The Siamese in the Great War

Most people, outside of the country itself, probably have no idea that the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) was a participant in the First World War. This is not too surprising given that the Siamese contribution was necessarily limited but the southeast Asian kingdom was a member of the Allied nations and, unlike some who declared war simply as a symbolic gesture, Siam actually participated militarily. World War One brings to mind the trenches and cratered landscape of Belgium and France but it was a global affair and Southeast Asia was actually fairly well represented in the conflict. Forces from French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos) participated on the Salonika and Western Fronts for example, the British had a potentially dangerous mutiny by Muslim forces on their hands in Singapore (dealt with by the Japanese) and so on. The Kingdom of Siam, like many others frankly, had no real reason to get involved given that Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria or Turkey had done them no harm but it was considered that participation would bring real benefits to Siam both domestically and on the world stage.

King Vajiravudh

The driving force behind the Siamese intervention was King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). This was when Siam was still an absolute monarchy but the King was not as all-powerful as he seemed from the outside. It was a time of great energy, hopes and aspirations for Siam and the King who was British-educated and who, after graduating from Sandhurst, was briefly an officer of the Durham Light Infantry in the British army. He thus had personal ties which made a totally dispassionate view of the First World War impossible. Which is not to say that he allowed personal attachments to cloud his judgment; far from it. He was very displeased with a recent treaty signed with the British which had seen Siam cede territory in the south to the British in what is now Malaysia. He valued his education and wished to see the same sort of education made available to his people but he was still annoyed at the unequal treaties Siam had made with numerous powers and the special privileges these allowed them, particularly France and, yes, Great Britain. He also faced internal threats to his authority and perhaps even the monarchy itself.

The collapse of the imperial system in China and the abdication of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 was a momentous event in world history that is generally not treated as such. However, it was positively earth-shattering and sent tremors all throughout east and southeast Asia, including Siam. A group of dissident army officers conspired to launch a military coup and abolish the monarchy, pledging to make Siam a constitutional democracy. Thankfully, word of the plan leaked to the authorities and they were arrested, tried and sentenced to death or life in prison. King Vajiravudh, however, wishing to appear strong and magnanimous, released all of them on the grounds that their intentions had been good in that they believed they were acting in the best interests of the country. Given what these men had said about the King personally, this had to be very difficult but for the King it underscored the need for greater national unity and to strengthen the monarchy. Many in Siam still had the mentality of the past when most of Siamese history was dominated by palace intrigue, family feuds and wars between rival city-states. King Vajiravudh wanted to usher in a new era of Siamese nationalism, place the kingdom on an equal footing with the other countries of the world and to bolster the power and prestige of the monarchy in the process.

French general inspects Siamese troops

The First World War was seized upon as an opportunity to do all of these things. The war itself was, of course, an absurdity that never should have happened and many still fail to grasp this, insisting that the problem was the wrong side won when the problem was that the war happened at all. However, the hopes of King Vajiravudh are at least understandable. By intervening in the war, he hoped to have a cause to rally his people around the monarchy and the First World War was the biggest cause going at the time. It would mean that the Kingdom of Siam was participating in the pivotal event in world affairs at the time and would give Siam leverage against its neighbors, the British and French colonial empires, to redress grievances in the future Siam had with both. Many in Siam were still annoyed, for example, that France had taken into its empire Laos and Cambodia which Siam regarded as vassal states of their kingdom. By intervening in a conflict which was an existential threat to Britain and France, particularly with no vital need to do so, Siam expected to gain greater moral authority in dealing with these two powers. Likewise, as the King issued the declaration of war in the summer of 1917, it could be expected that the war would not last for much longer anyway.

The King called upon all of his people to unite behind this cause, to take their place as a participant in world affairs and even adopted a new national flag using the red, white and blue colors of the major Allied nations. The three colors, as announced in Siam, were to represent a new national unity of 1 people, 1 faith and 1 king. As the Siamese Expeditionary Force was assembled, more people actually volunteered than could be accepted. As it was, Siam could, of course, only afford a relatively minor force of mostly support personnel with medical and transportation contingents as well as air forces though these would have to be trained by the French. The SEF, under the command of Major General Phraya Bhijai Janriddhi, landed at the port of Marseilles on July 30, 1918 about 1,300 strong. While the pilots and air crew were set off for their new training, the general observed the operations of the other Allies to gain some experience in how things worked and, not too surprisingly given the times, the first use of the Siamese was when a contingent was organized into a labor detachment.

SEF Battle flag was a hybrid of the old & new designs

By September, the Siamese forces started to be actively employed at the front with combat units being filtered into the line and the medical and transport personnel being engaged in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. None of the air personnel finished their training in time to participate before the November armistice but those units on the ground who did see action acquitted themselves quite well. Their involvement was not extensive but they had been involved and earned their place in the victory parade in Paris when the war was over and a detachment participated in the Allied occupation of the Rhineland. Losses had been extremely light with only 19 casualties. The Kingdom of Siam was present for the Versailles peace negotiations, not that it mattered much, and was one of the founding members of the League of Nations (again, not that the League ultimately mattered much). The Siamese contribution to the war had been limited and only for the closing months of the conflict, was inexpensive in terms of lives lost and had earned Siam a place among the victors when it was over.

However, the overall results of Siamese participation in the Great War were somewhat mixed. At the outset, it seemed to have achieved all that the King had hoped. They had been a part of the great event of the time, were on the winning side, the prestige of the monarchy had gone up and there were some benefits to found. Siam got to keep the German ships they confiscated at the outset and within seven years the British, French and Americans had all given up their extraterritorial rights in Siam. However, in the long-term, these benefits could be seen as inconsequential or of limited duration. The ensuing economic collapse hit Siam hard and internal divisions, which the King had hoped to eliminate for good, soon reappeared and, to some extent, have become a mainstay of Thai politics. The financial crisis caused Siam to go into debt to the British which, in a way, could be seen as offsetting the new equality gained by Britain giving up her extraterritorial rights. All of this stress also benefited the dissident crowd and soon those advocating for a constitutional monarchy were back. King Vajiravudh would not live to see it but his successor, his younger brother King Prajadhipok, would go down in history as the last absolute monarch of Siam, the result of the Revolution of 1932 and the only king of Chakri dynasty to date to abdicate the throne.

Movies, Monarchs and a Lesson from Thailand

Recently I have been watching the Thai historical film series “The Legend of King Naresuan” which started rolling out in 2007, the last chapter in 2011. The three films were grouped together for American distribution into two chapters under the name “Kingdom of War”. If the third has ever been made available overseas, I have yet to come across it. These films were written and directed by HSH Prince Chatrichalerm Yukol and tell the story of the famous Siamese monarch King Naresuan the Great of Ayutthaya. They can also be seen as something in the way of a sequel to his earlier lavish epic “The Legend of Suriyothai” which tells the story of Siam’s most famous queen; Queen Suriyothai of Ayutthaya. That film was the largest and most expensive production ever mounted by Thailand and “The Legend of King Naresuan” has gone considerably bigger than that piece. This is not a film review but I would say they are excellent movies though probably will not please everyone, certainly foreign audiences. Each are very epic in scope, no expense spared, visually stunning, engaging and a spectacle to behold. They both also have a huge number of characters, a great deal going on simultaneously so that foreigners in particular will probably have a hard time keeping track of everyone and everything going on, certainly if you are not familiar with the names and places.

