At the core of democracy lies every nation’s fundamental need to be sovereign. However, as seen in humankind’s relentless pursuit of self-sovereignty, violence is nearly always the chosen method to achieve such goals. Such a decision is especially true for developed and emerging countries, of which Norway and Thailand perfectly illustrate this. Historically, these two countries have been caught in the crossfires of international wars (the World Wars), intrastate (civil) wars, coups, and terrorist attacks. The question of how much violence is needed for peace is crucial- considering how nation-states have used war as a tool within nations over the last 50 years. This comparative analysis aims to contribute to the debate by delving into Thailand and Norway’s political state policies and investigating the impact the latter has from a diplomatic standpoint. These two points, juxtaposed, will provide a multidisciplinary perspective on Thailand and Norway’s political progression. 

In the past 50 years, Thailand has faced several instances of wars. The vietnam war was fought back from November 1955 to April 1975, between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The United States at the time was supporting South Vietnam and had offered military and financial assistance for almost twenty years. During the war, the communist were destroying Buddhist temples in their quest to control Cambodia. Because of the insecurity and the economical reasons related to the insurgency, the Kingdom decided to assist the United States and drafted approximately 40,000 soldiers into battle to fight alongside americans. They granted them access to supplies and weapons in an effort to win the war. Through a New York Times article, we learn that the Thai soldiers took great pride in defeating the communists and restoring safety and peace to their country. It says, “They repeatedly stressed the experiential and material gains the war had given them. They talked about how their service had successfully blocked the spread of communism to Thailand. They marveled at how much Thailand had changed during the war years. And while they acknowledged the war’s terrible toll on people throughout Southeast Asia, including some of their fellow soldiers, they mostly talked about how the war had helped them and their nation.”Continuously, the Cambodian vietnamese war was fought between Cambodia and Vietnam. Although through research it is said primarily that the Thai government only offered aid and did not want to participate in the affairs of the war, the US military used trucks from the Thai state enterprise, Express Transport Organization while being on the country’s soil. The Thai government was furious and demanded for the US military to leave the premises. Furthermore, the United States presence provided support and safety for the Thai people but the fear of war and the communist insurgency was very close due to the plethora of issues happening with Cambodia which led to the government not being entirely sure of their decision to part ways with them. In Dr. Puangthong Rungswasdisab article, he mentions, “The Thai Army Commander General Kris Sivara expressed strong opposition to the calls for immediate withdrawal of the U.S. troops. Kris pointed out that “the situation in Cambodia was most critical. The danger is very close to Thailand. We would rather see a war in foreign countries than fighting in our own land.” He wanted the U.S. troops’ presence as a deterrent against communist attacks in neighboring countries.” 

In 2004, Thailand experienced the South Thailand Insurgency, which was a war centered in South Thailand. Although the conflict was mainly domestic, there were allegations and rumors that external groups had taken a part of what was happening. In 2005, the Prime minister made emergency plans in order to stop the spread of the violent insurgency but the situation was worsening. Moreover, the United States went through military resistance and was unable to do more for the Kingdom when they sought international support. 

While this country has suffered from considerable life loss and social disruption, it continued experiencing instability through the October 6, 1976, Massacre, the Communist Insurgency and the red shirts protests that took place in 2010. The article says, “a violent crackdown by Thai police and lynching by right-wing paramilitaries and bystanders against leftist protesters who had occupied Bangkok’s Thammasat University and the adjacent Sanam Luang, on 6 October 1976.” Five thousand students were on campus protesting against the return of an ousted government official. Without any weapons or means to fight, they were bombarded and shot at by police officers. This chapter certainly marked a dark chapter in Thailand’s history. Many students were not allowed to receive medical aid. The massacre in every aspect symbolizes the suppression of citizens’ voices. Later on in the article, it says, “I still do not understand why they do not let the injured out. Even in war movies, the injured are allowed medical care. But somehow, when it comes to conflicting political views, opponents are no longer human and can be slaughtered.” The protests were a series of political ones against the democratic led government. The UDD supported the ousted Abhisit Vejjajiva and wanted the government to stand down and hold elections earlier in the year. Because of failure to comply, these protests quickly turned into violent interaction between the protesters and the military resulting in a lot of citizens injured and many deaths. 

