THE THAI-CAMBODIA BORDER DISPUTE IS A SMOKESCREEN FOR CYBER SLAVE TRAFFICKING

I fear that the Cambodian media have once again oversimplified the recent fighting with Thailand. The simplified view of the cease-fire is that Trump threatened Thailand with high tariffs if they didn’t stop the fighting, so Thailand caved and signed the cease-fire. Cambodians are now praising Trump as the Great Peacemaker.

I have maintained all along that the main conflict is between the Thai ruling party (which I call the Peace Party) and opposition Pheu Thai Party allied with the military (which I call the War Party). This is essentially a three-way conflict: Cambodia – War Party – Peace Party. That makes it very complicated indeed.

Early on – way  before Trump entered the fray — the Peace Party had agreed to a cease-fire, but the War Party resisted. Finally, the War Party relented and agreed to stop fighting. Why? Because of Trump? No, the Peace Party must have made some under-the-table concessions to the War Party.

In any case, the War Party has succeeded in demonstrating that they are the tough guys, while Hun Manet has succeeded in becoming a Cambodian military hero. What else is there to fight about?

I have suggested that the border dispute may be just a smokescreen for the real bone of contention: the cyber slavery rather than the border dispute. These scams are often referred to as ‘pig-butchering’.

‘Pig-butchering’ activities carried out online by the cyber slaves.

Thailand has made some progress in fighting the slavery, through Interpol and international bodies, but Cambodia has been less vigilant. The traffickers are finding it much harder to operate their cyberscam centers within Thailand, but easier in Cambodia. Unsuspecting victims arriving in Thailand are then kidnapped and trafficked to centers along the Thai-Cambodia border. There must be some high-level Thai collusion in this trafficking. Someone is facilitating the transfer of thousands and thousands of these slaves into Cambodian border towns.

Here is what East Asia Forum says:

…when the job-seekers reach Bangkok, the preferred entry point for mainland Southeast Asia, they are whisked off by bus, taken across land borders and dumped into fortified compounds with armed guards. They have been trafficked. Their passports are confiscated…

     A senior Thai police officer spoke of corruption and resistance by officials in Cambodia adversely affecting a joint operation to release some of the suspected 3000 Thai cyber slaves in the country.

The 3000 Thai cyber slaves are only a fraction of the estimated 100,000 slaves from many countries. Most of them pass through Bangkok.

Neither government is willing even to admit that the cyberslave trafficking exists; that would implicate high government officials on both sides. The border dispute, therefore, is a convenient smokescreen to hide what is really going on.

It appears that the opposition Pheu Thai Party is demanding that the ruling party tighten up on this trafficking to Cambodia. The government passed a new cybersecurity law in early June, which has drawn harsh criticism for being too vague and ambiguous, and not directly attacking the cyber slavery. That new law may have been the trigger for the renewed hostilities.

Thai military attacks on various border points (not just the disputed temples) aim to disrupt this trafficking, partially by attacking the Cambodian border centers of the cyberscams.

My guess is, then, that the ruling Peace Party has agreed to tighten up the pressure on the Cambodian border cyberscam operations in exchange for the War Party’s acceptance of a cease-fire by the Thai military with Cambodia.

At the same time, the Cambodian government must have agreed, at least in principle, to tighten the screws on the cyber slavery in Cambodia. This may be difficult, owing to the huge sums of money and high-ranking officials involved. However, if Cambodia does not comply, there may be renewed fighting with Thailand.

Note that this cease-fire is only that  — a cease-fire and not a treaty. It does not address or even mention the resolution of conflicting issues, whatever they may be. The war could therefore flare up at any moment. Talks will remain secret, but my guess is that the border issue will not be touched (or perhaps pretend to be touched), while the cyber slavery issue will be at the center of secret discussions.

My prognosis is that such enormous cyber slavery is not sustainable, as it reaches international radar screens and the world demands that it be stopped. As the extent of the corruption comes to light, both the Cambodian and the Thai governments could be extremely embarrassed and might eventually fall. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent this information from being released. For this reason, the border dispute smokescreen is unlikely to go away any time soon.