What I think other royals could stand to learn from the Thais on this front is making use of film to tell the story of their own most significant ancestors. As stated, these are films made by a member of the Thai Royal Family about two of the most famous monarchs of Siamese history. As such, and because the Thais have not adopted the liberal habit of being too proud to take their own side in a quarrel, they are extremely positive films, not simplistic but certainly films that know what they are about and whose side they are on. As with many Thai historical dramas, the kingdoms of Siam are the “good guys” and the kingdoms of Burma are the “bad guys”. They are spectacles of great royal figures from history who led their people in great struggles and as such are not at all like the historical films that tend to be made in the liberal west where, other than World War II which is, of course, sacrosanct, films often tend to show as much, if not more, sympathy for the “other” side than for the home team. Whether they are the type of thing that would be of interest to readers here or not, the spirit that drives them is one I would very much like to see emulated in the monarchies of Europe.

Lately, I have felt more and more compelled to try and remind people from European countries in particular just how much they have to be proud of and how much greater they are capable of being than simply another province of the European Union. European monarchies have done films that are somewhat in the same vein as these but they often seem to get stuck on certain figures and so we have numerous films about Queen Elizabeth I of England or Napoleon Bonaparte but nothing about others. Many have also been made by people openly hostile to their subject and none have been made by royals or royal relatives themselves. In English history the nearest thing are the films done on Shakespeare’s plays about Henry V but one could make a great epic film about Henry V without re-doing Shakespeare. A film about King Edward III would be magnificent if done properly. King St Louis IX of France, King St Ferdinand III of Castile, Charlemagne, Emperor Otto the Great or Frederick Barbarossa for the Germans would all be excellent topics and highly entertaining I would think.

A World War I film focused on King Albert I of the Belgians seems sorely lacking to me, the colorful history of the Princely Family of Monaco would alone offer numerous potential topics given all of the war, drama and romance that has characterized the House of Grimaldi over the centuries. Yes, there was that recent film about Princess Grace and Prince Ranier but constitutional reform and tensions with France is hardly as entertaining as would be watching Rainier II raiding English shipping in the Channel, ransoming the Isle of Wight and fighting at the Battle of Poitiers. Jean I of Monaco would also make for a very entertaining film with his naval battles, efforts to smuggle a Byzantine emperor, betrayal and the defense of Monaco by his wife Pomelline Fregose while he was held prisoner by the Savoyards. The Dutch could make quite a film about the life of Maurice of Nassau, the Swedes about Charles XII or Gustavus Adolphus. With the Kingdom of Denmark being the oldest monarchy in Europe, it pains me that the only film I’ve seen about a Danish monarch was the one who was dismissed as insane. There is plenty of material to work with!

The point is that there are tremendous tools available to glorify the dynasties of the world and any number of great stories to tell that would fill people with pride and confidence in their royal houses and in their national history. It is no good waiting for others to do it for you. This is also something that has come up recently in Thailand as a Thai historical drama has come under criticism by the Burmese for how they are portrayed which is, in the context of virtually any story about the history of Siam, as the villains. This is silly and a waste of time. Years ago when the very well made but historically atrocious film “The Patriot” came out, I was quick to point out its flaws. However, even I, Tory at heart that I am, was rather annoyed by the criticism from the British about how they were portrayed in the film. Such criticism was certainly not unwarranted, I made it myself, but if you are British, you should not be counting on the Americans to tell your side of the story. There should, rather, have been a British film about the war in America in which the Americans were the “bad guys” and the British were the heroes. Likewise, Burma should not complain about how they are portrayed in Thai television, but make their own television drama showing their side of the story.

Naturally, there will be plenty of excuses as to why this is not possible. Usually it comes down to money and the complaint that no one can match the big budgets of Hollywood productions. I say, that is no excuse. The British Royal Family is not without means and royals on the continent might try asking the Prince of Liechtenstein for a loan. If the Dutch can make a quality historical drama about the republican naval hero Michiel De Ruyter, and they have, there is no reason why they cannot make just as quality a film about one of the Princes of Orange or any Dutch monarch. Where there is a will, there is a way and if the Kingdom of Thailand can do it, I see no reason why any other monarchy cannot do the same. I for one, would certainly like to see it.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great of Thailand (1927-2016)

It has just been announced that His Majesty, Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, Lord of Life, King of Thailand, has passed away. Such news has been long expected but is no less tragic, nor is the impact mitigated by that fact. Few monarchs in the world today have been so loved, so respected and so revered by their subjects as the late King of Thailand. For the Thais, he has been a rock of stability, a beacon of hope, a helping hand, a kind father and a wise leader throughout his amazing 70 year reign. Beyond the borders of Thailand, he has also been a powerful presence in Southeast Asia, a firm and reliable figure throughout many years, even decades of troubled times. He was, in every way, providentially the right monarch in the right place at the right time. As Thai everywhere mourn the passing of this great and beloved sovereign it may be helpful for those unfamiliar with Thailand to take a look at some of the specific reasons why Rama IX is so popular, so revered and why he is referred to as “the Great”.

Born in the United States in 1927 while his parents were on a sort of world tour, King Bhumbibol succeeded his older brother as monarch in 1946. It was a delicate time for the Thai monarchy. After the end of the absolute monarchy in Thailand, King Prajadhipok abdicated and left the country and the young boy, King Ananda Mahidol was nominal monarch from 1935 until his death in 1946, having a regency the entire time. From the end of the absolute monarchy, instability and prevailed in Thailand and this was only ended with the establishment of an authoritarian military regime while the young king was out of the country. This was the regime which joined with Japan and the Axis powers during World War II so, in the aftermath of all of that, Thailand was in a very delicate position and the monarchy had been shaken and, for the first time in Thai history, to a large extent absent for an extended period of time. Many hopes were placed on young King Ananda Mahidol and when he died in 1946, it was yet another blow to an already bewildered people. Thailand had a new king, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who had never expected to be king.

Known for his love of music, young King Bhumibol returned to school in Europe and switched his studies to political science and statecraft while the military regime continued to rule. This situation prevailed after his return until a conflict arose against the long-standing strongman Field Marshal Phibun (the man who had ruled throughout World War II). Phibun went to the King who advised him to resign before he was overthrown. Phibun did not listen and soon after was overthrown in a coup at which point the King, acting on his own, declared a state of emergency and took control of the situation himself. Public order was secured, the people were calmed and normalcy prevailed while the government situation was sorted out. For the first time since the end of absolutism, traditional royal customs were revived and the King took on a much more high-profile role in national life. The people were quickly drawn to the young man who traveled throughout the countryside, in simple clothes and dark glasses (worn since he had lost an eye in an automobile accident in Europe), looking into their concerns and coming up with his own solutions through government action or the private activities of his own charities.

