History of civil-military relations in Southeast Asia

Last updated

Civil-military relations in Southeast Asia vary from nation to nation, but possess consistent themes in military dominance and control in several sectors of every country's secular operations. In several Southeast Asia n countries, such as Indonesia and Thailand, the military exerts its influence in economic affairs as well, with former military officials running many vital corporations and industries in both nations. In the broadest sense, the way that military command corresponds to civil governance, and in particular how the military potentially possesses executive power in these different countries, comprises this area of interest.

Contents

In Southeast Asia, the various states possess fairly different forms of governance and military control. In Vietnam, Singapore, and Malaysia, there is a fair amount of civilian control. Meanwhile, Myanmar is an example of a completely different case, where the military possesses nearly absolute control. Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines provide a more middle-ground view, where there is a degree of civil-military relations that hinge on both parties’ cooperation. [1]

Some scholars oppose the relationship between the military and the economy, preferring to see the two entities completely separated and independent on the basis that military control of the economy can completely hamper civilian control in governmental processes and decision-making. While attempts at democracy have been made in the region, some sources believe that they have not been substantial or whole-hearted enough. [2]

The extent of military power in a nation's economy can extend to numerous sectors and include military control over something as large as a corporation, or even on an individual level in which soldiers seek to reap profits for themselves.

History

After World War II, several new states within the region began to regain power or emerge altogether. Yet these collection of states were ultimately frail and weak, viewed as susceptible to coups or any forms of military intervention. In the mid-20th century, many of these countries were susceptible to multiple coups and insurgencies in the aftermath of World War II. In many of these cases, the governments responded with military action in order to maintain stability and overthrow those who were seeking to harm the political regime. [3]

Indonesia

During World War II, when Japan had occupied Indonesia, the nation had finally received some form of sovereignty and self-control when the Dutch had assigned Indonesians to posts that only Dutch officials had formerly controlled . Later, when anti-Japanese sentiments were much more prominent in the country because of the brutal measures that the Japanese military was taking, the country declared its independence on August 17, 1945 at 10:00 A.M. [4]

The military struggle after Indonesia's declaration of independence essentially helped the evolution of the armed forces in the nation. At one point a nascent entity, the Indonesian military had to expel the Dutch from their nation in order to protect their new sovereignty and fundamentally establish their independence from the Dutch occupiers.

A rivalry later between the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and Major General Suharto resulted in a military coup in which Suharto would gain a substantial amount of power over the Indonesian government. As part of his regime, he hoped to further destroy the boundary between military and civilian leadership, effectively usurping power from the civilian aspect of government in favor of bolstering the military's influence. This new regime led by Suharto would last from the coup in 1965 until 1998, when many Indonesians were disillusioned by poor economic conditions and the many changes that the military was making in the wake of the Asian financial crisis during that era. [5]

At one point in history, Indonesia's military was one of the most powerful in Southeast Asia. Under dwifungsi, a concept that entails that the military should possess an active role in both politics and business, many Indonesian military officials believed that they had a right to divulge some of their investments into economic and political ventures. [6]

Vietnam

Much of Vietnam's military history can be traced back to the Nguyen Dynasty. The Emperor Gia Long in 1802 defeated all of his opponents and for the first time managed to unify the country. At this time, the army dominated most of the state's activities and the government, allowing for a legacy of military rule as a precedent for the nation's history. French control in the country essentially diminished the control that the military had, but nearly all power at the time was delegated to military officials and for military expenditure. [7]

At first, the Vietnamese army remained underemployed in Southern Vietnam, and in order to capitalize on this, several military figures had a very active political presence. Indeed, under President Diem, military officials who focused solely on military matters were never promoted nor given special attention or treatment; only the officers who focused on the political facet of their positions were able to be promoted and move up in the ranks. [8] President Diem would later be removed from power after a military coup.

In Vietnam, the Vietnam People's Army (VPA) at first possessed numerous small farms and other small ventures in order to fund their propagation. Over time, however, their jurisdiction involved greater, more fiscally stressing projects such as construction and development. Later, the VPA aimed to make these military corporations more efficient by setting up economic defense zones in every region of the country. [9]

Later, the military was involved in numerous reconstruction projects that ranged from different industries such as agriculture, industry, communications, and transport. In 1993, nearly 70,000 soldiers had full-time employment in a wide array of commercial enterprises, and local militia had allegedly set up roughly 160 enterprises as well, with construction and repair being among the most popular businesses that soldiers engaged in. [10]

Between 1988 and 1993, the army size was cut in half, and the defense budget was slashed by two-thirds. [11] The Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) attempted to shift the focus of the VPA toward national development and encourage more economic projects, a movement that was sparked in 1986 and dubbed doi moi. Military-owned enterprises were the most notable outcome of this new policy approach.

