Fight violence with nonviolence

By Rolf Carriere and Michael Nagler, CSMonitor.com
March 27, 2008

Atlanta, Georgia (USA) -- Legends relate that Buddha stopped a war between two kings who were quarreling over rights to a river by asking them, "Which is more precious, blood or water?" Could ordinary people use the same kind of wisdom – and courage – to check the impulse to fight wars today – over oil, water, or identity? Mahatma Gandhi thought so. He created teams of civilians called the Shanti Sena or "Army of Peace" and deployed them in various communities around India where they could avert communal riots and provide other peacekeeping services. Over the past 25 years nonviolent peacekeepers have been going into zones of sometimes intense conflict with the aim of bringing a measure of peace, protection, and sanity to life there. Rather than use threat or force, unarmed peacekeepers deploy strategies of protective accompaniment, moral and/or witnessing "presence," monitoring election campaigns,

creating neutral safe spaces, and in extreme cases putting themselves physically between hostile parties, as Buddha did with the angry kings in ancient India.

Civilian unarmed peacekeeping has had dramatic, small-scale, quiet, and unglamorous successes: rescuing child soldiers, protecting the lives of key human rights workers and of whole villages, averting potentially explosive violence, and generally raising the level of security felt by citizens in many a tense community.

Recently a village on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines was under threat by two armed groups who had come within 200 meters of each other. The village elders called for help from the Nonviolent Peaceforce stationed there, who intervened and by communicating with all sides persuaded the armed group to back away. Thanks to mediation, no violence erupted, no lives were lost.

Why haven't you heard about this exciting work? Because it is terribly underfunded, for one thing. There is also a prevailing prejudice that only governments or armed forces – including those of the United Nations – have the responsibility or means to contain conflict. While the UN Security Council has often authorized "all necessary means" to maintain peace and prevent violent conflict, in fact, the UN has not systematically considered large-scale civilian unarmed peacekeeping.

But the biggest obstacle by far is the widespread – and rarely examined – belief that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is the belief that there is only one kind of power; threat power, which in the end can be relied upon to get others to change their minds or, failing that, at least their actions.

That may change. The failures of war-fighting for peace, most notably now in Iraq, are getting ever more costly – of life, material, and our civil liberties.

The new global norm of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) should inspire the use of civil society and nonviolent means. While it includes military interventions, R2P is based on emerging international human security and human rights doctrine that aims to avert further failure by the international community to prevent and stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

It may yet dawn on the world that these courageous nonviolent peacekeepers are not "unarmed;" they are armed with what Gandhi made bold to call "the greatest force mankind has been endowed with" – nonviolence.

Nonviolent Peaceforce is working to bring this kind of peacekeeping to greater prominence, with the goal of increasing its current 70 field team members to a cadre of 2,000 by 2012. For a recent deployment, Nonviolent Peaceforce had applicants hailing from 55 countries for every position available.

Well-trained unarmed civilians are saving lives and protecting communities under threat in some of the world's most violent places. They are growing. Recently the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue issued a study documenting how and why this type of "proactive presence" works.

People are ready for peaceful change and they're willing to dedicate their lives to create it. Civilian unarmed peacekeeping could be the way to recognize and help develop the vital protection role global civil society may credibly, effectively, and legitimately play in human security. For the benefit of children and women in armed conflict, for refugees, journalists, human rights defenders, peacefully protesting monks, aid workers, or election campaigners – for all of us. Because ultimately, none of us is secure until all of us are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rolf Carriere spent his career in UNICEF in Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Burma as liaison to the World Bank. Both volunteer as senior advisers to Nonviolent Peaceforce. Michael Nagler is professor emeritus of the Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and president of the Metta Centre for Nonviolence Education.

Angkor in quicksand

The fast and huge growth in tourist numbers is putting environmental pressure on one of the world's premier heritage sites of Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Photo / Reuters

Wednesday March 19, 2008
The New Zealand Herald

At first glance, it is business as usual at the great sandstone temple of Angkor Wat. Through a drape of evening haze, the ancient Cambodian superstructure sees another batch of tourists process across its moat and marvel at its grandeur.

Local teenagers waggle cool drinks in the faces of passers-by and auto-rickshaw or "tuk-tuk" drivers loudly vie for business. It looks like what it is - a boom town.

But the modern commercial success of the complex, on the site of the ancient city of Angkor, may, literally, be on shaky ground.

Heritage experts carrying out restoration work at the temple say a plethora of new hotels, cashing in on the country's near-exponential rise in tourist numbers, is sapping gallons of water from beneath nearby urban areas. They say this could upset the delicate foundations on which Angkor Wat sits and may lead to parts of it taking an unheavenly tumble to earth.

Philippe Delanghe, the culture programme specialist at Unesco's Phnom Penh office, said this week: "There is an important balance between the sand and water on which the temple is built. And if that balance is taken away then we might have trouble with collapse.

"The growth in the number of hotels means more holes are being drilled for water. And this has profound consequences for this mix.

"We saw something similar with the weakening of the stability of ruins in Indonesia two years ago, and there is the possibility that we will see something like this here."