Thailand experienced what could be called a sort of compassionate counter-revolution during this period. The monarchy was back in public life as it had not been for many years, traditions were restored that had long been dormant and the King obviously had a great deal of influence and was certainly not a captive of the government. At the same time, he was meeting regularly with ordinary people, he was acting outside the government, in person and through his own private agencies, to help people who needed it and improving the countryside in areas from infrastructure to agriculture. Whereas, in the past, the King had been the government, then the government had taken power while child monarchs were absent or powerless but now the King was rising above the government. The state was still there but the King could act in a private capacity without them and soon his moral authority was more powerful than any political authority held by the government of the day.

It was also during this period, in the 50’s and 60’s, that communism began to sweep Southeast Asia and the Kingdom of Thailand allied itself with the United States in fighting the spread of communist subversion. Most think of Thailand simply providing support to the U.S. forces in Vietnam, rest and recreation facilities, ports and air bases and the like, but Thai forces also joined the fight with Thai soldiers seeing action in Laos against the communist movement. There was a real fear that Communist China would dominate Laos and use it to gain entry to Thailand. The Kingdom of Thailand also sent the hard-fighting “Queen’s Cobra battalion” to South Vietnam where it served alongside American and South Vietnamese forces against the communists from 1965 to 1971. These days, of course, this long struggle is not viewed favorably anywhere but it was certainly not lost on the people at the time in Thailand that the victory of communism and the loss of the Vietnamese emperor and the kings of Laos and Cambodia went hand-in-hand with civil war, misery and tyranny whereas Thailand, for a time alone, remained a free and relatively prosperous country under their beloved King.

The end of this era came with the death of General Sarit Dhanarajata in 1963, after which the military governments became increasingly less stable as squabbling generals vied for power among themselves. This has become fairly common in Thailand but, thanks to the King and his wisely moderate use of his extensive moral authority and public prestige, Thailand could be said to have unstable governments but a stable country. The long period of military rule finally began to draw to a close when this government instability became so severe it threatened to destabilize the country as a whole. The King foresaw the danger and decided to intervene, though initially it was actually a non-intervention. He refused to endorse new regimes that took power by force during the 1980’s and this ensured that these dissident forces never lasted very long since, if the King did not recognize them, the vast majority of Thais likewise viewed them as illegitimate and ultimately power reverted back to the legal authorities. It was a precarious time, and there were minor outbreaks of violence, but what under other circumstances would have caused national collapse and civil war, ended with little major turmoil thanks to the King.

Finally, there came the issue of the transition to democracy. Thailand had actually had almost no experience with democracy, despite claims to the contrary, prior to the 1990’s. The end of royal absolutism brought to power a new class of political elites but they were not true democratic representatives of the public will and they were soon replaced by military leaders who had held power ever since. That changed with the military coup of 1991 in which General Suchinda Kraprayoon seized power, making himself dictator. However, this time, there was considerable public opposition and violence broke out as army units fought to suppress anti-government demonstrations. The chaos spread throughout Bangkok and fears began to rise that an all-out civil war was eminent.

Once again, the King saw that the situation was critical and warranted his intervention. He summoned General Suchinda and the leader of the democracy movement (a retired general) Chamlong Srimuang to the Royal Palace on May 20, 1992. The event was televised and the Thai public watched as these two generals, the two most powerful non-royals in the country, crawled on their knees and bowed down to the revered King. He urged them to resolve their differences peacefully, for the good of the country, nothing that sounds very radical. However, this was a hugely significant event. The dictator of the country had been seen humbling himself on national television, side by side with the leader of the dissidents and while the King did not openly take a side in the issue, by urging them to resolve their differences peacefully, this was a clear indication that he did not wish to see the army used to shoot down dissidents in the streets and that some accommodation would have to be reached. Without military force, that accommodation could only come by way of the democratic process. However, it also meant that the pro-democracy side would have to stop their riots and start talking policy and making their case to the Thai people.

Not long after, General Suchinda resigned and after a short time a general election was held and a democratic government came to power in Thailand. Again, a civil war had been averted and the transition from military rule to parliamentary democracy had taken place without a major, nationwide upheaval, thanks to the intervention of the King. The people did not forget, nor the many and on-going charitable works of the King which impacted their lives in a positive way. As the 1990’s passed beyond the year 2000, however, democracy began to take its toll quickly on Thailand. A leftist government, led by the wealthy and unscrupulous Thaksin Shinawatra came to power, basically by buying votes, promising people other people’s money and he held on to power by means of his media empire and intimidation by his bully-boy supporters. In time, accusations of corruption, violation of human rights, even murder were raised against the Thaksin government and people again called on their revered monarch to dismiss him and appoint a new prime minister of his own choosing in 2006.

The King refrained from doing so, on the grounds that Thailand had a democratic system and the democratic process was the proper way of dealing with things. However, many people increasingly distrusted the democratic process overseen by the Thaksin regime and in the next elections a great many people boycotted them. Thaksin claimed victory even though he clearly lacked a truly democratic mandate and there was an immediate uproar. Finally, after a private meeting with the King, Prime Minister Thaksin announced he was stepping down. Reports also leaked out of a treasonous alliance between Thaksin and the Thai communist party to overthrow the monarchy and assume absolute power. Thaksin denied this of course but left the country, also to avoid prosecution for the crimes committed while in office, but still maintained his power from abroad by having his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, as the leader of his political faction in Thailand.

Yingluck was, as most probably know, removed from power by a military coup in May of 2014, charged and found guilty of abuse of power. This came after much of 2013 had been consumed with anti-government protests against her and her brother’s regime. The King endorsed the military action as the only way that law and order could be restored in the country as the clashes between the pro- and anti-government forces had become violent. He had earlier warned that the situation had been allowed to fester to the point where there were no good options. However, despite what some argued, the situation was secured, peace and order were restored and the military government has remained in place and will certainly remain in place for a while now, if for no other reason that to secure a peaceful transition from one monarch to another. To the very end of his life, he was concerned with the good of the nation, the welfare of the people and preventing them from coming to any harm.