One venture of note involved the VPA's creation of its Special Operations Unit, which attempted to engage in gemstone mining while simultaneously defending various mining sites and projects. By 1993, there were estimated to be over 300 army-run commercial businesses in Vietnam, each completing a variety of tasks. One such initiative included army-run factories that assisted in the production of a variety of commodity goods, a business that only increased in activity and productivity in the early 1990s, as various army enterprises attempted to create a greater variety of goods that ranged from televisions, computers, and raincoats. [12]

Myanmar

Much of Myanmar's early history is reflective of quite a productive military presence; many of the earlier kings were military leaders.

The territory of the kingdom of Burma was taken over by the British in three wars and incorporated into British India. Burma regained her sovereignty on January 4, 1948, following decades of anti-colonial resistance, after Aung San, the leader of Burma's independence movement, and the Labour government in London, agreed on a peaceful transfer of power in the Aung San-Attlee Agreement.

After gaining independence, the Burmese army began to view the Israeli military with admiration and hoped to emulate their model. Particularly of interest to the Burmese were Israel's universal registration and civilian military service programs. [13]

In modern history, Myanmar is the only country in the Southeast Asian region that possesses a purely military regime that simultaneously controls the political arena. Contrary to the constitution's language, which seemed to propose a democratic form of governance, military dominance became the norm in the country, leaving little room for civilian cooperation in governmental affairs. Reorganization efforts lead to state building, which involved rebuilding the military and organizing and channeling resources. [14] Because the military is the dominant political force in the country, civil services and political parties are not very evident or widespread in Myanmar. Despite the fact that there were elections held in 2010, the military still held the power to nominate its representatives to 25% of the seats in parliament.

There are, however, factions within the military power that all vie for political dominance. With the civilian aspect of joint-governance absent, unlike in other countries in the region, nearly all dissent and power struggles emerge from the military. [15]

Singapore

In the mid-20th century, there were many British officials in Singapore, and many within the country believed that it would be unnecessary to invest heavily in defense in the near-future. [16] However, once British forces withdrew from Singapore, the country turned to model Israel's method of defense in order to protect itself externally. Thus, the country adopted universal conscription, a method that would provide a low-budget military while simultaneously allowing resources to pool into alternative uses such as economic development. [17]

The People's Action Party (PAP) additionally sought further measures in their Total Defence concept. This theory consisted of five separate philosophies to help aid security measures: military, civil, economic, social, and psychological. The defense and well-being of Singapore, then, was reliant not only on the military presence and power, but also on civilian leadership and collaboration with the military. [18]

Thailand

While military presence in Thailand was not always conspicuous, it really started to fully develop in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Prior to this period, the military served a fairly ceremonial role rather than a defensive one. By 1915, however, the Thai military grew to roughly 30,000 soldiers, with total expenditure on national defense growing to include nearly one-quarter of the Thai budget. [19]

After a military coup in 1932, commoners and other Thai were finally given a chance to ascend the ranks in military posts. Up to the coup, nearly half of all officers were a part of the royal family, but afterwards, this figure dropped to 3 percent, with more commoners receiving higher ranks and a greater representation of the Thai people on a geographical basis becoming more involved in military affairs. A large number of military developments after the coup sprouted as well, including an initiative to increase the size of the Thai navy substantially. [20]

In the more modern era, Thai military officials now have a fairly substantial role in the political arena. These officials believe that the fate of the nation depends upon them, and that they are justified in their actions in displacing leaders, laws, and constitutions among other things, all in the name of upholding the best interests of the Thai nation and people. [21]

In the 1980s, the military attempted to bring civilian leaders into more positions of power while still remaining at the forefront of state activity. This plan, however, was a guise to simply have the democratic reform in the country perceive that there was an increase in civilian participation in government along with a desired reduction in military influence. The military, however, could then capitalize on its role in rural economic development and spread propaganda pertaining to the military's democratic role. [22] The Thai military hoped to elude the civilian leadership and find different means of exerting their power and influence so that they could advance their agenda.

In 1990, however, civilian leadership in Thailand attempted to prove its dominance and control as the primary actor in the political scene, and with the crackdown on mass protests in the nation ensued, which culminated in the elimination of the civilian government Chatichai Choonhavan, the military's role in politics essentially diminished and left the foreground of the national political scene. The military still upheld its other duties as a defensive actor, but lost much of its political sway in the national scene. [23]

Both the civilians and the military in Thailand have each shared power in modern Thai history, with one side gaining more influence while the other's diminishes only to have that balance shifted inevitably. Much of the nation's history has evolved from a series of coups that have upset the balance of power, either providing more influence directly to the military or conferring that power to civilian leadership.

