logging operation said to involve military officials.

Illegal logging has been a hot topic in Cambodia in recent months. It’s a practice which has expanded as it has become more profitable. There is a high international demand for the fine-grained lumber from rosewood trees: it is used in a wide variety of means from the production of furniture in China to musical instruments to be sold in the U.S.

However, activists say the logging of these rare trees can cause widespread and endemic environmental destruction and degradation. It has contributed to Cambodia’s rapid deforestation rate, the third highest in the world according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Officially, the trees are protected by law. Unofficially, the underground business of logging is thriving in Cambodia.

The trade can be so lucrative that Cambodian loggers have been traversing over the border into Thailand to cut down rosewood trees, a growing concern to both Phnom Penh and Bangkok. Thai border guards routinely shoot and kill Cambodian loggers, a response which has not as of yet served as a deterrent.

Another source of logging is done by companies who have been granted land concessions by the government. Activists like Chut Wutty have claimed that when enough money changes hands, the fact that the trees are protected does not mean a whole lot.

Chut Wutty’s wife believes that her husband’s death was a plot by wealthy Cambodians because of the threat posed to them by the late activist. “I think there were third persons involved with my husband’s killing. They prepared a plot to kill him because his work was affecting their interests. Those people were not happy with my husband and his work …so they planned to kill him when he went there again,” she told the Phnom Penh Post.

If there were forces plotting his demise in an effort to cover up the issue of logging and corruption, Chut Wutty’s death will surely have an opposite effect; it has been the lead story of both local newspapers every day since the shooting, including The Cambodia Daily, whose reporters were the ones with Chut Wutty in Koh Kong. Moreover, discourse on the government and military’s intimidation methods is now locally trending.

As is the case with most activists who are killed while working on their issue, their cause becomes a rallying cry for others. The Cambodian government is likely to have to deal with the logging subject more head-on now in the coming weeks and months.

In addition to his wife, Chut Witty leaves behind two daughters and a son.

Photo: World Economic Forum

In the latest twist in the increasingly violent saga of Thailand’s southern problem, last month’s triple bomb blast in the province of Yala highlighted another failure of the administration of Yingluck Shinawatra’s eight-month old government: the campaign vow to grant the three southern provinces of Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat ‘special administration zone’ status.

Much like the rest of her first year in office, this issue was big on rhetoric and small on action.

In August, when Ms. Yingluck was being inaugurated as the first female Prime Minister in Thailand’s history, I wrote that her stump speeches in the heart of Thailand’s largely Muslim south were cause for much optimism. This was especially so considering that her brother, and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, had left a legacy of hostility with respect to his southern policy.

The Muslim south has spawned several insurgent groups over the years, the most notable being the Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO). No group has claimed responsibility for the latest attack on March 31^st which ultimately killed fourteen and wounded hundreds more. But it fits the pattern of acts of terror which have become the hallmark of some of the armed groups in the region, formerly an Islamic sultanate until annexed by the Kingdom of Siam in the early 1900s.

However, it would be overly simplistic to label this as just another religious conflict: Muslim extremists waging war against a primarily Buddhist country. This is more of an economic struggle; the conflict is about the land, after all, and who has control of it. Groups like the PULO have called for total independence from Thailand, but they have also showed a willingness to negotiate.

It was the hope of many observers that Yingluck would be the one to deliver to the southern provinces the title of ‘special economic zone’ which would signify autonomy more so than independence. It is the same status endowed to the capital city of Bangkok. It was a promise met with some hope when Yingluck was campaigning in the south of her country in the run-up to the July 2011 elections. There, Muslim women serenaded her with chants of ‘yamila,’ or beautiful girl.

Last month’s bombing was certainly an act of terror, but it also shows the extent to which Yingluck has failed to follow through on some of her campaign rhetoric as well.

Additionally, the tragic event in the hub of the region’s commercial capital has unleashed a Pandora ’s Box of questions.

How will the military respond? Thaksin was overthrown in 2006 by the army, and Yingluck’s relations with the military are uneasy. The military might want to respond more forcefully in the south than Yingluck and her advisors want to.