THE CAMBODIA-THAI BORDER FIGHTING DOESN’T ADD UP

Read any article about the Cambodia-Thai border fighting. They all say that it’s about the small, disputed territory around some ruined temples. Other than the temples, there is nothing to distinguish this remote, forested region. However, the narrative is that Thailand wants that land, so they invaded, but the valiant Khmers have resisted resolutely.

Preserving ancient temples doesn’t seem to be a priority, either, as Thailand has shelled the world-famous temple of Preah Vihear.

What doesn’t add up is that the fighting is going on all along the 800-kilometer border between the two countries. There appears to be no strategy, or no actual targets, as each side fires missiles and drops bombs into random, unimportant areas, unrelated to the territorial dispute.

I read that Thailand attacked Thmar Da, in Veal Veng District of Pursat Province, some hundreds of kilometers from the disputed zone. I have been to Thmar Da, one of the most god-forsaken jungle areas in Cambodia. There is no ‘there’ there, hence no earthly reason for Thai forces to attack.

These random attacks suggest that this is more than just a small territorial dispute. In fact, maybe the territorial dispute is just a smokescreen for something deeper.

Cambodia has launched similar rocket and missile attacks on seemingly meaningless sites in Thailand, far from the disputed zone. What is going on here?

Cambodia, too, is playing this random shelling game. Is Hun Sen also just trying to play tough and send a message? I see no reason for him to do so. In fact, random shelling along the border gives the lie to the narrative that Cambodia is just defending its disputed territory.

An article in today’s (Sunday) Bangkok Post says that the Pheu Thai Party is claiming that the root cause is Cambodia’s huge cyberscam/slavery industry, amounting to BILLIONS of dollars per year, and supported by high-ranking government officials, who are paid handsomely by Chinese criminals to turn a blind eye. Nationals from many countries are promised good jobs in casinos and fly into Thailand. From there they are kidnapped into slavery, brought to one of at least 53 large centers in Cambodia, and forced to run romance or business scams on customers, on threat of torture, electric shocks, beatings, etc.

Even the New York Times headline reads:

The Online Scam Industry is Thriving. Cambodia Plays a Key Role.

The UN estimates that there are some 100,000 cyber-slaves in Cambodia, with an annual revenue of some 40 billion dollars. (Cambodia’s entire GDP is 51 billion.) That ain’t chicken feed.

Recently, Thailand has complained about this practice, and has in fact intervened to disrupt the cyberscams. They once cut off the wi-fi to Poipet, a large center for the cyberscams.

A Thai spokesman for the Bangkok Post, Mr. Danuporn said.

“[This war] is about the fallout from cybercrime suppression. Key figures in Cambodia are being affected, and there is growing evidence to support this.”

He cited the Thai arrest warrant issued for Kok An, an alleged Cambodian scam-backer and casino owner who was reportedly close to Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen. Authorities have also frozen significant assets and are working with Interpol to pursue international legal action against those involved.

The above interpretation makes some sense to me. The cyberscam industry is so huge, and there are so many high officials involved, both sides may be randomly flexing their muscles and sending messages. There are large sums of money being gained by important people. The cyberscam industry certainly dwarfs the importance of a couple of ruined temples in the jungle.

In all scenarios, Thailand attacked first. The positive spin is that both countries may be just blustering, while neither one wants a full-scale war.

WHAT DO CAMBODIA AND GREENLAND HAVE IN COMMON?

Disputed territory in northwest Cambodia

Cambodia and Thailand are fighting over the border defined by the French in 1907, and confirmed by the International Court of Justice in 1962. Thailand says they don’t care what the French said or what the ICJ says; they just want to take the land.

That reminds me of Trump’s stance on Greenland. It belongs to Denmark, part of the EU. However, Trump is preparing military invasion plans to take Greenland, simply because he wants to take the land.

The same can be said of the Panama Canal, where Trump has threatened to take the Canal by force, just because he wants it. Trump has even talked about taking over Gaza and cleansing all the Palestinians, just so he can create a ‘Riviera’.

The threat of unilateral land-grabbing has created an atmosphere where land-grabbing is considered part of the game. Trump has set the tone: it’s OK for big countries to grab land from smaller ones.

For nearly the past century, big countries have largely refrained from invading smaller countries to take over pieces of land.  This is because the United States has served as an international policeman. This is also due to the big-power rivalry that ensured that any invasion could cause a superpower confrontation. The past 80 years have been called the ‘Pax Americana’.  