Cambodia

The modern Cambodian army has emerged from the French forces that used to inhabit the region. At first the military was composed primarily of French soldiers, but by the mid-20th century, native Cambodians began to become more involved in the military. Guerilla units were commonly used in order to dispel local communists, but when Cambodia was granted complete independence in 1954 after the Geneva Agreement, guerrilla activity waned. [24]

Because service in the armed forces is desirable in Cambodia, due to security, good compensation, and miscellaneous benefits, Cambodia never practiced conscription because many citizens volunteered their service.

Up until 1970, there was minimal involvement of the Cambodian military in political affairs. Because of the Vietnamese pressure on Cambodia in the early 1970s, greater foreign aid was requisite as the country was unable to sustain itself, and the United States pledged millions of dollars in aid in order to assist Cambodia. Yet this aid did little to alleviate fears or to quell the rising communist sentiments, so martial law was instituted in order to subdue the situation. [25]

Criticism of military influence in politics and the economy

In Indonesia, the military has influence over and controls numerous businesses, which provides the military with an outside source of additional, independent income. While the government passed legislation in 2004 that within five years, by 2009, the businesses would be transferred entirely to the hands of the government, or be shut down. [26] According to some accounts, the failure to fully enact and enforce this law encumbers military accountability. Sagoeom Tamboen, a military spokesman in Indonesia, told sources that military reform is ongoing. [27]

In Vietnam, some criticized the diversion of military interests toward business enterprise and away from defense, claiming that VPA involvement in reconstruction would ultimately harm the nation if there were threats to national security that were not receiving full attention. [28] Yet not all were against this form of news in the country—in fact, a news agency even claimed that by enforcing the military regime and its economic control, national defense would ultimately be secured and become less of an issue. [29] A panel later met in Vietnam to discuss not whether the effects of the military on the economy were worthwhile, but instead in order to find ways to produce more effective results with the military's involvement in economic affairs. [30]

General criticism toward military intervention and involvement in economic affairs had led to the conclusion that military officers who are involved in government do not attempt to stimulate economic growth and change. In Indonesia and Thailand, attempts to increase economic growth have been given greater priority than a more equitable redistribution of income. However, military governments seem to provide stable and flexible systems, and perform fairly adequately in terms of stimulating and providing means for economic growth and expansion. [31] Yet because the military attempts to gain extra income through these alternative economic ventures, these practices may culminate in corruption. There is no real transparent budget, leading to potential cases of fraud and inefficiencies.

Related Research Articles

Myanmar Country in Southeast Asia

Myanmar or Burma, officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, is a country in Southeast Asia. Myanmar is bordered by Bangladesh and India to its northwest, China to its northeast, Laos and Thailand to its east and southeast, and the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal to its south and southwest. Myanmar is the largest country in Mainland Southeast Asia and the 10th largest in Asia by area. As of 2017, the population was about 54 million. Its capital city is Naypyidaw, and its largest city is Yangon (Rangoon).

Southeast Asia Subregion of Asia

Southeast Asia or Southeastern Asia is the geographical southeastern subregion of Asia, consisting of the regions that are south of China, southeast of the Indian subcontinent and north-west of Australia. Southeast Asia is bordered to the north by East Asia, to the west by South Asia and the Bay of Bengal, to the east by Oceania and the Pacific Ocean, and to the south by Australia and the Indian Ocean. Apart from the British Indian Ocean Territory and two out of 26 atolls of Maldives in South Asia, Southeast Asia is the only other subregion of Asia that lies partly within the Southern Hemisphere. The majority of the subregion is still in the Northern Hemisphere. East Timor and the southern portion of Indonesia are the only parts that are south of the Equator.

Thailand Country in Southeast Asia

Thailand, formerly known as Siam, and officially the Kingdom of Thailand, is a country in Southeast Asia. It is located at the centre of the Indochinese Peninsula, spanning 513,120 square kilometres (198,120 sq mi), with a population of over 66 million people. Thailand is bordered to the north by Myanmar and Laos, to the east by Laos and Cambodia, to the south by the Gulf of Thailand and Malaysia, and to the west by the Andaman Sea and the southern extremity of Myanmar. It also shares maritime borders with Vietnam in the Gulf of Thailand to the southeast, and Indonesia and India on the Andaman Sea to the southwest. Bangkok is the nation's capital and largest city. Nominally, Thailand is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy; however, in recent history, its government has experienced multiple coups and periods of military dictatorships.