Will this bombing negatively affect the country’s tourism industry? Tourism is a huge source of income for Bangkok, representing roughly 6% of GDP. But between the massive flooding problem which inundated large swaths of the country last Fall, large scale street protests between a segregated electorate based on class, and now more violence and uncertainty in the south, many tourists may decide to go some other place, less on edge.

Lastly, will large scale terrorism begin to take a more firm root in Thailand? The south has had problems for decades, and there was also a botched bombing in Bangkok back in February, blamed on three Iranian men. It’s a troubling trend for a country known by both locals and tourists as the “Land of Smiles.”

Yingluck has been particularly weak on several of these issues. If she doesn’t begin to take a firmer stand and elucidate her policies in coming weeks, her governance problems are sure to be augmented.

Photo: Alfred Meier

Safe inside his armored motorcade and surrounded by nearly two dozen police motorcycle escorts, Chinese Premier Hu Jintao traversed north along Sothearos Boulevard in Phnom Penh this past Saturday morning, passing a 20 foot portrait of his face as well as one of his wife’s as his entourage made its way towards the Peace Palace for a meeting with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Along the two sides of the road lined school children waving Cambodian and Chinese flags and holding up smaller frames of the aforementioned portraits.

The meeting of the two leaders took place just two short days before the 20^th annual ASEAN Summit in Cambodia’s capital city. One does not need much of an imagination to figure out what was being discussed.

Cambodia is China’s closest ally in Southeast Asia, a special relationship which dates back decades and which has begun to ruffle the feathers of some of Phnom Penh’s ASEAN neighbors.  As chair of the regional bloc for 2012, Cambodia was in charge of setting the agenda for the conference. One issue of particular note which was omitted was the row over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

Photo: Reuters

As I noted a few days ago in my preliminary commentary of the summit, China is one of six countries laying claim to the island chain, believed to be rich in oil and natural gas deposits. Four ASEAN member states – Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei – also claim the islands. Moreover, there has been increased hostility within the past year between China and Vietnam and the Philippines in particular, incidents which have triggered some parties to the dispute to call for the drafting of a Code of Conduct (COC).

During an impassioned opening speech, Hun Sen called for greater unity amongst ASEAN member states, specifying the need to expand the regional currency fund and for better protection for migrant workers.  There was no mention of the Sea dispute.

But that all changed when ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan of Thailand announced that China could also see a role in helping to draft the COC. That announcement was blasted by Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario who said such a decision represented a “big disagreement.”

Before you knew it, the South China Sea dispute became the central topic of discussion at the conference, much to the chagrin of Hun Sen who sought to avoid the topic altogether. It is an issue which should continue to dominate the discourse of regional relations with China indefinitely until there is a version of a COC drawn up.

Privately and anonymously, some delegates told me that they believe Cambodia values its close ties to Beijing more than they do to ASEAN, and they are not happy about that. So much for greater unity.

Photo: AP

After campaigning tirelessly throughout the majority of her adult life in hopes of bringing democracy to her country and after spending nearly fifteen of those years under house arrest for espousing her views, Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s icon of hope and political freedom, has unofficially won a seat in the country’s parliament.

An official declaration by the state-run election commission is not expected for days, or perhaps weeks. However, early tallies suggest Suu Kyi has secured at least 65% of the vote in her constituency, Kawhmu, located in her extremely impoverished home village of Wa Thin Kha.

“It is not so much our triumph as a triumph of the people who have decided that they have to be involved in the political process in this country,” she announced to cheering supporters. “We hope this will be the beginning of a new era.”

Her victory is a stunning, albeit unsurprising development for the long-isolated country whose economy has been crippled by Western sanctions which were implemented in response to the ruling junta’s egregious human rights record. International observers, including two delegates from the United States, were present in the country to monitor the electoral process to ensure its transparency. At this point, they are still evaluating the process and have not made a statement yet.

In 2010, the military junta gave way to a nominally civilian controlled government. It was a dubious transition, as most of the ruling generals simply retired from military life to take up posts as politicians. Those elections were boycotted by Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) and resulted in a dominant majority for the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the military-turned-civilian caucus.