It is only a recent trend that countries have felt emboldened to take land from weaker countries. Russia wanted to take over Ukraine without provocation. Recently, Rwanda has been backing an invasion of Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, simply because they perceived weakness in the DRC.  According to the Internationalist 360,

the deal is beginning to look like a “mineral grab”

in another round of colonization of Africa.

Thailand is far stronger than Cambodia. The border dispute has been going on for decades, but only now does Thailand feel emboldened enough to go in and grab the land they want. No superpower will intervene or apply sanctions.

My fear is that the far-right extremists in Thailand will argue: “Cambodia is weak. Let’s go ahead and take over the whole country, or at least the three northwestern provinces that Thailand conquered centuries ago, before the French made Siam give them back. No one will stop us.”

Cambodia and Greenland are only two of the countries where stronger countries simply want to take their land. The new ‘Trump Doctrine’ is “If you want it, take it.” I fear that there could be many more land-grabs around the world.

THE EVOLUTION OF CAMBODIAN PRIVATE EDUCATION

Enhancing Pedagogy In Cambodia (EPIC)

I just participated in an education conference in Siem Reap, Cambodia. I was pleasantly surprised by a genuine desire to improve Cambodian education, by government officials, NGOs, and foreign agencies. Notably absent was any input from private schools, as though they were not interested in enhancing education. Why?

When I came to Cambodia 30 years ago, the country was a basket case, coming out of the Khmer Rouge era, when some 95% of all teachers had been killed. Education was especially weak, with teachers earning only a dollar a day, the exam system thoroughly corrupt, etc.

Private schools and colleges grew up as an alternative to the nearly nonexistent public sector. This was an attempt to bring some form of education to this failed state.

However, public education gradually but greatly improved over the next 30 years, to the point where it became at least an affordable alternative to the private schools. The private schools more and more were seen as only marginally better than the public schools.

Today, as I learned from the Conference, public education is forging ahead with reforms, while the private schools are mired in the status quo. Worse, the private schools have turned to marketing, in an effort to project an image of success and wealth, at the expense of quality education. The goal is now to attract rich families as a status symbol. Fancy new buildings and showy equipment increasingly replace raising salaries for qualified teachers.

Private universities, intent on increasing profits, have switched to Khmer instruction in order to increase student enrollment. While they call themselves ‘International’ universities, they have in fact cut off all their international contacts because their students cannot understand English. Public institutions, on the other hand, can offer courses in English, thereby attracting foreign professors, exchanges, and projects.

Another reason that public institutions, especially universities, have surpassed private ones is that only public universities are eligible for generous grants from foreign governments, World Bank, and the like.

One private university’s original “Mission Statement” included a phrase to the effect that it would help disadvantaged students. After a few years, the university’s owner quietly dropped that phrase.

What’s sad is that there are dedicated teachers in the private schools, who want only the best for their students, but they run up against a brick wall in the administrators and owners, who are willing to sacrifice students’ education in order to polish the school’s wealthy image.

To return to the question of why private schools are not interested in improving public education, the answer is now clear:  they are in competition. Any improvement in public education diminishes whatever advantage the private schools may have over them. More students may opt for the improved public schools, and that will diminish the profits of the private schools. The private, for-profit schools don’t want that.

TOXIC MASCULINITY IS GENDER DYSPHORIA

What? I’ll bet you never heard anyone make that claim before. But hear me out, as I make my case.

My understanding of Gender Dysphoria

The basic dilemma is that some people’s physical sex is male, while their mental make-up (gender) is female. Most transgenders will state that they have always been that way; there was no conscious choice to become transgender. They feel hard-wired as females. You often hear them state that they are a female trapped in a male body. They have always felt the disconnect between their gender identity and the expectations society placed on them to act ‘male’, meaning hard, assertive, tough, aggressive, competitive, etc. They felt that, in trying to act ‘male’, they were not behaving as their true self, i.e. feminine. If you read accounts of transgenders who ‘came out’, they are almost always very positive and happy, with no regrets, since they have resolved the conflict between their sex and their gender.