History of Thailand Aspect of Southeast-Asian history

The Tai ethnic group migrated into mainland Southeast Asia over a period of centuries. The word Siam may have originated from Pali or Sanskrit श्याम or Mon ရာမည, probably the same root as Shan and Ahom. Chinese: 暹羅; pinyin: Xiānluó was the name for the northern kingdom centred on Sukhothai and Sawankhalok. To the Thai, the name has mostly been Mueang Thai.

The foreign relations of Thailand are handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand.

History of Southeast Asia Aspect of Asian history

The history of Southeast Asia covers the people of Southeast Asia from prehistory to the present in two distinct sub-regions: Mainland Southeast Asia and Maritime Southeast Asia. Mainland Southeast Asia comprises Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam whereas Maritime Southeast Asia comprises Brunei, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, East Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore.

Kriangsak Chamanan Thai politician

Kriangsak Chamanan served as prime minister of Thailand from 1977 to 1980. After staging a successful coup, he was asked to become Prime Minister in 1977, he ruled till 1980 and is credited with "steering Thailand to democracy" in a time where internally, communist insurgents are rampant and neighbouring countries have turned to communist rule following the communist takeover of Vietnam: South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. He died on 23 December 2003, aged 86.

Illegal logging Harvest, transportation, purchase, or sale of timber in violation of laws

Illegal logging is the harvest, transportation, purchase or sale of timber in violation of laws. The harvesting procedure itself may be illegal, including using corrupt means to gain access to forests; extraction without permission, or from a protected area; the cutting down of protected species; or the extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits. Illegal logging is a driving force for a number of environmental issues such as deforestation, soil erosion and biodiversity loss which can drive larger scale environmental crisis such as climate change and other forms of environmental degradation.

Free Thai Movement

Free Thai Movement was a Thai underground resistance movement against Imperial Japan during World War II. Seri Thai were an important source of military intelligence for the Allies in the region.

History of Thailand (1973–2001)

The history of Thailand from 1973 to 2001 saw an unstable period of democracy, with military rule being reimposed after a bloody coup in 1976.

Thai Chinese Ethnic group

Thai Chinese are an ethnic Chinese community in Thailand. Thai Chinese are the largest minority group in the country and the largest overseas Chinese community in the world with a population of approximately 10 million people, accounting for 11–14% of the total population of the country as of 2012. It is also the oldest and most prominent integrated overseas Chinese community. Slightly more than half of the ethnic Chinese population in Thailand trace their ancestry to Chaoshan. This is evidenced by the prevalence of the Teochew dialect among the Chinese community in Thailand as well as other Chinese languages.

Nanyang (region) Chinese name for the region of Southeast Asia, literally meaning Southern Ocean

Nanyang is a sinocentric Chinese term for the warmer and fertile geographical region along the southern coastal regions of China and beyond, otherwise known as the 'South Sea' or Southeast Asia. The term came into common usage in self-reference to the large ethnic Chinese migrant population in Southeast Asia, and is contrasted with Xiyang, which refers to the Western world, Dongyang, which refers to East Asian cultural sphere and occasionally including the Greater India, and Beiyang, which refers to Russia. The Chinese press regularly uses the term to refer to the region stretching from Yunnan Province to Singapore and from Myanmar (Burma) to Vietnam ; in addition, the term also refers to Brunei, East Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia and the Philippines in the region it encompasses.

Chatichai Choonhavan 20th-century Thai Army officer and politician

Chatichai Choonhavan was a Thai army officer, diplomat and politician. From 1986 to 1991, he was the chairman of the Thai Nation Party and served as the Prime Minister of Thailand from August 1988 until the coup d'état of February 1991.

Military history of Thailand

The military history of Thailand encompasses a thousand years of armed struggle, from wars of independence from the powerful Khmer Empire, through to struggles with her regional rivals of Burma and Vietnam and periods of tense standoff and conflict with the colonial empires of Britain and France. Thailand's military history, dominated by her centrality in the south-eastern Asian region, the significance of her far flung and often hostile terrain, and the changing nature of military technology, has had a decisive impact on the evolution of both Thailand and her neighbours as modern nation states. In the post-war era, Thailand's military relationship with the United States has seen her play an important role in both the Cold War and the recent War on Terror, whilst her military's involvement in domestic politics has brought frequent international attention.

ASEAN Football Federation

The ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) is a smaller organisation within the greater Asian Football Confederation (AFC), and centres on Southeast Asia, founded in 1984 by the nations of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. ASEAN stands for Association of Southeast Asian Nations, although the AFF also includes Australia and East Timor, who are both currently not a part of the regional intergovernmental organization.