If the by-elections are judged to be free and fair by independent observers, some sanctions may begin to be lifted, a cause for celebration amongst business investors who have eyed the potential economic benefits which Myanmar may possess with increasing vigor and anticipation.

“Burma is considered to be the last frontier in Asia,” according to Son Visel, owner of various textile manufacturing plants from China and Cambodia, to Thailand and Indonesia. “Think about it: Burma is a fertile plain virtually untouched by any type of Western or Eastern styled development. There are extraordinary profits to be had.”

Speaking to a variety of investors and diplomats in attendance at the 20^th Annual ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia this week, one gets a sense that the “Race for Burma” is almost a modern day Age of Exploration for the globalized world. Myanmar is a country which has barred any sort of outside influence whatsoever, including international aid agencies after the devastating Cyclone Nagris which killed more than 130,000 people hit the country in 2008.

One certain thing is that Aung San Suu Kyi’s victory will be hailed by all parties: the NLD, the West, and Myanmar President Thein Sein, who has emerged as the Burmese F. W. de Klerk to Suu Kyi’s Nelson Mandela. He, in effect, needed Suu Kyi to win to satisfy skeptics. However, the NLD’s success in these by-elections is not likely to result in much immediate political action. The NLD are the main opposition and represent only a fraction of the 644 seats in the Burmese parliament, even if they swept the 45 seats up for grabs in the by-elections. The next national elections, preliminarily scheduled for 2015, could see Suu Kyi run for President. At that point, Thein Sein’s tune may have changed a bit.

Once her win is officially declared, the question will turn to how she will lead her party and turn her country’s hope into reality. Once he became President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela did not achieve the success many came to expect of him. Indeed, Suu Kyi’s victory “could create exaggerated expectations about the pace and scope of change,” says Carl Thayer, Emeritus Professor with the University of New South Wales in Australia in a recent piece in The Diplomat.

Additionally, there will be a debate about whether the NLD’s greatest chance for success and national reconciliation will be to cooperate with the ruling USDP, thus legitimizing their regime even more. Or, in contrast, become the voice of opposition, much like how the Republicans in the House of Representatives in the United States have behaved during the second half of President Barack Obama’s first term.

It all makes for great political theatre, but Suu Kyi’s constituents in Kawhmu still do not have running water, electricity, or proper sanitation. It is always important to remain cognizant of the human element in such political dogfights. Will Suu Kyi’s victory change the lot for these impoverished people? That remains to be seen.

The massacre at My Lai in Vietnam resulted in the slaughter of as many as 500 civilians at the hands of American soldiers who knew what they were doing.
What happened that made members of Charlie Company adopt a “kill ‘em all” mentality?
Through interviews with people who were there, this documentary shows how the desire for revenge was ramped up every time a soldier was killed or wounded by mines, booby traps, and sniper fire. They were frustrated and wanted the chance to meet their attackers face to face.
The film also shows how poor intelligence led Charlie Company to believe there were Viet Cong in My Lai, which was not the case.At least one person interviewed said there was no way to disobey orders, even those that called for lining people up at a drainage ditch and killing them indiscriminately. His recollection is reminiscent of German soldiers who said they were only following orders when they committed atrocities in World War II.
But it’s not that simple. As the soldier testified, failure to follow orders could have easily led to immediate execution. It’s a thorny issue without an easy answer.
There are also heartbreaking interviews with survivors of the My Lai massacre.
My Lai, which does a fantastic job of showing the incidents leading up to the massacre, the massacre itself, and its aftermath, is available to rent.
Murphy can be reached at: Lojano@comcast.net

Photo: The Bangkok Post

The 2012 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit will take place April 3rd and 4th in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. As the new chair of the regional bloc for the 2012 year, Cambodia will have an opportunity to show off its capital city’s latest developments, both socioeconomic and political. The streets are already being decked out with symbols of national pride, and flags of the other nine member countries of ASEAN have been hung from the street lights of Phnom Penh’s busiest boulevards. Moreover, judging from the level of security already being dispatched onto the streets for last week’s meeting between Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and Myanmar’s Presidnet Thien Sen, no one anticipates a repeat of the 2009 summit from Pattaya, Thailand. That summit was abandoned once Red Shirt protesters stormed the resort where the conference was taking place, resulting in delegates having to be airlifted away from the top of the hotel.

