From the gutter to the sewer

*all photos copyright*

As outlined by Awzar Thi over at the Rule of Lords, Thailand's human rights reputation has been in serious decline.

Citing the The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), the main issues are:

• Repeated overthrow of elected governments by antidemocratic forces
• Large-scale public criminal activity not followed with investigations or prosecutions
• Internet censorship and lese majesty witch-hunt
• Threats to human rights defenders
• Refoulement, murder and impunity on the high seas

The ALRC declares that these abuses indicate a 'rise of the internal-security state and decline of human rights' since the 2006 military coup d'etet.

But I dont think blame solely rests with the junta or the ultra-nationalist forces. Yes, things are much worse now, but Thailand's human right's downward spiral began with Thaksin.

Which Thi summarizes as:

"All this [the above listed offenses] and more is being put before the current sitting of the Human Rights Council. Ironically, back in 2006 before the coup Thailand tried to get a seat on the council. It failed then not because of poor diplomacy, as it claimed, but because after five years of government under Thaksin Shinawatra its rights reputation was in the gutter. It is not in the gutter any more. Now it’s in the sewer."

I couldnt agree more, Thailand's human rights reputation was already soiled by Thaksin, and what we are seeing now is simply a bad situation getting worse and worse.

And as Thailand's international reputation sinks, anti-foreign sentiment grows.

Issues like the military's persistent torture and murder in the South, PAD's lawlessness on the Bangkok streets, the Rohingya being cast off to their death in the ocean are now being discounted as some sort of foreign conspiracy to discredit Thailand international reputation.

Like the xenophobic comments by Col Manas Kongpan - regional commander of the Internal Security Operations Command - when queried about the death of the Rohingya: "They all [news reports] come from journalists who have problems with Thailand and just want to slander us,"

So instead of cleaning up a seriously disgraced human rights record and restoring international confidence in Thailand, it is easier for narrow minded xenophobes to concoct a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

And anti-foreign statements like this simply highlight the downward spiral of Thailand's international human rights reputation that was in the gutter with Thaksin, but is in the sewer with the military.

Fear of Army Cover-Up in Imam’s Death

The view from inside a Thai military jeep patrolling the border.

Human Rights Watch has just recently raised concern that the case of the Iman who was killed in military custody will be covered-up.

“Imam Yapa’s case is a test for the Thai Army on whether it can hold abusers in its ranks accountable,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch is correct, of course, that this case is an important example of military accountability.

But, as many Thais and foreign observers already know, there has never been much accountability for military abuses and the possibility of justice is unlikely.

Yet it is not only a history of military abuses going unpunished that makes justice unlikely. It is a combination of the current weak government and the military's role as protector of the nation that will prevent justice.

The present government, which could win a huge public relations victory in the troubled border provinces by proving that the government will uphold the rule of law and protect the citizens from military abuses, is hobbled by its fears of being ousted.

Rumors of another coup d'etat have reached fever pitch this week and Prime Minister Samak told reporters last night that he feared being seized at the airport upon his return from overseas in a military putsch similar to what happened in 1991 to Gen Chatichai Choonhavan.

There is a palatable sense that the military might seize power again and the government is unlikely to concentrate on anything other than its own immediate survival and certainly would not venture into a topic that places them in direct conflict with the military.

The second reason, the military's role protecting the nation, is more complex.

The Thai military has a deeply ingrained belief that its sacred duty is guided by the higher moral ground of protecting the nation.

In the recent past, the military's role of protecting the nation was dominated by fighting communism in the jungles and remote borderlands. Yet what is less known, is that fighting the communist threat was also understood as fighting to protect the monarchy.

Much of the anti-communist rhetoric used in Thailand was based on the idea that communism was somehow the antitheses of Thainess (ความเป็นไทย). The military's role of protecting Thailand from communism was based on the idea that they were protecting Thai identity - which holds the monarchy as a central tenet of Thai identity - from the foreign entity that was communism.

After all, had communism succeeded, scenarios like what happened to the Lao and Cambodian monarchies after the communist victories, might also happen in Thailand.

Today, with the threat of communism gone, Thailand's huge military remains but has lost its primary enemy. It still has a duty to protect the monarchy but now they must creatively interpret who their enemy is.

As some academics have suggested, the military has found one enemy in democracy. If politicians like Thaksin Shinawatra can rise to such lofty heights, heights that some believed to be closing in on the echelons of the monarchy, then democracy should not be trusted - hence the 2006 coup and the precarious situation of the current government.

The last enemy is anyone who threatens Thai territory and the southern insurgents certainly fall into this category of enemy.

