Opinion

BANGKOK, Thailand -- A deadly border feud between Thailand's U.S.-trained military and Cambodia's Chinese-assisted troops has resulted in a surprise agreement with Phnom Penh retreating and abandoning a freshly dug trench after one Cambodian soldier was killed and both sides reinforced their armies in the disputed Emerald Triangle jungle.

The face-to-face gunfight at the border also sparked questions about Bangkok's fragile civilian-led coalition government and its ability to control Thailand's politicized military which has, when displeased, unleashed 13 coups since the 1930s.

While villagers hurriedly dug schoolyard bunkers, and thousands of travelers were left stranded due to temporary checkpoint closures, Thailand announced on Sunday (June 8) that Cambodian troops agreed to withdraw to their pre-confrontation positions and make other concessions.

"Cambodia agreed to fill in the trenches, to restore the area to its natural state," the Bangkok Post reported on June 9.

The Thai Army displayed photos of what it said showed a 2,100-ft.-long (650-meter) trench dug by Cambodian troops in the disputed zone. 

America is heading towards a Constitutional crisis, with the President of the United States, on his own instance, federalizing the California National Guard and sending in the Marines to support the quasi-military fugitive operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), rounding up thousands of Angelenos in one of the most densely populated Hispanic and Latino counties in America—Los Angeles.

The President was not asked by local officials for help in controlling violent protests, perhaps because Los Angeles city and county together employ nearly 20,000 sworn law enforcement officers, trained and experienced in handling ambiguous and confrontational situations.

Yet, the President chose to bypass local authority, sending in 4,000 Guardsmen and 700 Marines under the authority of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, dealing with the Armed Forces, Chapter 13, which defines military operations in an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government.

I would swear on the graves of my parents and four grandparents that this is the most common question from white people when a race-related incident occurs or the subject of race comes up. It is often asked with an exasperated tone of voice, accompanied by an oh-here-we-go-again eye roll, and followed by an explanation from the white person about how they cannot possibly be racist because they have a Black son-in-law or frequently go to lunch with a Black co-worker or root for whatever team LeBron James is playing on. (Many years ago a manager in a now defunct women’s store I used to patronize told me “I should be a Black person because I love soul music so much” when a song by a Black recording artist began playing on the Muzak system.) Being thought of as racist is insulting and scary for many white people. It immediately puts them on the defensive.           

Thirty-five years after the start of the nuclear age with the first explosion of an atomic bomb, I visited the expanse of desert known as the Nevada Test Site, an hour’s drive northwest of Las Vegas. A pair of officials from the Department of Energy took me on a tour. They explained that nuclear tests were absolutely necessary. “Nuclear weapons are like automobiles,” one told me. “Ford doesn’t put a new automobile out on the highway until they’ve gone through a lengthy test process, driving hundreds of thousands of miles.”

 By then, in 1980, several hundred underground nuclear blasts had already occurred in Nevada, after the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty required that atomic testing take place below the earth’s surface. Previously, about 100 nuclear warheads had been set off above ground at that test site, sending mushroom clouds aloft and endangering with radiation exposure not just nearby soldiers but downwind civilians as well.