Toxic Masculinity

Jan. 6 rioters

The uber-male, in my observation and analysis, also feels the disconnect between his male sex – especially society’s expectations of male behavior – and his feminine side. Unlike the transgender, he tries to hide those feminine traits and to pretend to adhere to society’s expectations – in spades! He adopts an image of being super-tough, super-aggressive. It’s a Wizard of Oz situation: behind the pompous wizard is a little old man.

The Wizard of Oz – all smoke and mirrors.

Dressing up in tough-guy military garb is the gender-dysphoric equivalent of transvestitism. The tough guy dresses up to convince himself and others that he is a real man, while the transvestite dresses up to reconcile their physical and mental identities.

I always felt that the Jan. 6 rioters were especially pathetic. All dressed up in their cosplay military gear, trying to show how tough they were. I have read accounts of prostitutes who describe these guys as some of the mousiest, wimpiest pipsqueaks they have met. All because the macho guys feel that at their core is a feminine psyche that is somehow not man enough.

My claim is that both the transgender and the toxic male experience the same mismatch between their sexual bodies and their innate personalities. The transgender ends by adapting their physical body – through Hormone Replacement or surgery – to their mental identity. The uber-male tries to transform their mental make-up to their physical sex, or at least, to make their behavior conform to the expectations of society.

Why do uber-males hate transgenders to the point of wanting to kill them? I think it’s because they realize that transgenders can see through their macho mask to their more feminine self. Transgenders remind them of their own gender dysphoria. I think this fear of being found out also applies to spouse abuse, as the wife eventually sees through the tough-guy mask to the weak little boy inside. The most devastating remark a woman can say to a man is “You’re not a real man.”

You can guess that I tend to sympathize with the transgenders. They are aiming at integrity – living their true self by reconciling their physical and mental components. The uber-mensch, on the other hand, is hiding his true self from himself and from the world. When I see his constantly angry face, I think he is essentially unhappy.

IT’S NOT RACISM; IT’S RACE HATRED

‘Alligator Auschwitz’, the concentration camp built in the Everglades, really brings out the race hatred in Trump and the MAGA world. Did you see the smiles of jubilation when they described alligators eating 65 million immigrants? While liberals are aghast at the cruelty of the concentration camp, MAGA folks are rubbing their hands in glee. With MAGA, cruelty is the point. MAGA would love to see a photo of an alligator eating an immigrant. The Trumpies were actually selling souvenir merchandise for the concentration camp.

Cruelty is precisely the point

To state that those immigrants are sub-standard is racism. But rejoicing in their suffering is outright and overt hatred.

The hatred developed when leaders like Trump convinced the out-of-work laborer that immigrants had taken his job. Or the student who wasn’t admitted to a college, where he was told that less-qualified minorities were admitted ahead of him. Trump was able to instill a sense of grievance in those white supremacists, which became not just a belief in white supremacy, but an intense hatred of those non-whites whom Trump was able to label as rapists, murderers, and eaters of your pets.

Another example is that guy Garcia, who was sent to the El Salvador gulag but was recently brought back. Liberals are infuriated by the photos of those prisoners being marched through the prison, and they are further horrified to hear Garcia’s descriptions of the torture and deprivations in the concentration camp. But Republicans are overjoyed to see this guy – painted falsely by Trump as an M-13 terrorist – suffer to the max. Schadenfreude to the max.

I fear that the recent Big Beautiful Bill could make matters worse. Millions of white people will lose their Medicaid or Medicare, and will certainly not blame Trump. Trump will trot out examples of non-white people getting free health care, and that will exacerbate the feelings of grievance of his base.

So where does one cross the line between racism and race hatred? After all, slaveowners didn’t hate their slaves. I guess the answer must be that grievance is that red line. Not just fear, but a feeling that the minority race is making your life harder. Signs that the ‘Great Replacement’ is actually happening. That’s why Trump’s war on DEI is so effective. Remember that Trump even tried to blame that deadly airplane crash on DEI, even though there were no minorities involved. His argument was that DEI policies caused stress to the white pilots so that they could not do their jobs properly.

Too many white people feel that minorities and immigrants have taken their jobs or gained unfair admission to universities. “Affirmative action” may be the most harmful policy against race relations in American history. The backlash of hatred is turning out to be deadly.

COULD TRUMP PERMIT SLAVERY?