Locally, it is easy to see why such comments go down badly. The temple, which appears on the national flag, is the jewel in Cambodia's heritage crown. Not only is it in the best condition of any such structure at the Angkor site, it has been tightly linked with Cambodia's history for nearly a millennium.

It is thought to have been built as a funerary temple for King Suryavarman II (who died in 1152) to honour Vishnu, the Hindu deity with whom he identified.

The sandstone blocks from which it was constructed were quarried more than 30 miles away and floated down the Siem Reap river. Recent research suggests that Angkor was an urban settlement covering some 700 square miles, comparable in size to Greater London, and therefore the world's largest medieval city.

In 1993, when Angkor was first added to Unesco's World Heritage List, the Khmer Rouge (a leftover from the Vietnam War) were still active in certain areas. Some 7600 people visited the temple complex that year. Since then, however, Cambodia has become "safe" and package tours have landed in fleets. In 2007, about two million tourists visited Cambodia, with half stopping at Angkor Wat.

With tourist traffic continuing to increase by about 20 per cent year on year, some three million people are expected to visit the country in 2010.

PRECIOUS PAST

• Angkor appears on Cambodia's national flag.
• It is thought to have been built as a funerary temple for King Suryavarman II (who died in 1152) to honour Vishnu, the Hindu deity with whom he identified.
• The sand stone blocks from which it was constructed were quarried more than 30 miles away and floated down the Siem Reap river.
• Recent research suggests that Angkor was an urban settlement covering some 700 square miles.

Non-Killing Society: abortion & euthanasia (continued)

I think it is too fast to assume pro-life or pro-choice in any particular extreme side. In reality, there have no single ultimate truth in each of them. I am John Stuart Miller's fan believing in "utilitarianism". According Miller: "utilitarian ethic calls for examining each case to determine if the greatest good is achieved for the greatest number". I also prefer the "duty-based ethics" of Immanuel Kant. According Kant: "consider a given action would help or harm society". The ethical theory of these two scholars in the 18th century has clarified what I have been learning and practicing "padiccasamupa padda or the law of original interdependent". This "middle path" teaching profoundly insights us to consider any action "is it wholesome, is it unwholesome, the wise admire, no harm on us and others,..etc".

Peace!

Sophan

- Hide quoted text -

------------------------------------------
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Tim Conkling <@pobox.com> wrote:

Thanks Kim for updating us on the Netherlands situation and the debate that is happening there.

Re: euthanasia of deformed, or severely handicapped children... A decision to kill a child after it is born is an extension of the same reasoning that would kill the child before it was born in the womb. When our daughter Allison, was born 2 and 1/2 months prematurely, handicapped, with cerebral palsy, collapsed lungs, bloodclots in her brain, jaundice, apnea, and bradychardia, we were thankful that the techonology existed to save her life. She has overcome many obstacles to get where she is at now, able to walk without leg braces. She is the only c.p. kid known to her doctors at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia who is able to jump on one leg. But she is still handicapped and her c.p. affects her "quality of life" issues. We didn't know when she was born if she would live or if she would ever walk. To think that someone with Allison's handicap at some possible point in the future could legally be killed in the Netherlands disturbs me greatly. I would hope that the parents of handicapped children, like myself, would rise up in protest of such a thing. My issue against abortion and euthanising newborns is that I do not believe that a parent has the right to kill someone else- even if and especially if that person is their own flesh and blood. To frame the abortion debate exclusively in a discourse about the right of a woman to control her own body (when a fetus has a separate body from its gestational host during the time it is developing inside the gestational host's womb) mutes the discourse that points out that abortion is the taking of a human life, against the will of the unborn human. To frame the euthanising of handicapped children debate in terms of quality of life issues is extremely problematic. But what is happening in both these instances is that someone else other than the child is making a decision to end another person's life. The decision is then justified because the child is either connected to the mother's body (while inside the womb) or an extension of it (after the umbilical chord has been cut).

Kim, you mention that abortion was killing on Paige's list but not on yours. I could follow your reasoning better had you stated your pro-choice convictions at that point in terms of women's rights (as most all of the other respondents have to date). But to say as you did that abortion is not killing I think is an untenable position. The main point that I (following Paige's reasoning) am tenaciously trying to convince all of our colleagues to admit, is that abortion is the killing of a human being. Whether or not such a thing is ethical, or justifiable, and for what reasons and in what circumstances will be a matter of political debate and we will have to be free to disagree. But on the issue of whether or not abortion is killing a human being, I still hope that we can come to an agreement.

I appreciate the clarity that the responses to date have demonstrated when viewing the abortion discussion from the perspective of women's rights. At this point I would like to continue the dialog by asking the question : if a fetus is not a human being, then what is it? If abortion is not killing then what is it? No one has yet responded to the facts and pictures on fetal development that I sent out in my response to Josh's letter. I would welcome discussion and dialog at this point focused on those questions..