This is why people in Thailand revered their king so sincerely. It was not just the new roads and bridges he had built, making their lives easier. It was not just his emphasis on education and national history in particular, it was not just his sending of his own medical team to treat poor people in the countryside or that he allowed many more poor Thais in the countryside to own their own farms with his land programs. It was the fact that, on numerous occasions throughout his reign, the King saved Thailand from chaos, disorder and civil war. After World War II, Burma, Vietnam, Laos and (for a time) Cambodia all got rid of their kings and people could see the result. Thailand, alone among them, always stood firm, thanks to the popularity of King Bhumibol, and easily became the most free and prosperous country of all her neighbors to the east and west. The King earned the love and respect of his people and he was able to use that love and respect for their benefit by stepping in to stop government dysfunction from damaging the whole country. He used his moral authority wisely and sparingly but always to the benefit of his people. He was a living example of what even a constitutional monarch can do if their people are fervently loyal and fervently support them.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great will always be remembered as one of the most significant and successful and beloved monarchs that Thailand has ever had in her ancient history. He has deserved all of the accolades he has received, will always be missed and will always be remembered. For the time being at least, while people come to grips with his loss, the “Land of Smiles” has become a ‘land of tears’…

Obama and America's Royal Allies

When Barrack Hussein Obama first ran for and was elected President of the United States, one could be forgiven for thinking that there was even greater pro-Obama hysteria outside of America than here at home. Around the world he was treated like a celebrity, drawing huge crowds in Britain, Germany and even being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize regardless of the minor detail of not having done anything to deserve it. However, now that his two terms in office are almost over most of that gushing adoration has died down and, looking at his administration, we can better evaluate how Obama has done in terms of dealing with the official and un-official allies of the United States. For our purposes here, we will be looking at Obama’s relationship with the monarchies of the world, almost all of which are directly or indirectly allied to the United States. The picture that emerges is, unfortunately, not a pleasant one but not one that most conservatives at least would find at all surprising as they alone seemed interested enough to try to find out what sort of man Obama really is rather than falling in love at first sight with like those on the left, both at home and abroad.

In terms of his dealings with monarchs, one of the first things that grabbed public attention in America was Obama bowing to certain monarchs. If one cares to, one can look back at the archives and see that I stuck up for our president on this occasion, the first instance being when, on a visit to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, he bowed to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, albeit rather awkwardly while simultaneously trying to shake his hand. However, that was not the end of it. Many Americans lapsed into exaggerated hysterics about how it was an offense to republican principles for the President to bow to the Emperor of Japan, while the White House responded to the issue by saying the President was simply following local custom. As I said at the time, I had and have no problem with the President showing proper respect and bowing to the Japanese Emperor but I later came to have a problem with Obama’s inconsistency on this front. Given what has happened since, I sometimes wonder if he was actually intentionally bowing at all or simply bending low to shake the Emperor’s hand, given that the Japanese monarch is considerably shorter than the President.

No, it was not his behavior toward the Emperor of Japan that was a problem for me but rather where things went from there that showed Obama was not simply being fastidious on the issue of protocol. Later, Obama bowed to another monarch, that being the King of Saudi Arabia. He bowed so low in fact that it almost seemed he was about to pick something up off the floor. But, again, no major cause for alarm. However, when he later had formal meetings with other monarchs such as the King of Sweden, the King of Norway or the King of Spain, did he ever bow to any of them? Not that I noticed and Michelle Obama committed a major faux-pas in London by actually putting her hands on the person of Her Majesty the Queen. Obviously, the bowing was not being done in an effort to follow protocol to the last detail. If not, why does it seem that Obama only shows such respect to non-western, non-Christian monarchs? And, the list does not end there as Obama has, in his own behavior and the policies of his administration, done a great deal to show that America’s royal friends are no friends of his.

We might as well begin with the United Kingdom which, while not our oldest, has certainly been our closest and most important ally. Despite being widely celebrated in the UK, with even conservatives like Tory MEP Daniel Hannan voicing support for him, Obama made it clear as soon as he took office that he was no great friend of the British. His first act upon moving into the Oval Office was to remove and send back the bust of Sir Winston Churchill that his presidential predecessor had placed there. In their first exchange of gifts, Obama sent the Queen some off-the-shelf items from the White House gift shop and an iPod loaded with his own speeches in an act which even many on the left thought arrogant and in very poor taste. These acts caused more than a few to recall how Obama had, in the books he enjoys writing about his favorite subject -himself-, related stories of how his grandfather in Kenya was supposedly tortured by British colonial authorities during the Mau Mau terrorist insurgency and whether the President might just have a strong anti-British grudge he is nursing. However, there is much more to it than mere symbolic gestures as those above.

Obama referred to the French as America’s strongest friend and ally which is language usually reserved for the British with the French traditionally, and correctly, being referred to as America’s “oldest” ally. Obama refused five requests for a private meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Israeli PM could sympathize on that one) and later, in another appallingly bad exchange of gifts, sent Brown a set of various films on DVD which would have been bad enough but to add insult to injury they were DVDs that cannot be played in Britain. Are we expected to believe that Obama and his White House team that is bursting at the seams with Ivy League graduates, hailed as the smartest administration in American history, has no knowledge or understanding of region coding? He also, after the BP oil spill and conveniently right around election time, made a point of constantly referring to BP as “British Petroleum” as if to make it more sinister and foreign sounding, regardless of the fact that no one else calls it that anymore, the company having some time ago dropped the name and stuck only with the initials to stand for “Beyond Petroleum”.

The most serious issues though, are those that deal with actual foreign policy as it relates to Great Britain. Obama has never wasted an opportunity to show his visceral dislike for the British. His primary cohort in this was his Secretary of State and current favored candidate to succeed him, Hillary Clinton. It was Clinton who pushed for the intervention in Libya only to then adopt the “lead from behind policy” and have Europe do all the heavy lifting involved. When the situation resulted in chaos, Obama was quick to blame the Europeans rather than accepting any responsibility for the actions of his own administration. Likewise, when Obama at least pretended like he wanted to go to war with Syria, he blamed British PM “Call me Dave” Cameron for failing to win a vote in the House of Commons for giving the U.S. Congress an example to follow and thus for every bit of bad news that has come out of Syria since. The one point, though, that I found most outrageous was when Argentina began rattling the saber again over the Falkland Islands in 2010, Obama sent Hillary Clinton to act as mediator and basically take the side of Argentina over Britain. Clinton no doubt agreed as it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who made Argentina a “major non-NATO ally”, and the only one in all of South America, in spite of the fact that this country has an outstanding territorial dispute with Britain, which is already an ally and which the U.S. is obligated to defend.

Finally, we have Obama’s latest effort to insert himself into the debate over Britain staying in or leaving the European Union with Obama very publicly urging British voters to vote to stay in the European Union. This, of course, is just the sort of behavior that would infuriate Americans on the left and/or the right if it were done by a foreign leader in regard to an American issue. I am a big fan of the U.K. and as much as I wish that the British would feel the same about the U.S. the fact of the matter is that Britain should tell Obama to mind his own bloody business and not try to tell them how to vote. They should be concerned with what is best for Britain, not what is best for America (that is for Americans alone to worry about). Furthermore, I cannot regard this as yet more evidence of simple bad manners since I am very, very much of the opinion that staying in the EU is bad for Britain and so, taken along with his history in office, cannot dismiss the notion that Obama is purposely advocating something that has had and will have a very negative impact on a country he clearly dislikes. It is no surprise that more than one prominent figure in the ‘Brexit’ crowd such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage (UKIP MEP) have finally been compelled by this to state openly that Obama has been consistently anti-British during his time in office.