Foreign Aid to Thailand On July 31, 2003, Thailand repaid its outstanding obligations under a standby arrangement made with the International Monetary Fund designed to help it recover from the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The payment was made four years ahead of schedule, reflecting Thailand's achievement of macroeconomic and balance-of-payments stability.

Buddhism in Southeast Asia

Buddhism in Southeast Asia includes a variety of traditions of Buddhism including two main traditions: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Theravāda Buddhism. Historically, Mahāyāna Buddhism had a prominent position in this region, but in modern times most countries follow the Theravāda tradition. Southeast Asian countries with a Theravāda Buddhist majority are Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, all mainland countries.

Thailand in World War II Period of Thai history from 1937 to 1945

Thailand in World War II officially adopted a position of neutrality until the five hour-long Japanese invasion of Thailand on 8 December 1941 which led to an armistice and military alliance treaty between Thailand and the Japanese Empire in mid-December 1941. At the start of the Pacific War, the Japanese Empire pressured the Thai government to allow the passage of Japanese troops to invade British-held Malaya and Burma. The Thai government under Plaek Phibunsongkhram considered it profitable to co-operate with the Japanese war efforts, since Thailand saw Japan – who promised to help Thailand regain some of the Indochinese territories which had been lost to France – as an ally against Western imperialism. Axis-aligned Thailand declared war on the United Kingdom and the United States and annexed territories in neighbouring countries, expanding to the north, south, and east, gaining a border with China near Kengtung.

1962 Burmese coup détat 1962 takeover of the democratically-elected Burmese government by its military

The 1962 Burmese coup d'état on 2 March 1962 marked the beginning of one-party rule and the political dominance of the army in Burma which spanned the course of 26 years. In the coup, the military replaced the civilian AFPFL-government, headed by Prime Minister U Nu, with the Union Revolutionary Council, Chaired by General Ne Win.

Military build-up in Southeast Asia has been a noticeable trend, as shown by force modernization, although there is not necessarily political will to improve military effectiveness. The phenomenon has been attributed to various factors, including protecting economic interest, self-reliance in the reduction of US commitment in the region, domestic and foreign tensions, and the need to replace colonial era material, but also some non-military related factors such as national prestige, political corruption, etc.

References

  1. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 10.
  2. ↑ Harisanto, Eddy (1993). The Dual Function of the Indonesian Armed Forces. Monterey: Naval Postgraduate Institute. p. 69.
  3. ↑ Callahan, Mary. Burma: Soldiers as State Builders. Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia. p. 428.
  4. ↑ Harisanto, Eddy (1993). The Dual Function of the Indonesian Armed Forces. Monterey: Naval Postgraduate Institute. p. 29.
  5. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 54.
  6. ↑ Vaswani, Karishna (1 December 2010). "Indonesia's Army 'Retains Business Empire'". BBC News. Retrieved 25 April 2014.
  7. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 67.
  8. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Shenckman. p. 73.
  9. ↑ Brömmelhörster, Jörn (2003). The Military As An Economic Actor: Soldiers in Business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 75.
  10. ↑ Brömmelhörster, Jörn (2003). The Military as an Economic Actor: Soldiers in Business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 82.
  11. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 69.
  12. ↑ Brömmelhörster, Jörn (2003). The Military as an Economic Actor: Soldiers in Business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 84.
  13. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 43.
  14. ↑ Callahan, Mary. Burma: Soldiers as State Builders. Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia. p. 414.
  15. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 65.
  16. ↑ Huxley, Tim (2000). Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore. St Leonards: N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. p. 2.
  17. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 56.
  18. ↑ "What is Total Defence" . Retrieved 26 April 2014.
  19. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 11.
  20. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 14.
  21. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 18.
  22. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 47.
  23. ↑ Kwok, Jia-Chuan (2010). Explaining Civil-Military Relations in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 48.
  24. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 130.
  25. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 142.
  26. ↑ "Unkept Promise: Failure to End Military Business Activity in Indonesia" (PDF). Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
  27. ↑ Vaswani, Karishna (1 Dec 2010). "Indonesia's Army 'Retains Business Empire'". BBC News. Retrieved 25 April 2016.
  28. ↑ Brömmelhörster, Jörn (2003). The Military as an Economic Actor: Soldiers in Business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 76.
  29. ↑ Brömmelhörster, Jörn (2003). The Military as an Economic Actor: Soldiers in Business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 77.
  30. ↑ Brömmelhörster, Jörn (2003). The Military as an Economic Actor: Soldiers in Business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 81.
  31. ↑ Hoadley, Stephen (1975). The Military in the Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Schenkman. p. 208.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.