It is a monumental achievement for Cambodia which is just two decades removed from a prolonged civil conflict which devastated the country, nearly eradicated Khmer culture, and resulted in approximately 2 million deaths. During that time, regional relations with its Southeast Asian neighbors were poor to say the least, save for China, which supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

Today, however, functionalism is alive and well. As British scholar David Mitrany theorized, the benefits of increased regional integration on limited matters eventually “spill over” into bigger, more important areas. It starts out small: first, maybe a group of countries agree to make the process of obtaining a visa in one another’s countries easier for their respective citizens. Later on, broader trade agreements are signed. Before you know it, the mutual interest of all parties involved mandates closer cooperation and interdependence on a whole range of issues from education and trade, to nuclear security and combatting terrorism.

The underlying theme of the summit is cooperation. Perhaps this is why Cambodia has decided to block the issue of the conflict in the South China Sea from making the docket of topics to discuss. It is a thorny issue indeed, with six countries all claiming ownership of the Spratly Islands atoll, four of which are ASEAN member states.

China, who is not a member of ASEAN, will of course be kept informed of the summit’s proceedings by their two closest allies in Southeast Asia: Cambodia and Laos. Beijing is another claimant of the island chain, believed to hold vast deposits of oil and natural gas, and has had several flare ups with Vietnam and the Philippines over the past several months on the water.

The hot button topic is the situation in Myanmar. Reforms in the now-nominally civilian controlled country have been happening at a breakneck pace throughout the past five months. Political prisoners have been released, unions will be allowed to form, and by-elections have been called for April 1st. Democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, is expected to score major victories. This past week, Myanmar President Thien Sen announced that international electoral monitors will be permitted to observe the process to ensure the proceeding’s transparency. Free and fair elections are a prerequisite for the removal of U.S.-sponsored sanctions dating from when the country was ruled by an iron-fisted military junta.

And of course the United States will be discussed as well. The administration of President Barack Obama has indicated that the Asia-Pacific region will be a key area of focus in the coming months and years as Washington attempts to end the two unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and shift its attention further East.

I will be reporting during the summit for the Foreign Policy Association’s blog network.

Photo: The Diplomat Magazine

“Let me tell you, it hurts. It hurts bad,” remarks Johnny Phillips, elucidating the emotional and sometimes physical pain extracting yet another $1000 from an ATM in Phnom Penh can cause.

Mr. Phillips is the founder of BuckHunger, a nonprofit organization which seeks to provide free food to Cambodian children whilst also teaching the kids the requisite skills needed to become employable in the food service industry. The children learn about food preparation, sanitation, and the various duties and responsibilities that restaurant workers have. Most importantly, 200 kids leave BuckHunger’s building every afternoon with their bellies full after a hot and healthy lunch.

It’s a story that dates back to the era of colonialism: rich foreigners swooping into the less than developed parts of the globe to save the world’s poor. But there’s a problem here. Mr. Phillips is not rich; his organization survives on donations alone, and that is an area of trifling frustration, according to him. In fact, it is nearing the point where Mr. Phillips, who resides in Cambodia off of his savings – which he built up over 40 years as a food service professional, mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma – and social security, may be so far in the red as to be unable to afford a plane ticket back to America.

In a way, this is not too surprising of a development. In an article I penned for The Diplomat Magazine a few months ago, I argued that civil society in Cambodia has both constitutive and normative effects on how we, as a global community, view the North-South relationship. On the one hand, I think Western institutions are truly needed in this area of the world. Sometimes individuals in the Global South need some assistance in order to actualize their full potential. On the other hand, many of these institutions become victims themselves, thanks to their own benevolence. NGOs get so caught up in pie charts, power point presentations, and financial issues, the people they are actually supposed to be helping become benignly neglected.