Moving beyond Europe, where thanks to the EU national relations between America and individual countries does not count for much anymore as Brussels handles everything, we have the problematic situation in the Middle East where, despite his bowing and scraping, Obama has left the Arab monarchies feeling less than pleased with the United States government. Certainly he has been more attentive to them than to the crowned heads of Europe but for the Arab monarchies there is one overriding issue and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. For a long time there has been a long-standing tension and recurring open hostilities between Iran and the Arab states over the dominant position in the Middle East (and other than Egypt, the leading Arab states are predominately monarchies; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman). Now, one can certainly question whether or not these Arab states are genuine allies of the United States (they leave plenty of room for doubt) but the facts on paper are that such is the case and they have been greatly alarmed by the Iranians, who already had a pliant ally in Syria, expanding their influence into Iraq and they have been trying to do the same in Yemen.

This has greatly alarmed the Arabs and never have they expressed more diplomatic outrage at the United States than after Obama’s notorious “deal” concerning the nuclear program in Iran. This called for the release of billions of dollars to Iran, the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran and left little room for doubt that they will inevitably obtain nuclear weapons. Since the agreement, and in spite of it, they have also been buying more and more conventional weapons from the Russians. Of course, when it comes to Iran, the enemy they like to talk about the most is Israel but since the Islamic Revolution they have made it clear that they are the enemies of the Arab Muslims as well, referring to the Sunnis as the “heretics who hold Mecca”. Obama’s deal with Iran and his overall indecisiveness in the region so infuriated the Saudis that they turned down a temporary seat on the UN Security Council on the grounds that, thanks to Obama, it doesn’t matter anyway. By clearing the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, Obama has set the stage for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Egypt sure to obtain their own nuclear arsenals to counter that of Iran.

Moving farther to the east, we have the situation with America’s most important ally in the East Asia-Pacific region: Japan. Here, a great many people, including a great many Japanese, have been fooled by Obama’s empty gestures. He gave, as political pay-back, Japan a “celebrity” ambassador in the person of Caroline Kennedy, never mind that she has no diplomatic experience, could not speak Japanese or any such troubling details, she was a Kennedy after all, she is famous and she was given an uproarious welcome when she came to Japan. However, rather than simply representing the United States in Tokyo, Obama’s chosen ambassador said that her primary goal in Japan was to promote greater participation in politics by women in Japan. Because, it seems, that gender roles in the Land of the Rising Sun are still far too traditional for the liberals of the Obama White House. What does it say that a foreign ambassador’s stated goal upon being posted is to interfere in the internal affairs of the host country? To represent the American government is her job, to promote Japanese-American friendship is great, to promote American interests is fine but to try to tell Japanese voters what sort of people they need to elect is, again, none of her business and none of Obama’s business. And one will notice that none of Obama’s ambassadors to countries where women are treated as little more than property ever said anything similar. She has also stuck her nose where it doesn’t belong with her comments critical of fishing practices in Taiji and the Prime Minister visiting the Yasukuni Shrine.

Other countries, particularly China and Korea, have a history of protesting any time any Japanese official chooses to worship at Yasukuni Shrine but the U.S. had previously always said nothing about it, considering it an internal matter and, shocking as this may sound, none of their business where and in what way a Japanese prime minister chooses to exercise his freedom of religion. But, all of that was before Obama and thanks to Kennedy’s expression of “disappointment” other countries which had previously stayed out of the issue, took the occasion to speak up as well, piling on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The idea that someone as far to the left as Obama would find nothing to criticize in a prime minister as far to the right as Shinzo Abe was certainly naïve. What was most outrageous though was something that many in Japan cheered Obama for which was his public statement that the Senkaku Islands, which are Japanese territory but claimed by Communist China, are covered by the Japanese-American security treaty. In other words, if China decides to grab the islands, it will mean big trouble with America.

The Japanese applauded this but it was actually only a re-statement of what was already well established. What many, in all their rejoicing, failed to note was that Obama followed up that comment with the completely asinine statement that the U.S. took no official position on the territorial dispute over the islands between China and Japan. I seem to have been the only one to find this outrageous but I hope I am mistaken in that. Either way you look at it, this was an immensely outrageous thing for Obama to say. By that statement, Obama could only mean one of two things; either he meant that the Senkakus are Japanese territory and we will defend them but that could change at any time depending on how this dispute unfolds, or he just casually announced that he was pledging America’s sons and daughters to possibly give their lives in defense of a cause which he is not even sure is the right one! In any case, it shows that Obama’s attitude toward Japan has been one of tepid support and unfriendly meddling. An aide to Prime Minister Abe went so far as to say that relations were better when there was a Republican in the White House.

Lastly in the region, there is also the case of Obama’s disgraceful record toward the Kingdom of Thailand. The United States and Thailand have been official allies since 1966 but have had friendly relations going back much farther with King Mongkut of Siam famously offering to send President Lincoln a herd of war elephants so he could fight the Civil War properly and illustrated at the worst of times by the United States not responding in kind when Thailand declared war on the United States in World War II. Things began to go wrong when, again, Obama decided to meddle in the affairs of an American ally after the 2014 military coup. Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s successor, John Kerry caused great offense in the halls of power in Bangkok when he issued a statement expressing how “disappointed” he was in the actions of the Royal Thai Army and that, “this act will have negative implications for the U.S.-Thai relationship, especially for our relationship with the Thai military”.

The Obama State Department has since then made numerous statements and taken actions which have all offended and aggravated our friends in Thailand and all because the military government is out-of-step with Obama’s liberal worldview of how things should be done. And it cannot be said that this has nothing to do with the King, a great man revered in Thailand who was born in America and supported the United States during the Vietnam conflict. The King officially appointed the Thai general who led the coup to the office of prime minister in 2014, effectively giving it his endorsement and was totally correct to do so. Not only is the meddling of Obama unseemly and uncalled for, it is also putting him on the wrong side. The military took action because of the violent acts of radical leftists who were upset that their favorite government had been brought down, a government that was marked by corruption and criminal behavior on a rampant scale. By being so critical of the current government in Thailand, Obama has offended a long-standing friend and pushed them closer toward Communist China which is ever looking to increase its influence in Southeast Asia, made all the easier since Russia abandoned Vietnam in favor of the Chinese. Thailand is our only solid friend in the region and Obama, in true, holier-than-thou, Wilsonian fashion, has needlessly antagonized them and made things worse for Thailand as well as the United States.

It is not terribly dissimilar from his actions in regard to the republican government in Egypt where Obama pushed for the removal of an official Arab ally because he did not meet his lofty, liberal standards, only to then see the country fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization so radical even Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE have labeled it a terrorist organization). If Obama knew anything about Thailand he would know that the occasional coup is not exactly unprecedented and not the harbinger of disaster as it often is in other countries. He would know that the U.S. military and the Royal Thai military have worked closely together for decades and that the leaders of the Royal Thai Army are not power-hungry tyrants-in-waiting but are largely honorable men, loyal to their King, who want the best for their country and took action to save it from the disruptive, even terrorist and disloyal elements that were threatening it.