There are several issues connected to the abortion discussion that some of you might like to comment on:

In addition to : a woman's right over her own body (which most of you have focused on), and a right to life for the fetus (that I have focused on), there is also the matter of responsible sexual intercourse, the long line of couples who are waiting to adopt and who would want to adopt the aborted baby, the question of paying women not to abort, and the question of how society could survive if every woman exercised her right to abort. Any comments on these questions?

You might find this of interest, that in spite of my religious convictions I used to be pro-choice until I read the facts and saw the pictures of what was happening to the fetus in an abortion. At that point I had to admit that abortion was not the removal of non-descript, unformed cells from the lining of a host uterus. It was the dismembering by suction, or poisoning with saline, or the cracking open of the scalp and extracting of the brain tissue (as in partial birth abortion) of a human being, that in many cases would have otherwise been able to live outside of the womb at the time the abortion happened had the child been born rather than aborted. In the interests not of convincing you all to share my religious beliefs, but rather in the interests of furthering a non-killing society, I am urging each person to consider Paige's position more deeply on the matter of abortion.

Thanks for your consideration,

Tim

-------------------------

From: Kim De Vidts

To:

Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:09 PM

Subject: RE: Nonkilling...Euthanasia?

Aloha again ...

Josh, you mention that euthanasia is the taking of one's own life and hence involves only yourself. In the Netherlands, however, the debate is taking another turn: in the future, there may be the possibility for the parents of a newborn, severely disfigured and mentally handicapped, child to perform euthanasia (it is the parents' choice, meaning that abortion in the final month of pregnancy or euthanasia in the first week after birth will be seen as the same - the focus being on quality of life). The choice lies with the parents, even after giving birth.

Tim, being very "liberal" in this matter (part of my conditioned upbringing, I assume), I, as do most Western Europeans, approach this issue rarely (if ever) from a theological standpoint. Even though culturally speaking, our societies are "Christian", much of Europe seems to have dealt with such discussions several hundreds of years ago and the state's over-interference into the personal liberty of any person is believed to being regressive rather than progressive.
That being said, I agree with Dr. Dator and several others in believing that a nonkilling society is much desired by myself, if it excludes an invasion of personal liberty and choice (as was pointed out during the presentation, abortion is on Paige's list, but not on mine).

Again, I approach this from a European standpoint, where guns (usually) have no place in private life, where no country can join the EU prior to having abolished the death penalty, where all EU member-states must have ratified the Kyoto Treaty, where the general consensus is rather pacifist (as explained by Sophan, in a Buddhist sense), etc., and where the NNPT is remembered to stipulating that it is desirable in the future for all countries to dispose of their nuclear weapons so that they no longer can be utilized as a threat towards others. Therefore, it often strikes me as interesting that this discussion seems to be oriented too much towards the American viewpoint. Is Europe not ahead of the US in this nonkilling concept? If so, should we not take the EU as a starting point and work from there onwards? Just a thought …
Have a wonderful weekend,
Cheers,
KIM

Non-Killing Society: abortion & euthanasia (continued)

It is really challenging to say I should agree with euthanasia or disagree with it. First of all, killing life and violence or torture is something different. I & Tod spent hours about this after class yesterday. Animal rights advocacy might agree to some degrees of killing animals for food or for other reasons; but animal rights group might disagree the act that kill animals violently or severely tortured.

I don't know for those who are painful by their own sick should be called torture or not; and ending life with dignity from such gruesome illness would be dignified or not? I don't know the perception of suicide-bombers, do they think they end their life with dignity or not? Killing definitely refers to the end other's life as well as end our own life intentionally. Consciously, end other's life and end our own life (or permit someone to end our own life) might have different degrees of violence and consequences; but it is still called killing. So nonkilling society should cover all issues encouraging killing activities such as death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, homicide, suicide, democide, or the uses of violent language promoting killing or the act of killing etc. And I would prefer to call "conscious society" rather than extreme "nonkilling society". Nonkilling society is still constitute the sense of "killing" in itself.

PeAcE!

Sophan

- Hide quoted text -

---------------------------------------
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Josh Pryor <@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe in euthanasia, however, I see how it can be abused, hence I am also in favor of 'living wills,' ensuring the soon to be deceased has a little bit of control over his life. Alas, I am also aware how living wills can be abused, so I would hope in some way the wills are written at a time when the soon to be deceased is cogent enough to sanely make their final decisions.

Second, as far as abortion is concerned, I think its a wonderful thing, if anything by ensuring women have the ability to choose when the right time of birth is. I see no problems in killing human cells, especially prior to the quickening (first baby movements) to me its a bunch of syrup until its actually breathing/living/kicking, etc. Human history generally shows agreement with this perspective, and only recently, more in america than in europe, is this issue being fought with such vehemence. this is likely due to the fact that abortion was legally sanctioned through courts, rather than through federal law, creating bucks of poo to deal with. Europeans have had abortion laws on the books for quite some time now, and most would argue that the choice for abortion is as important for women as the right to vote (or at least in the same ballpark). Without the right to abortion, women can literally be slaves to the household, as men continue to knock them up and remove their ability to seek a life elsewhere. Sadly, it's that simple.