The Courts could not stop him.

Suppose Trump suddenly issued a royal decree declaring slavery legal. That’s clearly unconstitutional. How could anyone stop this?

The obvious answer should be that the courts should step in and say, “That’s unconstitutional. You can’t do that.” However, the recent SCOTUS decision states that courts cannot do this.

So suppose next that several states introduce slavery with millions of slaves. Once again, you’d think that the courts could stop that with an injunction. However, you’d be wrong again.

No, each slave would have to file suit against the government for damages incurred. Each of those millions of individual cases could be appealed up to the Supreme Court, who would have to decide on millions of individual cases. The pro-slavery lobby would no doubt come up with dozens of nit-picking reasons to throw out all the cases, or they could at least delay the decisions by years in related litigation.

There are hundreds of similar cases where Trump can issue any royal decree he wants, however illegal or unconstitutional, and it would be nearly impossible for the courts to stop him, now that they are banned from issuing injunctions.

Consider especially the warrantless kidnapping of innocent brown-skinned Americans, followed by shipping them off to torture chambers around the world, where they remain for the rest of their lives. The American courts, according to the new SCOTUS ruling, cannot stop this. Even worse, once these individuals have been ‘disappeared’ into foreign hellholes, the US government has no way to bring them back or release them. No one will ever hear from them again.

What if some of those prisoners should die in captivity? First, no one in America would ever hear about it, and second, even if the death were known, the guy is dead, and so there is nothing any US court could do about it.

Are all these horrible scenarios what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the Constitution? Is this the American system of justice?

TRUMP’S INSIDIOUS PLAN FOR EL SALVADOR

By dismissing charges, he could keep them there forever.

Trump was under pressure to bring Garcia back from El Salvador, but needed an excuse to save face. He conjured up a grand jury to indict Garcia on some charges, knowing that ‘a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.’

Trump’s TACO image is on full display here. I’d like to add some letters to the acronym, but I fear you could come up with something better than this: TACO-SHOW (Says He Only Won). That is, even when he chickens out, he declares victory.

So now Garcia is back facing trial. I’d think any judge in his right mind would dismiss the charges, since there is no way Garcia can get a fair trial. Think of it – the President of the United States goes on national TV, saying what a horrible person Garcia is and how he committed all sorts of heinous crimes. Trump went so far as to fake that photograph with the phony MS13 tattoo. And then there are these ‘witnesses’ who are in jail but have been offered some kind of deal to testify. They can hardly be credible. This is a kangaroo court if I ever saw one.

It is possible that charges will be quietly dismissed. After all, Garcia has been returned and Trump has saved a modicum of face. The case can be silently forgotten.

But what about all those other deportees in El Salvador? Why not press for extradition of all of them back to the US? That would really be a big loss of face for Trump. So he now has a really insidious plan.

Many of the deportees have criminal cases pending against them. They could be extradited to the US. But the Trump plan is to dismiss charges against them. That way, there are no charges to extradite them on. They can remain in the Gulag forever. Brilliant! They are anonymous to everyone except a few family members, so they can be quietly forgotten in their lifelong torture.

I hear no hue and cry about these remaining deportees. It rather looks as though Trump has won his battle. Does this mean that there will be more such deportations without due process?

In fact, if this new Big, Beautiful Bill passes, the Republicans will guarantee that Trump & Co. cannot be held in contempt of any court, that is, he can ignore any court order, and deport as many innocent people to foreign hellholes as he wants, with total impunity. And his MAGA cultists will cheer him on.

DON’T CALL THEM ILLEGALS

I shouldn’t feel the need to write this, as everyone should be aware that ‘undocumented’ is not the same thing as ‘illegal’. Most of these immigrants crossed the border and applied for asylum. Because of the huge backlog of cases, they are released – legally – until their asylum hearing, which may be a year or two away. They are expected to report to Immigration Offices periodically to check in. This is the legal process.

In fact, under Biden the Congress tried to pass a law increasing the number of immigration judges and officers, in order to speed up the process, but Trump forced his GOP minions to vote it down. Trump wanted all those immigrants in the country in order to promote his anti-immigrant campaign.

So now, ICE shows up at the Immigration offices, where the legal immigrants are legally checking in, and arrests them, detains them, and prepares to ship them off to the torture camps in El Salvador or South Sudan.