Then again, perhaps I am being unkind to Mr. Obama. Perhaps he knows the situation better than that. Perhaps he knows what the “red shirts” were all about, perhaps he approved of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his socialist, welfare-state policies, his easy loans and big spending that made Thai farmers dependent on the government, his cronyism, his rampant bribery and the violence and intimidation used by the supporters of the prime minister and his family. Maybe he sees nothing wrong with the extremely dubious loyalty of his crowd to the fundamentals of Thailand. If so, then he is guilty of nothing less than cheering on the ruination of an American ally and is doing the best he can, short of direct intervention, to kill any chance at recovery. However, whether his policy is malicious or simply ignorant, it has certainly been negative for both countries involved and has only served the interests of powers that have only the worst of intentions for both the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand in the long-run.

There are other issues that could be highlighted, such as Obama’s killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, even going so far, as he did with BP, to invoke national bigotry by constantly complaining how the pipeline would primarily be to the benefit of Canada rather than the United States but, then again, that was when Stephen Harper was in office and I’m sure now that little Justin Trudeau has taken over his opinion of Canada has greatly improved. However, I think the case has been well made. President Obama has certainly been bad for this country and his constant habit of “reaching out” to our enemies while snubbing or taking sides against our allies, has certainly been well demonstrated and had negative consequences. The only problem I have in pointing this out is that, while it upsets me a great deal, from numerous on-line comments I see on a daily basis, I am also constantly having to face the dilemma that there is so much mindless anti-Americanism out there as to mean that in this twisted, upside-down world where many people seem to hate their friends and admire those who want to kill them, that maybe Obama’s antagonistic attitude toward our royal allies will have the opposite effect that it otherwise would have. I hope that is not the case and hope that there is a silent majority out there who wants to be friends rather than enemies but, if that is not the case, change may soon be coming with the next presidential election.

Thailand in World War II

The history of the Kingdom of Thailand during World War II is not a popular or widely-known subject and, yet, it was a critical period in the story of the Thai nation and, though many miss it, the Thai monarchy in particular. Relatively few people are aware that it was the war-time regime that changed the name of the country from Siam to Thailand, that it came at a time of great upheaval and trepidation for the Thai monarchy with some wondering whether the revered institution would survive at all. Relatively few people are aware that the Kingdom of Thailand, the “Land of Smiles” was a member of the Axis, albeit a minor one, going to war with the Allies and even having its own period of wartime expansion at the expense of Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Malaysia. One thing that can be noticed (and which very long-time readers here might just recall) is that monarchies were well-represented among the Axis powers, or at least seemed to be. There was Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Manchuria, Thailand and so on. Yet, the numbers alone can be misleading. In Italy, everyone knew it was Mussolini and not the King who ruled the country. The Emperor of Japan tried to keep his distance from politics, Hungary was a monarchy in name only, with no monarch, the King of Romania supported the Allies, the King of Bulgaria tried to stay out of the conflict and the designated King of Croatia never set foot in the country. Likewise, with Thailand, the King was absent during this period and would certainly not have held much power had he been present.

Prajadhipok signs the first constitution

In order to understand the situation of Thailand in World War II, we must go back to 1932. Mussolini was already in power in Rome but Hitler had yet to assume office in Germany. The year before Japanese forces had occupied Manchuria after the famous “Mukden Incident” and in Siam, as it was known at the time, there was a coup. That alone would not be seen as very remarkable as, in the recent history of Thailand, the country has become rather known for having a coup every now and then, and usually handling them quite well compared to most other countries that have them. However, the 1932 coup in Siam was different, it was not just a coup against the government but against the monarchy; specifically, King Prajadhipok. It was led by a clique of civilian and military elites who called themselves the “People’s Party”. They were backed by a movement of people, many young and western educated people, who looked with admiration on the French and Russian Revolutions. The coup, thankfully, did not go as far as either of those horrors but it did give Siam a constitution and bring to an end about seven hundred years of absolute monarchy. King Prajadhipok, who had instituted reforms himself as soon as he came to the throne, was simply informed after the fact that a coup had taken place and he was obliged to decree the new constitution. Distressed and fearful of the personal safety of himself and his wife, within a few years he abdicated and left the country, worried that Siam was not ready for democracy. Not a few would argue that subsequent events might have proven the King correct.

There was a failed royalist counter-coup in 1933 and the fallout from that probably helped persuade the King to abdicate and leave the country in 1935. He would die in exile in England in 1941 (soon to be, officially, “enemy” soil) and was succeeded by his nephew King Ananda Mahidol, who was only nine years old. The young King of Siam was to have a troubled and tragically short life. His parents were traveling, studying and living abroad when he was born in Germany (his younger brother, the current King, was born in the United States). His father died when he was only four and, in fear of his safety, his grandmother suggested that he not return home after the 1932 coup that stripped the monarchy of its power. As such, the prince spent most of his earliest years in Switzerland. According to the new constitution, it was up to the cabinet to choose a successor to the throne when King Prajadhipok abdicated and it was they who chose Ananda Mahidol to be king, Rama VIII. Siam had, of course, not really become democratic at all but was being ruled by a select group of elites with military backing and they realized that having a child monarch who was living and studying in another continent would be no threat to their continued hold on power.

King Ananda Mahidol

With their former King living in England and their current King living in Switzerland, Siam was effectively a monarchy without a monarch. With royal absolutism having been cast aside, power in the country was up for grabs and the man who ultimately grabbed it was Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram (Phibun). He came to power in 1938, the first year that King Ananda Mahidol, at age thirteen, actually visited his country (along with his younger brother Prince Bhumibol Adulyadej), and quickly consolidated his power as leader of the government and commander of the army. King Vajiravudh had, in his time, promoted the cause of Siamese nationalism but when Phibun did the same, combining it with a cult of personality centered on himself, it seemed to take on “fascist” overtones in the eyes of most observers. His portrait was seen everywhere, portraits of the former King Prajadhipok were banned and in 1939 he changed the name of the Kingdom of Siam to the Kingdom of Thailand. Phibun ran what was, effectively, a military dictatorship and, indeed, since the 1932 coup the Thai military has been known as much for its role in politics as in national defense. The Phibun regime also began a noticeably more pro-Japanese and anti-Chinese foreign policy. Phibun was also increasingly antagonistic with the western powers while at the same time pushing his own people to adopt more western habits such as wearing western clothes and using silverware.

When World War II broke out in Europe and France came under German attack, Phibun saw an opportunity for Thai expansion. Fighting broke out on the border between French Indochina and Thailand in October of 1940 and in January of 1941 Phibun launched a full-scale invasion of Laos and Cambodia. The French colonial army was outmatched and fared poorly. Most of Laos was overrun relatively quickly and though more resistance was offered in Cambodia, the French only won a single significant victory in the Franco-Thai War before the Empire of Japan intervened and brought both sides together for peace talks in Saigon. Japan backed Thailand and as Germany backed Japan the French had little choice but to concede to most Thai demands. Border territories in southern Laos and northwest Cambodia were ceded to Thailand and soon the Vichy French regime was obliged to allow Japan to occupy Indochina. However, many Thais were more concerned than pleased over the expansion of their country. The war had earned the Phibun regime the enmity of Britain and France and left Thailand with no leverage against Japan. Phibun tried to win over the British and Americans but it was to no avail given all that had happened and the increasing Japanese military build-up in the region.