Regarding abortion and euthenasia for a nonkilling society, I think neither present any real problems. Ultimately, the nonkilling society is, in my view, concerned with government enforced/sanctioned killings and/or murders on a domestic level that remove the lives of others. Euthenasia is basically a nice form of suicide, when done correctly (even Dr. Kevorkian would usually have the patient press the button, if able, to kill themselves, though correct me if I'm wrong) and abortions are the ability of a women to remove cells from their own body, not killing people externally from their body. Hence, I see the nonkilling society as focusing on humans killing other humans, either through governments, some form of individual networks/corporations, or some form of personal attack.

But hey, I've been around my family from the mainland all day today, so I guess I'm ready to kill anyone.

Next!!!

Peace!
---------------------
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Scott Alan Kroeker <@hawaii.edu> wrote:
I too am in favor of euthanasia but see the philosophical conundrum it might present when considering the possibility of a non-killing society. The choice to end one's own life, however, is much different than the choice to end someone elses. Abortion too is a challenge for me to reconcile -- I believe in the free choice of the woman but at the same time am abhored the number of abortions that do take place. I had a rather heated discussion with a Catholic acquaintance some time ago who was talking about how "Life" was a critical issue in the upcoming election for her. It was curious to me that when she described the two sides of the debate she framed it as pro-life and pro-abortion (which I'm sure is probably how the propogandists on the pro-life side of the issue talk about it). I pointed out that it is perfectly logical to be both pro-choice (on a societal basis) and anti-abortion (on the personal level) which was hard for her to understand or accept. Perhaps as Paige sugg
ests that the initial impetus for a non-killing society must be an individual commitment to not kill is enough to bridge this gap on abortion. That is, if individuals feel strongly enough that killing is not an option (and they consider abortion killing) they will be responsible enough in their sexual behavior to make it highly unlikely they will have to make the decision.

Addressing Igor's concern about officially sanctioned government sponsored killing being a very small percentage of all killing (at least within our borders I would argue). I think that symbolic acts such as eliminating the death penalty, or unilaterally disarming (especially nuclear weapons), or having police operate without guns (such as in Britain) are incredibly important acts that demonstrate the underlying values of a society. If our leaders are so eager to employ language and actions that lead to killing or imply the moral need to kill (Bushes anti-terrorist rhetoric is a prime example) make it much easier for individuals within a society to make the same arguments at a personal level. That is, if Osama bin Laden can be legitimately "smoked out of his hole, hunted down and killed" because he inflicted pain on the country, then anyone who causes me pain in my personal life (like that bastard who cut me off in traffic or my wife who demeans me in public) can by the same
logic be harmed. If our leaders (at all levels) used different rhetoric and eliminated violent language I think that same language seeps into our subconsious. I also think we privately crave to be talked to in that way and moved away from violence. I can't help but think that some of Obama's appeal this election cycle is that his language is softer and more concilatory than Clinton--and certainly more so than Bush.

Furthermore, and I'll stop soon, if you look at society as merely an extension of individuals and families perhaps you can make analogies about parent/child relationships. Many many families are now giving up on corporal punishment and seemingly getting children to behave and grow up happy and healthy without any violence being inflicted upon them. Can this be extrapolated to society as a whole?

Scott

Non-Killing Society: abortion & euthanasia

Thank you very much Kim for picking up this issue. I & Tim also raised this euthanasia controversy. But our time is limited. I think everybody knows Dr.Kevorkian. Now he is free from the jail because of his physical illness. As I watched 60 minutes program (Death by Doctor), this controversy is not different from the ongoing heated debate in France.

As I can assume, euthanasia should not be publicly and legally permitted. Somehow, ill persons are incapacitated to cope themselves comparing as maturity of the adult who must be older than 18 years to confront with the law. However, in case of Dr. Kevorkian, he required the government should allow perform euthanasia legally and publicly, and Dr. should be provided the license to conduct euthanasia. In reality, many hospitals and Dr. have secretly conducted euthanasia. This is the main point of Dr.Kevorkian stressed that this practice should not be in a secret way. But many commentators called him fanatic.

In case of pro-life and pro-choice of abortion issue, I think it is still fanatic. Of course all things appear and disappear according their causes and effects in some reasons. With this changing continuity, we can only deal with it through wisdom, and try our best as much as possible to minimize the destruction. In some situation, relating health issue, we have to choose one "mother or child". So this situation is not complying with the idea of pro-life and pro-choice at all. I do believe that the balancing practice through our consciousness between both extreme ends (wrong and right, beginning and ending,..etc) should prevail true universal achievement for humanity civilization. For instance, nowadays we cannot find any countries that practice pure democratic, or pure communism. Regarding this, capitalism would a last better option for our modern world to develop humanity civilization. Social entrepreneurship and UN's Millennium Development Goal (MDG) program might be able to balance capitalistic extreme.

Peace!

Sophan

- Hide quoted text -

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Kim De Vidts <@hotmail.com> wrote:
Aloha everyone!

