Saturday 15th July 2006, Day 118Ayutthaya, Thailand
Whilst Israel continues to isolate itself, and engage itself in war with it's near neighbours (or the 'terrorist' elements of those country's governments), just how close are we 'to the brink' as the media would have it? Maybe not that close to a war encompassing the middle-east, but international conflicts have the potential to spread across a patchwork. It is interesting that today states rather than empires/civilisations ensnare themselves into hostile conflicts over money, resources, territory or religion, whilst international organisations (NATO, UN, G8, WTO, IMF, World Bank) try to hold back the extremities of these regimes (if they didn't set them up in the first place) from global disaster, whilst implementing their own agenda. How long they can continue to exert their will and avert wide-scale global-change?
I am currently reading a book by Jared Diamond called 'Collapse', which looks at the continued survival or eventual demise of all civilisations and empires which have spread across the globe. This book studies the effects of geography, climate, technology, neighbourly relations, diplomacy and human ingenuity in order to understand the rise and fall of such behemoths. The aim of the book is to learn from the past to predict what may lie ahead and how to prepare for it. I'm still reading at the moment, so I don't know what conclusions he comes to...
There are differences between what might be called 'modern' and 'ancient' civilisation. Having just visited Vietnam it is terrifying how close human kind has come to nuclear war. Nuclear conflict is one new value in the equation of the likelihood of modern civilisation's survival. Nukes place a psychological barrier beyond which human kind might not cross under present legislation and circumstances, but what happens when states are brought into closer conflict over resources even more precious than oil - water perhaps? Another new variable is international interventionism. 'The ripple effect' - a catastrophe in one place effecting the economic infrastructure of the whole globe - encourages international diplomacy, sanctions or military force to 'resolve' disputes. Because of this, we saw the formation of the multi-national member organisations mentioned above during the 20th century.
When I left the UK, I set out to form a better understanding of what may happen in the world in the immediate future as a result of carbon-related climate change, the spread of globalisation and the depletion of finite resources. Like this Jared Diamond fella, I am interested to see what simple lessons I might be able to glean from past errors, although I am no scholar. This is my superficial case study.
It has been interesting to visit the remains of civilisations such as the Khmer empire and it's capital Angkor in Cambodia and Ayutthaya here in Thailand. Indeed the two are interlinked - Ayutthaya attacked Angkor on several occasions and eventually in 1431 conquered it. I only had one day to visit Ayutthaya, which is a paltry amount of time to see the many wats; James and I had to cram Angkor into the same time frame. A quick glance at ancient ruins won't reveal much, but a gander coupled with a bit of reading around the subject helps.
Kung offered to show me around Ayutthaya personally, which meant a local perspective. It was the capital of Siam (modern day Thailand) from 1350 when it was founded, until 1767 when it was destroyed by the invading Burmese. After the coup de grace, a new Siamese capital was set-up in Thonburi, with Ayutthaya city left in ruins. During it's existence, the Ayutthayan kingdom expanded in size and wealth, enjoying favourable trading links with all major European empires. The founder of Ayutthaya, King Uthong, also unified his Kingdom under a feudal system and by cementing Theravada Buddhism as an official religion, with the himself as a strong central pin (you might say God-king). The country was also supported by a reliable food supply of non-glutinous rice introduced from Bengal that was suited to the waterlogged lowland fields. The monastic order from Sri Lanka, which Uthong introduced, has left a rich legacy of fantastic wats, scores of which remain all around the city. A short description of some of the wats in Ayutthaya can be found here.
My route around the wats was (excuse the personal aid to memory):
1. Bang Pa-In palace
2. Wat Phananchern
3. Wat Yai Chaimongkon
4. Wat Phra Mahathat
5. Wat Ratchaburana
6. Wat Nah Phra Meru
7. Wat Chai Watthana Ram
8. Wat Phra Si Sanphet
9. Wat Phra Ram
Gradually the empire grew in size and influence to reach a golden age, with successful gains of territory occupied by rival empires.
Ayutthaya, like the Khmer's Angkor, eventually succumbed to external imperial forces which destroyed the empire and it's capital. The Khmer empire like Ayutthaya generated it's wealth from trade and agriculture. It also had it's own system of 'god-kings' and centralised religion although that changed from Hinduism to Mahayana Buddhism to Theravada Buddhism overtime. This helped control the people making up the vast empire.
It seems that bigger and tougher bullys emerged in the playground to bring these super-communities to their knees. Accepting that reason alone would over-simplify a complex situation in which there were many complicating factors. Among these, population, land-fertility, Chinese immigration (in Ayutthaya) and the unification of the provinces all played their part in the empires' ultimate prosperity and strength to defend themselves.
How the mighty have fallen. This is a rather famous statue - a buddha's head at Wat Mahathat. Presumably severed from it's body by the Burmese in 1767, the head has been left on the ground affectionately protected and preserved by a Banyan Tree.
When the Burmese army invaded in 1767, they stormed through Ayutthaya ransacking and destroying the temples as they went. You can see how these buddha-monuments were dismembered. It is a terrible shame the monuments should end up this way, but Thai forces were guilty of comparative destruction at Angkor. An ignominious end.
A monk climbs the steps to worship at a shrine underneath a prang at Wat Chai Watthana Ram. Many of the wats house monasteries which are still functioning. They were steep old steps, I can tell you, and this one had bats at the top!
A prang partially destroyed; it's pointed top missing. Whether this particular damage is due to violence or the ravages of time, I'm not sure. There was dual role to these temples, their ornate design and number were a display of Ayutthaya's wealth and strength.
Kung at Wat Phra Ram, pouting with patriotic pride. I did try to balance her view of the Burmese a bit, but she wasn't having any of it.