Marshal Phibun

At the end of 1941 the Empire of Japan launched its massive offensive throughout the Pacific and Southeast Asia. Japanese forces invaded Thailand but after only a few hours of fighting Phibun ordered a halt to all resistance and agreed to allow Japan to occupy Thailand in order to carry out military operations against the British in Burma and Malaysia. A military alliance was signed between the Kingdom of Thailand and the Empire of Japan, giving Japan full access to Thai military bases, road, rail and communication networks. Thailand had chosen its side and, in the wake of that initial Japanese offensive, it must have seemed that Phibun had picked a winner. Japan duly rewarded Thailand with border territory from Burma and the addition of four provinces in the south from Malaysia. In early 1942 the Thai government officially declared war on the Allied nations. Britain responded by declaring war in return while the American government responded to the news that Thailand had declared war on the United States by basically laughing, saying, “that’s cute” and ignoring them.

Actually, the internal political divisions of Thailand allowed the Allies to respond differently. The Thai ambassador in Washington DC, an aristocrat who disapproved of the Phibun regime’s alliance with Japan, refused to deliver the declaration of war and the United States refused to recognized the actions of the Phibun government as legitimate. The regent for King Ananda Mahidol had not signed the declaration of war and so, lacking royal approval, the American government considered it invalid. A “Free Thai” movement (Seri Thai) was formed to coordinate underground resistance to the Japanese. The Thai embassy in Japan actually supplied information to the American OSS (fore-runner of the CIA) and though Britain had declared war on Thailand, the British also worked with Thai exiles that opposed the Japanese occupation of their homeland. The widow of King Prajadhipok, Queen Rambai Barni, in England became a leading member of the Free Thai Movement. The internal opposition to the Phibun regime steadily increased as the glow of the initial Japanese victories dissipated and the effects of the war began to set in. There was only one major market for exports, only one source of imports (Japan in both cases), the economy went into nosedive and Allied aircraft were soon bombing Bangkok. Those in the underground at least also knew what the war situation was, that the Allies were pushing forward and nowhere were the Japanese able to stop their steady advance.

The King in 1938

In late 1942 there was actually a small skirmish between Thai villagers and Japanese troops. Japan dispatched a new commander for the garrison in Thailand and began making an effort to improve relations but, of course, as the war situation worsened for Japan this became increasingly difficult. The Empire of Japan had established the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” as the framework for what they expected a post-war Asia to look like after a Japanese victory and it became the centerpiece of the Japanese justification for the conflict, the realization of their goal to destroy colonialism and eradicate the White race in Asian lands. However, as conditions became worse for Japan, tensions arose between the government, which wanted to foster pan-Asian unity, and the military which wanted Japan and the Japanese war effort to have priority. The government did not want to squeeze occupied lands too much and risk creating an anti-Japanese backlash, however, many in the military not unjustly reasoned that Japan was the one actually fighting the war and so the needs of Japan should come before all else. In Thailand, Phibun began to realize that he was bound to a country that was certain to lose and relations between his government and Japan began to cool as the war dragged on. At the same time, Phibun tried to win Allied good will by such actions as releasing Chinese prisoners being held in Thailand.

It was to no avail as in 1944 the National Assembly removed Phibun from power, taking their example from the removal of Mussolini the previous year. The next prime minister pledged public support for Japan but in private backed the Free Thai Movement. Free Thai forces made plans and preparations for a massive uprising against the Japanese in 1945 but the atomic bombings and subsequent unconditional surrender of Japan prevented this. British-Indian troops moved in to occupy Thailand and take the surrender of Japanese forces in the country and Thailand was forced to return the territory they had gained by allying with Japan. Phibun was arrested and, under pressure from the Allies, put on trial for collaboration with the Axis powers. However, he was acquitted and in 1948, following another coup, actually became prime minister again, renewing his anti-Chinese campaign which was much more popular with the Allies that it had been before. Overall, there was some division over how to deal with Thailand since, while Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand etc had declared war on the country, the United States had not and while the British and Commonwealth countries wanted punishing terms on Thailand, the United States opposed these. As such, America made no demands on Thailand while the kingdom had to negotiate separate peace treaties with the U.K. and Australia, including reparations (in the form of rice shipments) to Malaysia.

King Ananda Mahidol

Finally, in December of 1945 the young King Ananda Mahidol was able to visit his country again and was soon back to stay. He was immediately hugely popular, being untainted by involvement in the war and as such could be a focus for unity for both the pro-Japanese and pro-Allied factions. He made a major impact in calming ethnic tensions by visiting the Chinese section of Bangkok as during the Phibun regime and Japanese occupation the Chinese minority in Thailand had been singled out for exclusion and vilification. However, the reign of the beloved young king was not to last long as the following year he was found dead with a gunshot wound in the palace. Officially the cause of death was announced as accidental suicide but mystery and speculation about the death of King Ananda Mahidol rose up quickly and has never completely gone away. He was succeeded on the throne by his younger brother, King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, who went on to become one of the most revered and beloved monarchs in all of Thai history. Later, after the next coup by Phibun, a Thai court ruled that the late King had been assassinated though those accused of the crime were not found guilty and no one has ever been punished for the supposed crime. The only survivor of the event is the current King who has always held to his opinion that it was simply a tragic accident.

World War II was a critical period for Thailand. The power of the monarchy had been shaken by the 1932 coup, a king had abdicated and left the country in fear of his life. Siam, soon to be Thailand, rushed to become like other countries but the result was a military dictatorship followed by a succession of governments dominated by political in-fighting and one coup after another, a cycle which still continues today. Thailand has never known the sort of order that existed before 1932 to date. Phibun gained no small amount of popularity for his actions during the war and expanding the territory of Thailand. Given some of his actions, a few historians have speculated that he might have done away with the monarchy had events unfolded differently. As it was, Thailand suffered considerably from the war but still emerged better off than most would have expected. Despite being an enemy of the victorious Allies, Thailand was not harshly punished, its leaders were not prosecuted and it maintained its independence. The arrival of the handsome, young King after the war was like a savior returning to his people. The hardships of military rule as well as the chaos and often criminality of the civilian regimes inadvertently worked together to make the monarchy more revered and even more politically critical than anyone around in 1932 would have thought possible. Even while Thailand remains a constitutional monarchy, the King has been able to wield considerably more influence than any other national leader because he alone is regarded as being concerned with Thailand as a whole rather than himself or a particular faction. Thailand entered World War II with the monarchy at its lowest point but it ultimately emerged from the conflict and post-war chaos as strong as it had ever been.