In the press in Western Europe this morning, I found this article to be of great value to our "nonkilling" discussion led so graciously by Tim and Sophan yesterday. If "nonkilling" does indeed include every means of "killing", then progressive countries like the Netherlands (quite a positive example in Futures Studies and the liberal concern for future generations) would oppose. Ending suffering being denied due to the "killing" argument would mean a regression in liberal societal practices (a severe limitation to one's liberal freedom!). Is it possible to realistically conduct this debate while not affecting issues like euthanasia? Or should they also be included in the nonkilling futures alternative?

Yours,
KIM




New Conflict Regarding Euthanasia Touches France
Source: Nieuwsblad, in Flemish, 28 February 2008.
A conflict concerning active aid to die to an incurably ill woman touches France. The 52-year-old former teacher from Dijon suffers from a malignant tumor in the nose and wishes nothing more than to "part peacefully", she declared to the media on Thursday. Her three adult children and family physician support that wish. The woman's face has been severely disfigured by the tumor. She is in heavy pain, has lost her ability to smell and taste and has shortly also lost her sight. It concerns a very rare cancer. In the past twenty years, only two hundred cases of the disease have been registered.
The woman turned to the media and called the French president Nicolas Sarkozy to legally permit active death aid. "I do not wish to go abroad to die with dignity, I want to be at home in my bed", she said. In Belgium, the Netherlands, and recently also Luxembourg, euthanasia is allowed.

Nieuw conflict over euthanasie beroert Frankrijk
Een conflict over actieve stervenshulp aan een ongeneeslijk zieke vrouw beroert Frankrijk. De 52-jarige voormalige lerares uit de buurt van Dijon leidt aan een kwaadaardige tumor in de neusholte en wil niets liever dan 'vreedzaam heengaan', zo verklaarde ze donderdag in de media. Haar drie volwassen kinderen en huisarts ondersteunen de wens.
Het gezicht van de vrouw is door de tumor zwaar misvormd. Ze lijdt hevige pijn, heeft haar reuk- en smaakzin verloren en kan sinds kort ook niet meer zien. Het gaat om een zeer zeldzame kanker. De laatste twintig jaar zijn wereldwijd maar tweehonderd gevallen van de ziekte geregistreerd.

De vrouw heeft zich tot de media gewend en de Franse president Nicolas Sarkozy opgeroepen actieve stervenshulp wettelijk toe te laten. 'Ik wil niet naar het buitenland gaan om waardig te sterven, ik wil thuis in mijn bed blijven', zo zei ze. In België, Nederland en sinds kort ook in Luxemburg is euthanasie wel toegestaan.
sdg (belga)

---

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:24:41 -1000
From:
Subject: Re: Nonkilling...
To:
CC: pol673-l@hawaii.edu

Igor et al,

Thank you very much for your continuing to insert some thought of nonkilling society. We might have a great debate today. I & Tim thanks for your profound sharing.

Regarding to the abolition of death penalty, my assumption is that all human beings must be respected regardless of color, good or bad. Human beings by nature are tameable. So, politically correctness, we don't call jail or prison referring to a place detained peoples anymore; we have changed to call it "rehabilitation center".

In reality, I do hope we can build nonkilling society or nonkilling government because the social pressure by using the means of nonviolence is more effective than by using the means of violence. Modernity, many countries are successful in their international diplomacy through nonviolence, not violence, and incorporative, not confrontation.

Wish you all have a nice weekend

Peace!

Sophan

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Igor Nikitin <@hawaii.edu> wrote:

My dubiety in respect to topic of discussion is the gap between
idealistic imagination about what our world should be and what it is in
reality. From the first article by Paige I was afraid to find some
suggestions on what to do with death penalty and, unfortunately, I did
it.

Why unfortunately? Because, it's the first thing that comes to mind
when we talk about nonkilling society. The idea is pretty nice, but, in
my opinion, it's, maybe, one of the last things we need to do working
our way towards nonkilling society. Just look at statistics in Paige's
article: only 1/5 of deaths is related to wars. It means that
functional problem of killing within institutions (which are not only
police and courts, but also schools, families and etc) that are
implemented to prevent killing is five times more acute than problem of
states' dependence on killing. Not solving this problem, we just
deceive ourselves when we think that we're doing something to get
certain features of nonkilling society by just abolishing death
penalty. It's the top of issue. But origin of problem hides in much
more ordinary things - education, life insurances, oblivion to death as
event because of certain trends in information politics, poverty and so
on. Of course, it's only my opinion, and I don't pretend on universal
true.

--
"I start with the promise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers" - Ralph Nader

Cambodia travel – some like it hot

Susan Derby
Special to the Los Angeles Times

If you’re thinking about visiting Cambodia soon, go this month (March) if you can handle some heat (by April, it’ll be even hotter). Or plan a trip for summer, when monsoon rains cool things down and really only inconvenience you for part of the afternoon.

A few years ago I traveled around Cambodia in late April, when the heat was really beginning to escalate (which it does starting around March, before hitting a peak in May or June to initiate monsoon season). The temperature was in the 90s and the humidity oppressive.