BuckHunger, for its part, is not an NGO; it is not registered with the Cambodian government and has a business plan that is not designed to make a profit. But it is not supposed to bleed money either, save for perhaps the necessary startup costs. But what Mr. Phillips does do, and what makes him unique, is that he does not simply give a handout to poor kids and then retreats back to his laptop to analyze that day’s quantitative statistics. He also provides a skill for the children, an inimitable characteristic that separates his organization from the typical one I referenced above. Indeed, this is something that is lacking in this country.

Take, for example, the issue of bar girls. I blogged a few weeks ago for FPA about the situation of women who choose to go into this profession (an article which was highly popular and much criticized on this website, I might add). A few months ago, the police raided one of the hostess bars because prostitution is technically illegal in Cambodia. The bar owners apparently could not pay off the cops to their satisfaction, so the bar was shut down. What happened to the girls? Well, they either went to another bar, or returned home or to the streets without another job.

I do not condone prostitution, but if the police are going to close down a hostess bar, the government should at least provide a program to reintegrate the women back into society with a new skill. Provide English classes, teach them how to take an order at a restaurant, demonstrate how to make a mixed drink. They should do something, because while they have closed down one den of iniquity, there are myriad others and the only thing accomplished is that they have driven the girls out of a job.

It will be a sad day if an organization like BuckHunger has to shut their doors. Just today, Mr. Phillips indicated that he had to close the building’s doors for the first time for austerity measures. He said there would be 200 children knocking on the door this afternoon expecting a hot meal who will be turned away. Instead, they will have to beg or pick through garbage which, incidentally, is another topic which I have discussed on this website.

It is just one organization, and it is only 200 kids and seniors a day in a nation where 30% of the population lives on less than $2/day, but it is still a cause worth saving, running in contrast with my normal discourse and sentiment on Cambodian civil society.

If you would like to make a 501c3 tax deductible donation, you can do so through the BuckHunger website.

Photo: Travelpod

“Bpuu! Bpuu! Kgnom soam dtaow tribunals,” I say to the all-too-eager tuk tuk driver, individuals who are typically all-too-happy to drive foreigners anywhere.

My Khmer language skills after one month are OK, but it is still a work in progress. Still, I stand there boasting to the other drivers and motodops hovering around, impressed with myself that I remembered to say the one phrase I had practiced in my flat all morning.

“Huh?” was the reply I got, the driver looking at me as if I had three heads. Apparently, my linguistical hubris had gotten the better of me this time.

“I want to go to the tribunals,” I added in English.

“Yes, yes. I know,” replied the driver.

“No, no, no,” I quipped. I had seen this story before. “Do you know where to go? The Tribunals. Tribunals. Tribunals,” I repeated over and over again, trying to ensure my potential driver was not simply nodding in blissful ignorance as is the proclivity of such men in Phnom Penh.

“Wazz daaat,” said the tuk tuk man.

“You know, the Khmer Rouge Tribunals,” I offered.

Nothing. A blank stare and a smile. “You know Khmer Rouge. Tribunals. Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot. Pol Pot,” I offered.

Just then the conversation turned sour. All of the drivers around me seemed to recoil at the same time, as if watching some horrifying thing taking place in front of them. “Pol Pol? ECCC,” said one of the motodops, referring to the acronym of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the venue for where the trials have been taking place. “Why do you want to go there?”

I pulled out my business card and told him that I was a freelance journalist living in Cambodia for a while and that I wanted to observe a few days of court proceedings. I have since learned that mentioning Pol Pot by name to a most native Khmers – especially older ones – is almost akin to saying Voldermort’s name out loud in Diagon Alley. It is mentioned in hushed tones in quiet corners only when absolutely necessary. Moreover, it is all quite understandable: Khmer culture was largely destroyed by the murderous regime amid nearly two decades of irrational communist dictates and genocide.

Current Prime Minister Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge cadre himself, has been in his position of power since 1985, with a few brief interruptions due to instances of political uncertainty. He was handpicked by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) as a man they could do business with after the NVA overran the Khmer Rouge. During his time in charge, Cambodia has registered modest economic growth and ranks 121st in terms of GDP, according to the World Bank. It annually lags behind its neighbors and regional powerhouses Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and corruption is part and parcel of the political system.