Consort Profile: Queen Suriyothai of Siam

One of, if not the, most famous royal consorts in Thai history is undoubtedly Queen Suriyothai of Siam from the Ayutthaya period of Thai history. Her fame is certainly well deserved and derives from her wisdom, her courage and her devotion to both her country and her family. In the person of Sri Suriyothai the Kingdom of Thailand has a warrior-queen to match the Trung sisters of Vietnam, Isabella of Castile, Eleanor of Aquitaine or Boudica of the Celts. Sri Suriyothai displayed prudent judgment and compassion balanced with an ability to make hard decisions in hard times on the political front and, when the greatest crisis of war came, she was not afraid to strap on her armor, mount her war elephant and go charging into battle. A stupa reliquary was built for her after her death and to this day she remains one of the greatest heroines in Thai history. In 2001 she even became the star of her own biographical film, “The Legend of Suriyothai” which was the most expensive Thai film ever made up to that time and partly funded by HM Queen Sirikit. Her story is certainly one made to order for anyone enthralled by drama, intrigue, romance and the clash of arms as well as by figures truly worthy of admiration.

Pimolrat Pisolyabutr as Suriyothai

No documentation of the early years of Queen Suriyothai have survived to the present day. In fact, only a few lines concerning her ultimate fate at the climax of her life have been handed down to us. Exactly where or when she was born is unknown. Because of this lack of hard facts, there has been the freedom for numerous legends to grow up around this iconic royal consort. One of the most popular is that she was of minor royal rank who, despite loving another prince, was married to the future King Maha Chakkraphat. Such a story may or may not be true but, if so, it certainly underlines the immense sense of duty Queen Suriyothai felt to be so devoted to a husband who was not her first choice and who she never completely loved. If it is not true, the later events of her life would seem to provide concrete evidence of just how deeply connected she felt to her royal husband. It is also supposed, and evidence would seem to support this, that Queen Suriyothai was a very strong and independent-minded woman. Given what we do know about her, this fits perfectly with the image of her character. She was a woman who was firm in her opinions, adept at seeing to the heart of matters, strong in her convictions and sense of duty as well as being immensely courageous.

To put Queen Suriyothai in a bit of context, throughout much of this period the Kingdom of Siam or Kingdom of Ayutthaya (as it is sometimes called, after its capital city) was the dominant power in Southeast Asia. At its peak, the kings of Ayutthaya ruled over all of what is today Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, parts of southern China, northern Malaysia and a considerable slice of eastern Burma. In Vietnam the Le Dynasty was about to give way to the Mac Dynasty and was in a great deal of turmoil which left the Kingdom of Burma as the primary rival in the region to Ayutthaya. In the early 1500’s the Toungoo Dynasty was starting a period of success and expansion that would create a Burmese empire stretching across Southeast Asia. Conquest was the order of the day and Burma was rapidly becoming the most militarily powerful force in the region. The story of Queen Suriyothai also fits in quite well with other military heroines of Southeast Asia such as Trieu Au and the Trung Sisters of Vietnam who gained fame for leading wars of liberation against the occupying forces of Imperial China. Southeast Asia was somewhat distinct in this way in that there was a tradition of strong female leaders, often fighting alongside of or to avenge their husbands, it did not upset the existing Confucian social structure but was enough to bring about a change in the way strong women figures were viewed in comparison to other regions.

Maha Chakkraphat

Sri Suriyothai showed her strength early on, before her husband came to the throne, probably saving his life. It was a chaotic time for Siam with Ayutthaya riddled with intrigue and conspiracy. Prince Thianracha (as King Maha Chakkraphat was known before taking the throne) was the uncle of the young King Yodfa. His mother, Queen Sudachan, was the real power in the country as regent and it is widely believed that she had her own son killed in order to put her lover on the throne, King Khun Worawongsathirat. Prince Thianracha was named co-regent but Sri Suriyothai suspected danger and that the Queen was setting him up to be killed as well. So, to save the true royal line, she persuaded her husband to enter a Buddhist monastery where no assassin could touch him. A palace coup by leading nobles later brought down the usurper and made Prince Thianracha the heir to the throne. When he ascended the throne as King Maha Chakkraphat, Queen Suriyothai was beside him, a woman who had always given good advice and who had probably saved his life. All of this also illustrates why Siam was in a weakened position, a position which all but invited attack by the powerful forces of a unifying Burma.

It was early in the reign of King Maha Chakkraphat in 1548 that Siam was attacked by King Tabinshwehti of Burma. This ambitious young monarch had been constantly at war since 1534 and had a long succession of victories behind him when he turned his attention toward Siam. With a large army, veteran commanders and many modern weapons purchased from Portuguese merchants, King Tabinshwehti commanded what was probably the most fearsome armed force of the time and he had little trouble sweeping aside the small Siamese garrisons that guarded the border. Upon learning of the threat, King Maha Chakkraphat ordered his forces to rally at Suphanburi, west of Ayutthaya to organize and prepare to meet the enemy. In the meantime, King Tabinshwehti and his Burmese army moved inexorably forward. The fortified city of Kanchanaburi was found unoccupied and as the Burmese marched east they easily captured the villages of Ban Thuan, Kaphan Tru and Chorakhe Sam Phan.

Queen Suriyothai in combat

To speed his conquest, the King of Burma divided his army into three columns led by the future Burmese King Bayinnaung, the Viceroy of Prome and the Governor of Bassein. The city of Uthong fell followed by the villages of Don Rakhang and Nong Sarai. Finally the Burmese reached Suphanburi where the Siamese troops offered fierce and determined resistance. However, they were hopelessly outmatched and were finally forced to retreat towards Ayutthaya. The King of Burma pursued them and closed in on the capital city, encamping his army north of Ayutthaya on the Lumpli plain. The King of Siam gathered his forces and rode out to meet the enemy in what was to be, not exactly a full scale battle, but more of a probing action. Taking his sons with him, Queen Suriyothai was not going to be kept from the side of her husband. With her daughter, the two disguised themselves in male clothes and armor and, mounted on a war elephant of their own, rode with the army into the battle. The Burmese force was the column of the Viceroy of Prome and, as was custom, the Viceroy and the King of Siam charged out in front of their armies on their war elephants to fight each other in single combat.

The two men clashed but, at a critical point, the elephant of King Maha Chakkraphat panicked and bolted from the fray. The Viceroy gave chase with the King an easy target on the back of a frightened, stampeding elephant. Queen Suriyothai spotted the danger and heroically raced to the rescue. Charging her animal in between the two opposing commanders, she warded off the blow that would likely have killed her husband. However, the Burmese spear fell on her instead, cutting her shoulder and chest open. Not long after, the heroic queen died, having sacrificed herself to save the life of her King and husband. The King was able to rally his forces and fight off the Burmese long enough for an orderly withdrawal back to Ayutthaya. He would eventually die still fighting to take Siam back from Burmese control. Queen Suriyothai, however, would go down in history as one of the greatest heroes in the history of the Kingdom of Thailand for her courage, determination and self-sacrifice. Her husband built the first monument in her honor, a stupa and today there is a memorial park near the old capital of Ayutthaya featuring a large statue of the courageous Queen on her war elephant, charging into battle to save the life of the King. Her story and example provided inspiration for generations afterward and no doubt will continue to do so as long as it is told.