I remember stumbling around after a trip to the Toul Sleng Genocide Museum. The gravity of what I’d observed there was enough to make me delirious, but in addition I’d come down with heat stroke. I spent the next couple days cooped up in my room with fever, a migraine and nausea. If you go to Cambodia in April, bring a big hat, and drink bucketfuls of water.

Why go: Thailand’s neighbor to the southeast, Cambodia is fascinating in many ways, but it has a sobering yet educational impact on many tourists; its recent history is so heartbreaking that you can’t leave the country the same person that you were upon entry. Angkor Wat and its surrounding temples and ruins are truly sights to behold. And adventurous foodies can try all manner of unusual edibles: locusts and spiders, for instance.

What’ll it cost me?: In his article “Countries where dollars go the distance,” L. A. Times Staff Writer Jason La breaks down general food and lodging costs. Right now you’ll spend around $1200 for a flight from LAX to Phnom Penh (PNH) after taxes. Maybe that sounds exorbitant, but if you’re shelling out $10/night for a room, you may decide it evens out. If you’ve got miles, though, all the better.

Splendour of a magnificent past

Sunday, March 9, 2008
Deccan Herald (India)

The remains of the mighty Khmer empire are there for us to see at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, writes Vaasanthi

As I stand before the magnificent temples I can hardly think of the tumultuous history of the land on which they have been standing for centuries. As if mocking history, they are a reminder of a past splendour that also speaks of what must have been an unrivalled empire spanning across South East Asia. Forgotten to the world for centuries, hidden behind the steaming jungles of Cambodia, rediscovered in the 19th century by diligent French explorers, the thousand-year-old stunning religious monuments of Angkor Wat stand as a testimony to human aspirations and imagination.

From Bangkok in Thailand, it is an hour’s flight to Siem Reap the nearest town to the fabled temples of Angkor in Cambodia. Siem Reap, a little more than a village before, is now undoubtedly Cambodia’s fastest-growing town.

It seems to have undergone a metamorphosis ever since the miraculous discovery of the temples. The past decade has seen its rapid growth from a sluggish impoverished village to a booming tourism spot. It is brimming with tourists from all round the world and quickly reinventing itself as a sophisticated centre for the new wave of visitors passing through each year. There are 100 hotels and thousand guesthouses and the number is going up every month; restaurants and bars every week.

It is still a small town with all the charm that goes with small towns. Thanks to tourism development the roads are good and the streets clean and oh, the people from old to the young and the very young always smiling and friendly. Who can say that this has been a land ravaged mercilessly in recent history by war and crime? They seem to have put their lives of recent past of terror and trauma behind to revel in the memory of a glorious past, which now remains a source of inspiration and national pride.

Contemporary Cambodia is the successor state to the mighty Khmer empire which during the Angkor period (9th to 15th centuries) ruled much of what is now Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. The remains of the empire are there for us to see at Angkor Wat, the ultimate of Khmer genius, described by travel brochures as ‘unrivalled in scale and grandeur in Southeast Asia’.

Tough times
The first glimpse of Angkor Wat is indeed staggering especially if you remember what Cambodia has gone through. Things were good in the past, culminating in the vast Angkor empire, unrivalled in the region during four centuries of dominance. Then the bad set in, from the 13th centuries neighbours steadily chipped off chunks of its territory. In the twentieth century it went downright ugly, as a bloody civil war lead to the brutal rule of the Khmer Rouge (1975-79) from which Cambodia is still recovering.

But meet the man in the street, you will hardly see any rancour towards the evil done. Cambodians have weathered through poverty, bloodshed and political chaos but their smiles have not faded. The tourists that throng and rush to the temple campus in the wee hours of the morning to catch the magnificent view of Angkor Wat at the first light of dawn are not bothered either. Their main worry is the overcast sky that threatens to break into a pouring rain.

As the sun slowly lights up the sky Angkor Wat turns into an ethereal golden hue with its reflection weaving magic in the lily pond. It is like divine inspiration. And yet it is the work of human hands that toiled to create such divinity out of sand stone. It takes some time to see how big the temple complex is.

Angkor’s monuments are spread throughout a huge forest. Heading north from Siem Reap, you first come to Angkor Wat, then the walled city of Angkor Thom to the east and west of this city are two vast reservoirs which helped to feed the Angkor Thom population. Further east are the temples of Ta Prohm and Pre Rup and in the north east is the beautiful well preserved temple of Banteay Srei. There are in fact a hundred temples and probably more.

What is of particular interest to the Indian visitor is the remarkable evidence of the spread of Hinduism and its gods and fables across the seas and the earth more than a thousand years ago. Angkor Wat temples are a celebration and glorification of the Hindu god Shiva and the mythologies of Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Though the lingams are no longer there and stone statues of the Buddha have taken over, the carvings of scenes from Ramayana and Mahabharata on the walls of the long corridors of Angkor Wat have been restored and are intact. Hinduism and Buddhism were both the preferred faiths followed alternately according to the reigning king’s belief. The myth of the churning of the milk ocean by Asuras and Devas seems to have fascinated Angkor sculptors and kings. There are two huge rows of the scene at the gate of Angkor Thom temple.