Furthermore, in 1991, a staged military coup took place against the government of General Chatichai. The alleged reasons were the rampant corruption, dictatorship. These reasons were also established to end democracy in 2006, during another coup against the sitting government. The coup triggered an incredible amount of instability and division within Thai society for years. Thailand’s history and patterns for the past 50 years has been an uproar of various civil conflicts and political upheavals that often kept the country from essentially leaning onto its natural resources, reaching its economic goals and creating a safe and high quality environment for the population (both men, women and children.) 

Norway has been renowned for its commitment to diplomacy and peaceful coexistence, but just as much as Thailand, this country has experienced its series of conflicts for the last 50 years. 

In the early years of the 1990’s, the dissolution of Yugoslavia led to a series of conflicts that ravaged the Balkan region. Although Norway did not participate directly in the armed conflict, as a part of the United Nations Protection Force, it drafted troops to alleviate the pain and suffering of civilians and to protect basic human rights that were being denied. Following the terrorist attacks that happened in New York in 2001, Norway joined the United States to help combat rampant terrorism in Afghanistan. In order to assist, the Kingdom deployed troops to help with the training of Afghan soldiers as a part of the Nato led international security. This greatly contributed to the reconstruction efforts and restoring stability into a country where war was the only thing left. In the article, it states, “NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, to ensure that the country would not again become a safe haven for international terrorists to attack NATO member countries. Over the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil from Afghanistan.” While Norway has not particularly been involved in International wars, it has played important roles in and actively participated in peacekeeping functions on an international level and has provided humanitarian interventions as well. Additionally, the Alta conflict is a notable civil war that occurred between the years of 1979 and 1981. It was about the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Alta. There were massive protests from the indigenous groups, local residents that voiced their strong opposition to the project. A large controversy was at bay because of the concerns that the project would disrupt their environment and hurt the Sami Heritage. There were tensions between the Activists and law enforcement. There were a plethora of issues between the Government’s development policies and the basic human rights of the indigenous communities, and because of the government’s response to the protest, the issue gained national momentum. The truth is, the Alta conflict was meant to escalate further but because of the prime minister at the time, the escalation was avoided. In this article, it asserts, “Documents that have since been declassified, show that the government planned to use military forces as logistical support for police authorities in their efforts to stop the protest.” These conflicts opened the dialogue of respect for minorities rights and triggered an effort to promote healthy social inclusion into the nation’s.

How much is violence needed for peace? Both Norways and Thailand went through their unique sets of fear, pain and war. Although the commitment to provide a better future to their citizens, while respecting diversity and implementing policies to ensure the well-being of their population has not always been the best, these countries fought their way to freedom. Through the political divisions and the calls for democratization, they made incredible efforts towards stability and peace. The fifty years of violence seemed to have called for harmony. 

WORK CITED

1. Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), inss.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/inss/Strategic-Perspectives-11.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2023. 
2. “South Thailand Insurgency.” Wikipedia, 25 May 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency. 
3. “Yale University.” Thailand’s Response to the Cambodian Genocide | Genocide Studies Program, gsp.yale.edu/thailands-response-cambodian-genocide#:~:text=Although%20the%20atrocities%20committed%20by,various%20political%20groups%20in%20Thailand. Accessed 13 June 2023. 
4. Ruth, Richard A. “Why Thailand Takes Pride in the Vietnam War.” The New York Times, 7 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/thailand-vietnam-war.html#:~:text=Thailand%20hosted%20seven%20air%20bases,related%20supplies%20into%20the%20region. 
5. NATO – Topic: NATO and Afghanistan, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm. Accessed 14 June 2023.