However, most Cambodians I have talked with are as apolitical and indifferent as anywhere I have lived abroad. It fits into a theory I hold for most post-conflict, developing nations: as long as there is peace, most of the population will not care to change the political status quo despite a weak economy.

Maybe that is beginning to change in the 21st century as we have witnessed people powered revolutions sweep the globe. Maybe it is also beginning to change in Cambodia. In the capital, where the younger generations are becoming more educated, Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) is not as popular; Phnom Penh is the one province which the CPP failed to hold in the last elections which took place in July, 2008.

In the poorer provinces, however, the CPP remains the only viable choice for those who even bother to pay attention to the political process. In a country where per capita income is $2150 – worse than Timor-Leste, which is routinely cited as the poorest country in Asia – why is this so? The answer, I believe, is because for a country scarred not just by war, but by a calamity the scope of which can never be properly contextualized or empathized with by those of us who have never experienced such a catastrophe, peace is always preferred to economic success. One might be poor, but at least one has a family that has not been broken up or slaughtered because of conflict.

That may be why those tuk tuk drivers and motodops reacted so poorly when I said the name Pol Pot. That is an era which, while remembered properly out of respect to its victims, is better left alone in ordinary conversation. Cambodia had to undergo quite the transition over the past thirty years, and one of the issues greatly affected has been on the subject of political relevance. Every Cambodian knows about corruption: in the government, in the military, and in the police force. But it is a part of life here and accepted as such. Political apathy can sometimes lead to disaster; in Cambodia, it may one of the defining characteristics which makes the country as charming as it is now.

Iranian officials have denied such accusations. However, some may speculate that Tehran, which recently announced new advances in its nuclear program, dispatched its surrogates to the aforementioned cities to attack Israeli diplomats in retaliation for the assassination of several of Iran’s top atomic scientists.

Why Bangkok was the location for one of the planned attacks is an interesting question. Thailand has a significant Turkic population, and Bangkok specifically has many Iranian, Uzbek, and Kyrgyz immigrants living there.

The capital is a hub of international tourism which can serve as prime ground for radical extremists to exploit. Just last month, a Lebanese-Swedish man with alleged connections to Hezbollah was arrested there after police found more than 4000 kg of bomb making materials in the man’s home, including urea fertilizer and ammonium nitrate. The man has denied all charges and has instead accused the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, of planting the material in his home.

The New York Times reported this past January that American and Israeli diplomats had warned their citizens traveling to Thailand of a possible terror attack.

American government officials said Friday that they believed that Bangkok was a major hub for the Hezbollah-controlled cocaine money-laundering network that United States law enforcement agencies have been investigating. That investigation led to the closing of a major bank in Lebanon, which was said to have laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit funds in a scheme that the American government says benefited Hezbollah.

The report goes on to say that some possible targets in Bangkok for terrorist attacks might be “tourist sites, synagogues and the Israeli Embassy.” Such intelligence may have been quite valuable in thwarting this alleged plot, but events of the past two months suggest a troubling phenomenon for Thailand. The government of Yingluck Shinawatra must demonstrate the ability to prevent international terror networks from setting up shop in its country, less Thailand find itself in the middle of a fight it has nothing to do with.

Photo: Agence-France Presse

I arrived in Phnom Penh late last Saturday. This is the second time I’ve come to Cambodia and the country, more specifically its capital city, is just as seedy as I recall from last time I was here in 2008.

There is no delicate way of tip toeing around the issue of sex workers and prostitution so let’s be clear: it is a reality everywhere in the world, but especially the Third World, and it is not going away. The best one can hope for is that it is regulated as best it can be in such a way that reduces instances of sex slavery and promotes proper sexual health.

Phnom Penh is notorious for its hostess bars which proliferate along Street 136 in the downtown Riverside area of the city. If you are not familiar with the term hostess bar, it is essentially a place where patrons can go and procure the services of the workers in the bar for the evening. Basically, you walk in and buy a drink. Once this transaction takes place, approximately 25 women make their way to where you are sitting. The patron selects one or more women with which he desires to spend time with for the evening. After buying her or them drinks, the patron has the option to pay a bar fine (usually $10) which releases the woman or women from the duties and responsibilities to the bar for the night. The patron is then free to negotiate a price for services outside the bar for the evening.