Some in the military might also understand southern insurgents to not only be threatening Thai territory but also threatening the monarchy.

Muslims, as an article of faith, should only bow down to Allah and never to another human or to another god. This places them in conflict with highly ritualized demonstrations of respect that Thais honor their monarchy with.

Unfortunately, the soldiers that were supposed to be 'interrogating' the Imam might have understood him to represent both types of enemy that they have a sacred moral duty to fight.

And being perceived to be an enemy of the Thai military, a military that is not accountable to its own government, bodes unwell for any hope of justice in this case.

It also means that for the military to prosecute its own soldiers they would have to place a higher value upon the rights of citizens than upon their own self-assigned sacred duty to protect the nation and the monarchy.

This is extremely unlikely.



To read the Human Rights Watch report, please follow this link:
Commanding Officer Refused to Implicate Abusive Soldiers

Lao Coup Loses the Plot

Old tank, probably left over from the 1987 border war with Thailand, in a school yard in the southern town of Savannakhet.

General Vang Pao, the revered leader for many of Laos’ ethnic Hmong, and 10 other defendants who were charged with conspiring to overthrow the Lao government were freed on bail in the US on Saturday. General Vang and his fellow conspirators are now confined to their homes awaiting a trial that will not just prove their guilt or innocence but is revealing how America’s Secret War in Laos is still affecting the Hmong today.

Parts of the conspirators plot even sound a little familiar to events in Laos over 30 years ago.

The plan, if successful, would have seen arms acquired in the United States going to Hmong ‘freedom fighters’ struggle against communists in Laos. Court documents even suggest that some of the would-be coup makers believed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “was preparing to assist the Hmong insurgency once the takeover began.”

The U.S. based revolutionaries had been seeking to purchase military hardware, ranging from Ak-47 and M-16 assault rifles to claymore mines and stinger missiles, which would be shipped to remote locations in Laos and Thailand for a broad based uprising against the government.

But the Secret War style plot came to an end when the arms dealer was, in fact, an undercover agent with the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The plotters were the subject of an elaborate sting operation and are now facing a variety of serious charges including conspiracy to violate the US neutrality act and conspiracy to possess missile systems. Charges that could lead to life sentences for those accused.

The Sacramento District Court indictment against the defendants claims that Laos “is a sovereign nation with which the United States has been at peace at all times relevant to this indictment.” And herein lays the unfortunate irony of the defendants’ position. What made General Vang a heroic ally of the United States 30 years ago now makes him a criminal.

Although the court does not see history as relevant to the legal proceedings, the complicated relationship between the Hmong and the United States it is important in understanding why a band of aging rebels didn’t seem to be overly concerned with the legal consequences of a large scale arms purchase and talk of overthrowing a foreign government.

Since the US retreat from Vietnam in 1973 history has judged the war as both a geopolitical and human disaster. Although the North Vietnamese technically won, the human cost was nothing short of profound. In Cambodia, the neighbouring war spilled over creating a fettered breeding ground for an ideological sickness that lead to a horrifying genocide by Khmer Rouge cadres.

In Laos, American’s pursuit of North Vietnamese troops using the so-called Ho Chi Minh trail, inspired a robust and morally questionable bombing campaign. Approximately two million tons of bombs transformed the neutral country into a pockmarked ruin that can make the unfortunate claim of being the most heavily bombed nation on earth.

And then there is the history of General Vang and a 30,000 strong secret army. The CIA had raised and equipped the army, comprised mostly of ethnic Hmong, to fight a brutal war in the jungle against the North Vietnamese and Laotian communists known as the Pathet Lao.

General Vang, whose bravery during the war is often talked about in near legendary terms, and the Hmong army greatly assisted America’s war effort. Although the exact numbers are not known it is estimated that at least half of the Hmong army were killed while fighting in American service.

When America retreated from Indochina in 1973, support for the secret army came to a close and America’s Hmong allies were left to an uncertain fate. Abandoning the Hmong has been the source of a fierce moral debate because, unlike the American’s who could return home, many Hmong would become permanently displaced.

When the Pathet Lao took over Laos in 1975 the Hmong that sided with the Americans during the war were viewed as traitors by the new communist government. The lucky ones, like General Vang, were flown out of Laos and settled in the United States.

The unlucky ones, about 200,000, fled across the Mekong River to refugee camps in Thailand. While most were eventually settled in the US thousands still remain in Thai refugee camps today.

Human rights organizations, like Forum-Asia, have repeatedly warned that Thailand “disrespects the principle of non-refoulment and protection of asylum seekers” and has been forcibly repatriating the Hmong to Laos. Unconfirmed, yet persistent, reports of refugees arrest, disappearance, and murder at the hands of the Lao government have been an ugly characteristic dogging the controversial repatriations.