Naga worship must have been prevalent as the snake motifs with erect hoods are carved in stone almost in all the temples. In the temple of Banteay Srei, which is praised as the jewel of Angkor, the pillars come alive with dancing apsaras and the gateways are filled with exquisite carvings depicting scenes from the Ramayana.

So the story goes...

There is an interesting story about the origin of the Indian connection. Cambodia came into being, so the story goes through a union between a Hindu Brahmin named Kaundinya who sailed by and a princess, the daughter of a dragon king who ruled the watery land. They fell in love and the king gave the land as dowry to Kaundinya to rule over. The kingdom was called Kambuja. The myth may or may not be true but it does say something about the cultural influences that affected Cambodia. Cambodia’s religious royal and written traditions stemmed from India. Buddhism spread there when Asoka sent his emissary to Cambodia. The long list of powerful Angkor kings has Hindu names beginning from Jayavarman II- who started building Angkor Wat two hundred years before Raja Raja Chola built the big temple of Tanjavur— the list has names like Yashovarman, Harsha varman, Rajendra Varman, Ishwara Varman— similar to the names of the Pallava kings of south India.

The French ‘discovery’ of Angkor in the 1860s made an international splash. It was only in 1901 the Ecole Francaised’Extreme-Orient began its long association with Angkor by funding an expedition to the Bayon temple.

In 1907 Angkor, which had been under Thai control, was returned to Cambodia and the EFEO took responsibility for clearing and restoring the whole site. Since the temples had Indian connection and the theme Hinduism, the cooperation of the Indian government was also taken for some sites. It was a stupendous task indeed. The monuments of Angkor were left to the jungle for many centuries. A large number of monuments are made of sandstone that tends to dissolve in prolonged exposure to wind and rain.

Monuments that wow!
At Ta Prohm, the jungle had stealthily made an all out invasion. The huge roots swoop down the monuments as if to devour them and the visual is at once breathtaking and awesome. What is striking about the sculptures is that no structure is made out of single rock boulders like you see in the temples of South India, but an assembly of blocks. The remarkable symmetry and serenity that prevails in the faces of the Bayon temple is truly amazing.

The temples of Angkor are the heart and soul of Cambodia. When our guide made a repeated reference to ‘My people, my country’ there was not only a natural pride but also the belief that Angkor was a true symbol of inspiration for the people to rise to eminence leaving behind the memories of suffering and trauma…

Of the lost and the rediscovered [-Henri Mouhot]

Dying Young: Malaria killed Mouhot in the Lao wilderness.
Henri Mouhot's forgotten crypt outside of Luang Prabang was rediscovered in 1990 (Photo: Don Entz)
Henri Mouhot's crypt in Laos (Photo: Don Entz)

Wed, March 5, 2008
Nithinand Yorsaengrat
The Nation (Thailand)

Henri Mouhot became famous for discovering Cambodia's 'lost' Angkor, but he travelled widely. That's why his bones are in Laos

Henri Mouhot, the Frenchman whose 19th-century rediscovery of Cambodia's Angkor temple complex sparked a romantic "See Angkor and die" fad in the West, saw Angkor and died - in Laos.

His grave just outside Luang Prabang was all but forgotten until 1990 when tourists stumbled on it. Today any local tour guide can arrange a visit.

Alexandre Henri Mouhot's collection of delightful sketches, "Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China, Cambodia and Laos During the Years 1858, 1859 and 1860", was published in London following his death in 1861, and his description of Angkor's "exotic abandoned ruins" caused considerable excitement.

Missionaries and traders had been writing about the mediaeval Khmer temples since the 16th century, but Mouhot's evocation truly caught the public imagination.

The catchphrase "See Angkor and die" - presumably happily - that swept the West became the title of a romantic film that Norodom Sihanouk directed in 1993 while he was still Cambodia's king.

Born in 1826 in Montbeliard, France, Mouhot was gifted in languages and the natural sciences. His interests were almost certainly piqued by the 1850s books "The Kingdom and People of Siam" by Britain's Sir James Bowring and "Description of the Siam Kingdom" by French Bishop Jean-Baptiste Pallegoix.

Mouhot mounted an expedition to Southeast Asia with the support of London's Royal Geographical and Zoological societies, and arrived in Bangkok on April 27, 1858.

Over the next three years he made four excursions, two of them within Siam. The second took him into Cambodia to Angkor, the fourth to Luang Prabang in Laos.

He mapped the territory en route, although, as mentioned in his journals, his equipment broke before he finished his map of Siam. In part because of this, France and Britain concluded that Siam extended only as far as the Chao Phya River basin, which appeared to give it the perfect dimensions for "buffer state" between their own neighbouring colonies.

In 1861 Mouhot spent three months crossing dense jungle from Loei to Luang Prabang and planned to follow the Mekong River's current into Cambodia, but on October 19, outside Luang Prabang, he was suddenly struck by malarial fever. His last diary entry was dated October 29, and he died on November 10, age 35.