You may, however, just choose to utilize the bar for its more innocent purpose of inducing inebriation for the night. Indeed, I personally choose not to pay for sex, but that did not stop me from entering a hostess bar this past week in an attempt to bring my readers a true on-the-ground experience.

A common misconception is that these women (they are not girls) are forced into this lifestyle. False. These women have freely chosen to do what they do. It is the preferable choice to working the rice patties until they’re old and crippled. Some of the women were even attending classes at universities in the daytime. Another misnomer is that these women can never leave their jobs at the bar. False. Each woman I spoke to and who agreed to talk about the subject with me indicated that they could leave whenever they want. Most had no idea who even owned the bar. One might also have been led to believe that if they are chosen by a patron to leave with them that they cannot refuse. False. None of the women are forced to do anything with anyone. Safe sex is also highly prioritized which is reflected in Cambodia’s relatively low rate of HIV/AIDS when compared to other Global South countries.

Despite its reputation, Cambodia is not exactly the modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sex workers do have some protection, if not rights. Does sex slavery and human trafficking still persist in parts of the country? Of course it does, and I do not mean to suggest that it does not or is not a problem. The topic of sex workers is always going to be a rough issue to digest for most people with a heart, but at least the increasing regulation represents a fairly progressive turn in Cambodia’s sex industry which neighboring states can hope to emulate.

Photo: AP

The return of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to Thailand appears to be a formality at this point; a question of when, not if. It was inevitable as soon as the polls closed in Thailand’s last election this past July which saw Thaksin’s reincarnated Pheu Thai party, headed by his sister Yingluck, emerge victorious on a tidal wave of support from the country’s rural hinterland. Thaksin has been in self-imposed exile after being overthrown in a coup in 2006. He was subsequently prosecuted and convicted in abstentia of corruption and graft and given a two year prison sentence.

This past December, Thailand’s Foreign Minister, Surapong Tovichakchaikul, announced that he had planned to issue a new passport for Thaksin. Such a move would allow the former head of government and telecommunications billionaire to return home and, in all likelihood, for him to see his prison sentence commuted by his sister.

The consequences of such a political power play could be significant. Thailand’s political system has been defined by coups and, more recently, protests, since the country’s transition to constitutional monarchy. Thaksin’s ouster in 2006 touched off a series of events which saw both supporters and opponents filling the streets at different times. Airports were shut down, the tourism industry was crippled, and over one hundred people were killed in violent clashes with the state’s security services.

Will Thaksin’s return spur similar events? The pro-monarch Yellow Shirts, members of the Bangkok elite, took a trouncing in the elections this past summer, but have consistently proven that they are strongly organized and willing to come out and demonstrate against pro-Thaksin forces. The opposition Democrat Party, for its part, has already called for Yingluck’s impeachment over the matter of her brother’s passport.

Her first six months in office have hardly been smooth sailing for Yingluck. There was of course her bungled response to the devastating floods to hit the region this past fall. Now the Democrats, recovering from their heavy electoral loss, are finding an old issue to rally behind in an attempt to sandbag Yingluck’s young government.

Thaksin remains a lightning rod for controversy in Thailand, and this looming showdown between opposing forces will be sure to make for great drama in Thailand in the months to follow.

It is the world’s largest Muslim country but remains for the most part secular. It is home to the eighteenth largest economy on the globe but more than sixteen percent of the population lives on less than $2 per day. Indonesia has long been considered the linchpin for Southeast Asia and, indeed, serves as a fascinating case study for which myriad domestic phenomena can be explored:  macroeconomic policy, the role of religion, and the nexus between political control and the military. In the seventh episode of the 2012 Great Decision series, produced by the Foreign Policy Association, Indonesia’s role in the region and the world, as well as its relationship with the United States, is examined in such frameworks. FPA readers can purchase a copy of the eight episode DVD and briefing book at the Great Decisions TV webpage.

The two panelists – Walter Lohman, the Director of The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, and Sadanand Dhume, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal – start with an historical overview beginning in the Cold War era to properly contextualize Indonesia’s modern trajectory.