So how does this translate to current states, super-powers and alliances? It proves that there is always a raft of different issues in any union which are best carefully managed towards sustainability rather than growth and gain. Indeed the folly of imperialism is pretty clear in these examples. It is much easier (due to modern technology, bereaucracy and communications) to control massive areas or even billions of people today, but how strong does this control need to be in order to achieve unity and strength? China has maintain stability for centuries, but that could largely be down to repression and indoctrination rather than personal preference within its provinces. Nowadays it is argued that we need ID cards, biometrics and draconian security to maintain and order our society. If quality of human life is to be measured by personal liberty, how much longer can the super-powers exist and make life participatory and worthwhile?
In Israel's case it (rightly or wrongly) chooses to take 'firm military action' against anyone who offends it's state. In an area as unpredictable, resource rich and of volatile religious-conviction such as the middle-east, this is a potentially incendiary attitude.
Even the strongest, most developed or sophisticated coutries can see their fortunes change in a short space of time if they are victims of circumstance or subject to neglect. Initially there seem so many complicating factors in the world today that the riddle of long-term human survival appears too complex to solve and that present civilisation is doomed to descend the wheel of fortune. Many a problem has looked intractable in the past, however, and yet has been remedied.
The title of this post was taken from a song which was written at the back end of the 1980's. Watching CNN's coverage of Israel attacks on Gaza and Lebanon for kidnapping Isreali solidiers over breakfast this morning, it was playing back in my head. Religion is certainly one of the major factors which will determine mankind's fate. The song could have been written yesterday, so I finish with Matt Johnson's words:
"God didn't build himself that throne
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome
God doesn't belong to the Yankee dollar
God doesn't plant the bombs for Hezbollah
God doesn't even go to church
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn
God will remind us what we already know
That the human race is about to reap what it's sown"
4 comments:
Great perspective.
I don't know why, but it seems harder to me to read your blog now that you've changed it so that it's flush with the left side. It makes no sense, since we read from left to right. I'm sure I'll get used to it!
Oh dear. I thought it looked prettier, frankly I was bored of the old look. The text size is significantly smaller than before, but I guess you can always re-size it in your browser.
Did you get to the UK yet?
Not yet, but it's approaching quickly! Will be there at the end of August - bank holiday weekend!
I don't quite know what audiences would be interested in trying out new ways of solving inter-group conflicts--let me know what you think ...
Making Peace from All Sides of a Conflict at the Grass Root Level.
I have an idea that, perhaps, could be helpful in diffusing of inter-national conflicts--maybe you might even know of people who would be able to help with implementing of this idea? These days, during most, if not all, violent conflicts the majority of people involved in those conflicts doesn't have much say in influencing of the outcome of such conflicts; the course of action is very much in the hands of the leaders (be those elected, or not).
What I am trying to propose is that by using existing technological possibilities (perhaps "distributed computing" based modeling--a proven thing) potentially all people on a grass-root level from of all the sides of any conflict would together create a model of an ideal peaceful co-existence that would be acceptable by all the sides involved.
This model would attempt to reconcile differences that there might be among all the individual ideas all those who would participate in a creation of the model might have about what their future peaceful coexistence should look like. Since most people's ideas about what their future should be differ from the ideas that others have, this model would aim at preventing of differences reconciling in real life, which not infrequently happens even in a violent way.
The model would be accepted only on the basis of its reasonableness--the model would eventually show graphically, after being inputted by the participants in the conflict repeatedly to all of the involved mutual satisfaction, the optimally possible state of things in the territories and societies that are involved in the conflict.
The model (that would exist in the "distributed computing" "supercomputer"--that means in the cyberspace--no physical location would be required for the model's existence) would show clearly how resources, peoples, communities, borders, and all such would be situated, and also the model would show why this should be an optimal state of affairs according to all facts pertinent to the conflict.
In any case, should anyone object to any part of thus collectively created model, those who would object could always improve on it, providing they could justify that their improvements are founded on valid data.
At present there exist enough many data-bases containing data pertaining to availability of resources, data that take into account existing and preexisting inter-group relationships, and all such, that are publicly accessible, and that are necessary for creating of such models.
The model would be created by all the people who have an interest in satisfactorily resolving of the conflict anonymously--no one would have to be exposed to any fears of repercussions that might possibly there be for their participating in trying to peacefully resolve a conflict. I think that although this idea might be fairly new, it might be worth considering, if only because in many cases today officially sanctioned solutions rarely work, and rarely really satisfy all involved for long. The costs needed for creating of such a model would be relatively modest (most software for "distributed computing" is free), and only a fraction of what is spent on weapons that normally are used for solving conflicts. Trying to solve conflicts at a grass-root level should, perhaps, be given a chance.
At first such a model would not be inputted by too many, perhaps. But if the existence of this model would become known, it would become a subject to a scrutiny and a critique that would be actually welcome--in the case of such a model only a constructive criticism would be possible, since (as already mentioned above), if someone should not like the model, they would have to come up with better versions of it; versions that would have to be acceptable by all the participating model builders, acceptable on the basis of being more in accord with what might, or might not be possible to have in the situation modeled according to all knowledge pertinent to the situation. The existence of such a model would influence the decisions of those either negotiating and/or fighting in any conflict whose favorable, optimal resolution is being modeled, and perhaps such a model could eventually become an arbiter of sorts, whose influence might, perhaps, extent well into the peace times, perhaps even augmenting and enforcing a better governing of the territories and of the peoples that are being modeled. I am aware that, perhaps, my explanation of the idea might not be entirely quite clear, and I would gladly discuss this idea with anyone who could see if only a bit of a potential in this idea.
Thank you sincerely - Mr. Jan Hearthstone.
http://www.modelearth.org
Post a Comment