Mouhot's servants buried the explorer on a bank of Khan River at the spot where he died. All of his journals and specimens were sent to his family in England. It was his brother who published the diaries.

Commander Doudart de Lagree, leader of the French government's Mekong Exploration Commission of 1866-1868, ordered a modest monument erected on a slope with a sandstone panel that read "H Mouhot, May 1867" to commemorate the first Frenchman to visit this part of Laos.

The monument was destroyed when the Khan River flooded and was replaced in 1887 by a more durable structure.

Restoration work was done on the tomb in 1951 by the Ecole Francaise d'Extreme Orient, but after that the site was abandoned to the encroaching jungle.

Only in 1990 did tourists accidentally rediscover it, and the town of Mouhot's birth, Montbeliard, arranged for the grave's restoration.

History regards Henri Mouhot with mixed emotions. He was a scientist, a bold explorer and a cartographer who, in a sense, gave Angkor back to the world.

And yet those same maps he made paved the way for France's expanding colonial empire in Indochina, a foreign presence that remained in control until 1954.

Selling the largest Hindu temple in the world

Tourists in watching the sunset in Phnom Bakheng

2 Mar 2008
Vinay Sitapati
The Times of India

Angkor Wat is celebrated, the world over, as a temple of steroid-induced proportions, buried for centuries in the forests of northern Cambodia before being rediscovered by modernity. Visitors such as I, expect to ‘stumble upon’ a giant temple rising about 700 feet in the air amidst the isolation of an intrusive forest.

In today’s global tourism industry, Angkor Wat is portrayed as that rarity, the last chance to truly discover.

There is some truth to this image. Before it was ‘discovered’ in 1840 by a French adventurer, it had not yet entered European imagination. During much of the late twentieth century, when global tourism really took off, Angkor Wat (means city temple) remained inaccessible due to a catastrophic civil war in Cambodia.

Besides, Angkor Wat is probably the largest Hindu temple in the world.

Built by King Surya Varman in the early 12th century, it is dedicated to lord Vishnu. Even the Creator of the Universe would have gasped at the scale of this creation—one square kilometer in size, and built on multiple levels. The artistry of each panel is intricate.

I spot a horde of Hindu tourists, aggressively explaining to their befuddled Cambodian guide that this is actually ‘their’ culture.

The truth is Hinduism in Cambodia dates back to the first century AD, brought by Indian traders from the kingdoms of Magadha (East Bihar) and Tamil Nadu. By the time of the Angkor era, this influence had flowered into a distinct culture of which Angkor Wat is the most enduring example.

So much for the product. Now the packaging.

Even at the time of its so called discovery, Angkor Wat was being administered by some one thousand Buddhist monks. Today, chattering groups of pliant tourists arrive in chartered planes to the nearby airport, Siem Reap. The scatter of shops around the temple sites—some mom and pop, some more enticing—sell every possible packaged memory. The entire area seems like a giant well run hotel.

This gilt-edged wrapping paper, however, is torn at places, revealing contradictions. In sharp contrast to the booming Asian Tigers that surround it, the Cambodian countryside is stark, famished and numbingly poor. Entirely different is Siem Reap, an artificial city, meant to service the many rich western and Japanese tourists who come to visit the Angkor temples. There are super markets everywhere, and the architecture is Baroque-meets-Surya Varman.

The obvious poverty of Cambodia seems to give way to a bubble of smooth highways and air-conditioned modernity. The economy seems as fissured: I could pay in Riel (the Cambodian currency), Baht or in US dollars.

Even the culture that was peddled as Khmer (the majority ethnic group in Cambodia) seemed hybrid. Like in neighbouring Thailand, the Angkor massages on offer in Siem Reap reflected the specific tastes of our globalised times. Eastern European women offer their white skin for the post-colonial Asian, and Nigerians peddle their bodies, rumoured to be well endowed, to Japanese women.

It may seem petulant to emphasise this lack of ‘authentic’ history here. After all every country packages its attractions in bubble wrap for outside tourists. But Angkor Wat’s history has been repackaged for its own people. For Cambodia has had to wrestle with notions of history like few others.

From 1974 to 1979, a far left Maoist regime controlled Cambodia. Until it was overthrown, the Khmer Rouge had succeeded in killing a tenth of Cambodia, forced the entire urban population to the countryside, and sought to radically reshape Cambodian society. Worse (if at all possible) was to follow.

During their fourteen years of exile and guerrilla warfare from the northern jungles, it laid ten million landmines across north Cambodia—one for each Cambodian.

Today, Cambodia enjoys a tenuous peace, and seeks to put behind its immediate past. The Angkor temples are now packaged for Cambodians, as a symbol of national unification.

Even the current Cambodian national flag carries an etching of Angkor Wat. But the phantoms of a grisly past cannot be wished away. Some temples in the Angkor area are still inaccessible due to landmines, and I saw many amputees hobbling across the temple stones.

vinay.sitapati@googlemail.com