Most of these legal immigrants are hard-working and have no criminal records. The very fact that they show up to check in at the Immigration Office is proof that they are legal. They are arrested anyway, and I see posts like this on Facebook:

              MAGA: Good! Arrest those rapists and murderers and ship them out.

Journalists:  But they haven’t committed any crime.

              MAGA: They are here illegally. That’s crime enough.

              Journalists: They are here legally.

The above conversation shows that one should use the word ‘undocumented’ to describe these legal immigrants.  Maybe ‘asylum seeker’ would be even better. Certainly NOT ‘illegal’.

ICE also barges into workplaces and arrests anyone who cannot produce documentation. These are mostly the ‘overstay’ immigrants. They are different from asylum seekers. Here is a description of the legal status of most of the overstayers detained by ICE, from workingimmigrants.com

civil violation vs misdemeanor vs felony in immigration law enforcement

Improper presence: If ICE arrests a person who has been in the U.S. for many years without committing any misdemeanors or felonies, but cannot provide evidence of legal status, they will likely face charges of civil violation of immigration law rather than criminal charges.  The person would likely be charged with being “unlawfully present” in the United States.

Therefore, even the word ‘criminal’ does not apply to these immigrants. But in these overstay cases, the word ‘undocumented’ applies.

Of course, there are many real illegals in the US, hiding under the radar. They are more difficult to find. What is starting to happen is that many legal asylum seekers are not reporting to their immigration appointments, for fear of being illegally arrested by ICE. The sad irony is that, by failing to appear, they become REAL illegals.

I should add that these masked ICE thugs usually do not have a judge-approved warrant to arrest anyone. They simply kidnap anyone they choose, call them illegals or criminals, and ‘disappear’ them. It could happen to anyone, especially anyone that Trump doesn’t like. It could happen to YOU!

WHAT’S GOING ON IN GAZA?

I wrote a couple of blogs over the past year, with the following hypothesis:

Hamas staged its massacre of Israelis in order to goad Israel into destroying Gaza. This would outrage the international community into finally wiping out the Zionists. To add to this strategy, Hamas stationed its troops in schools and hospitals, forcing Israel to bomb those hospitals and create humanitarian disasters. This would further enrage the international community.

For a while, the strategy worked, albeit with tremendous loss of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian lives. Iran sent missiles against Israel, but they were intercepted. The Houthis bombed a lot of ships, but recently they have been subdued. Lebanon and the West Bank looked as though they might join the all-out fray against Israel, but Israel shut them down.

Just a few months ago, it looked to me as though Hamas had lost, especially when Israel assassinated their top leaders.

However, I note a resurgence of anti-Israeli sentiment. Indeed, the anti-semitism has spread to violent shootings and murder of Jews outside the Middle East, notably in America. This is happening just as Israel has recently assassinated another Hamas leader, (n.b. based in a hospital in Khan Younis). There is now the usual outrage that Israel bombed a hospital, killing innocent women and children. But even that outrage grows stale and boring. The world has become inured to such daily violence. The media used to publish daily numbers of civilians killed, but that reporting seems to have stopped. Too boring?

Further, the original massacre of Israelis has faded from memory, as Israel continues to destroy Palestine. There is renewed talk of ‘disproportionate response’. Yes, the destruction of Palestine truly dwarfs the number of Israelis massacred by Hamas. However, I often ask Americans, “If Cuba sent just one missile into downtown Miami, what would the US do?”  Clearly that would result in the total destruction of Cuba.

At this point, Hamas’ main goal is survival. The longer they survive, the longer they can present to the world the image of brave freedom-fighters standing up against the evil Zionists.

The media are not giving us the straight story (Surprise! Surprise!). I’m not hearing, for example, whether there is any electricity or water supply in Gaza. Is there any semblance of government? Is there transportation? Are there shops open for business?

The key element is the tunnel system. Has Israel dismantled most of it? Bombing a building doesn’t destroy a tunnel. The tunnels permit Hamas to wage ‘whack-a-mole war’.

I don’t see any real solution, but I can venture a prediction at the short-term outcome. Israel can never accept a cease-fire, because that would enable Hamas to restore the tunnel system and return the war to square one.