Fearful of a communist wave which threatened to sweep Southeast Asia into Moscow’s orbit, U.S. policymakers in the Richard Nixon administration were quick to align themselves with Suharto, a zealous anti-communist Major General who had helped to overthrow the country’s previous military ruler in 1967. As Lohman posits, Washington’s support for Suharto was the lesser of two evils.

Never one to shy away from befriending some of the world's worst dictators, President Richard Nixon hosts Suharto in the Oval Office in 1969. Photo: ETAN

Despite a lack of political and civil rights under Suharto, Dhume argues that the dictator showed a knack for organization and, as a result, Indonesia underwent a period of extraordinary economic growth (abetted by millions of dollars in aid from Washington) while also enjoying some measure of political stability. Dhume is quite cavalier, however, in his dismissal of Suharto’s human rights record, saying only that there were “abuses of course,” before moving on to another point.

After the overthrow of Sukarno, the country’s previous autocrat, Suharto went on a rampage against his political opponents, especially Communists, which resulted in a bloodbath that rivaled Stalin’s endeavors in terms of sheer brutality. In December 1975, Indonesia invaded and occupied East Timor, causing untold misery and close to 100,000 deaths over the course of the following quarter century. Moreover, the Suharto regime’s behavior in West Papua has been called genocide by the Yale Law School. Yes, there were abuses, of course.

Suharto’s downfall came against a backdrop of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Indonesia’s population could tolerate Suharto’s corruption and nepotism as long as the economy continued to hum along. However, the financial collapse which hit the country was not only an economic calamity but also served as a social and political awakening as well.

Indonesians go to the polls in 1999, the culmination of a remarkably quick transition to democracy. Photo: China Daily

The elections held in 1999 were, by all accounts, free and fair. Such a reality was met with surprise by most observers who have noted the chaotic nature of quick democratic transitions. One need only look to Egypt today to find an appropriate juxtaposition. With a litany of actors – opposition figures, military personnel, and remnants from the old regime — all clamoring for a voice at the table, one should expect a rocky road. In Indonesia, there were a fair share of bumps in that road, especially between 1998 and 2002, but the end product can be held up as a model to follow for other countries undergoing the trials and tribulations of democratization.

Indonesia’s transition from autocratic rule to democracy is almost as unique as the country itself. Consisting of more than 17,000 islands, the Great Decisions panel brings up the question as to how Indonesia has maintained its territorial integrity through the years. With the exceptions of East Timor, which gained independence in 2002, and the continued struggle by separatists in West Papua, Indonesia has retained sovereignty over its whole.

Part of that was due to the iron fisted rule of Suharto, but another part is due to the nation’s religious freedom. While 88 percent of the country is Muslim, there are major areas that are home to religious minorities. Bali, for example, is largely Hindu, while Sumatra is Christian. These groups have never been persecuted for their beliefs and that has gone a long way preventing the type of schisms that have popped up in other areas of the world which have divaricating degrees of religious tension. A good contemporary example in the news lately is Nigeria, where sectarian fighting in the country’s north threatens to tear the nation apart.

In terms of democratization and minority rights, Dhume suggests that Indonesia can be an example for the countries of the Arab Spring. This is so not just because of the mutual connection to Islam, but because Indonesia has proven that such transitions can be successfully implemented.

The United States, for its part, has maintained a very close partnership with Jakarta, even after he Suharto years. The two countries participate in various military exercises together, and have cooperated fully in the apprehension of several well-known members of Jemaah Islamiyah, a militant Islamic organization operating in Southeast Asia.  Washington values its relationship with countries like Indonesia because of the non-political role of Islam and because of its ability, in the 21^stcentury at least, to curtail the influence of the military in the political process.

President Barack Obama, seen here meeting with Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2010, spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. Photo: Corbis Images

President Barack Obama has a personal connection to Indonesia, having spent four years of his childhood living there. He has also made two state trips to the country as President in only his first term. Ties between the two countries appear to be very strong at the moment – a reality which Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has boasted of on numerous occasions – and with Indonesia’s GDP having increased sevenfold just over the last fifteen years, Jakarta is poised to be a regional powerbroker and a significant international player in the years to come.