Even more unlucky were the Hmong who sided with the Americans yet remained in Laos after the communist takeover. Thousands disappeared into re-education camps or back into the jungle where they have kept a low level and increasingly bleak insurgency against the government that continues today.

Although media access is severely restricted in Laos a few journalists have made the risky journey to meet the remaining fighters and their reports create a tragic picture of an intractable conflict. Roger Arnold, a photographer who witnessed the Hmong insurgent’s plight first-hand in 2006, says that the Hmong fighters “are caught in a difficult situation; if they surrender they are likely arrested or worse, if they flee to Thailand they will just get deported.”

Back in the United States, the court has dismissed the history between the Hmong and the United States but it is certainly important in understanding why dreams of overthrowing the Lao government remain.

There is little doubt that many American based Hmong have supported the insurgency in Laos but it is certainly not a unified effort by the whole community and is certainly not without controversy.

For those that support the coup d’etat or the insurgents, the struggle to liberate Laos and the Hmong is a noble cause. Long running rumours of human rights violations in Laos – torture, rape, summary executions, and even chemical weapon use – as well as Thailand’s repatriation of Hmong refugees must provide ample justification to prolong the fight.

Yet continuing the struggle is a catch-22. As long as overseas Hmong continue to dream of revolution and provide material or moral support for their long-suffering brothers in the jungles there will always be a barrier between the Hmong and the Lao government.

Human rights organizations have already begun warning that the coup plot could inspire a violent crack down on Hmong in Laos. Although many Hmong did not side with the Americans during the war and have been active members in the Lao government and business community such coup plots cast a dark shadow of suspicion over the whole Hmong community.

Yet the coup shadow is not just cast over the Hmong in Laos but over the Hmong refugee camps in Thailand and over the Hmong community in the United States. Thailand has already announced a new round of forced repatriations of Hmong refugees and many Hmong-Americans have been trying to remind the public of the positive contributions their community makes to America.

Looking at the details of the actual coup plot there are serious doubts about the ability of the aging rebels to carry out their plan. Although the ATF agent’s sworn affidavit testifies to the legitimacy and determination of the defendants the court’s evidence is less than convincing.

Government Exhibit 1 is a “comprehensive plan of action” authored by one of the defendants and details how the alleged coup was to unfold. Yet the plan, unfortunately titled “Operation Popcorn” – POPCORN is an acronym for Political Opposition Party’s Coup Operation to Rescue the Nation – reads more like a badly written action movie than serious plot for revolution.

In essence, the plan envisioned a small force slipping across the border from Thailand to deliver a quick and fatal blow to the government in Vientiane. At the same time, Hmong in the highlands would descend from their mountain hideouts and take control over the provincial capitals.

But the plan contains almost comical errors under examination.

For example, to “bring down the power leaders” the plan assigns 50 so-called “rangers” at five “rangers” per target. Yet the to neutralize all the targets listed – “communist politburo members, President, Prime Minister and top levels of government officials,” “Defence Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Interior and other cabinet members,” “Chief of police, commanders of security force, special forces, etc” – clearly requires more rangers than the plan allocates.

Even rounding up all 12 members of the small communist politburo, even if the coup makers had the necessary detailed travel schedules, home and work addresses, as well as physical descriptions, would require 60 rangers and presumably would not be a simple task.

Yet the most questionable element of the plot is the assumption that the Lao government would easily fold under attack and that the majority of the population is already at the brink of revolt. “75% - 80% (of citizens are) ready to rise up” claims Operation Popcorn.

Grant Evans, a senior lecturer at the University of Hong Kong and author of numerous books on Laos, says that the plot “is total fantasy. Laos is as stable as it has ever been. There is zero support for any coup.”

Even General Vang’s defence attorney, John Keker, argued the ‘fantasy’ angle at the bail hearing. The attorney has pointed out that the plot was “lacking any realistic planning, money or support" and questioned the role of the government’s ATF agent in helping create the plot for the Hmong.

Whether or not the coup plot is viable or simply the work of daydreaming generals might not be the most important question raised by the court case. What might be more relevant is the direction that Hmong in Laos, Thailand, and the United States are heading.

It seems clear that General Vang and his band of would-be-rebels remain firmly anchored in the past. Their direction forward is an increasingly anachronistic return to the past in an effort to heal the damage inflicted on the Hmong during the Secret War.

Yet who the Hmong were and what was happening in Laos 30 years ago is not the same today. Many of the younger generation of Hmong-Americans have little to no memory of the war and General Vang’s politics hold little relevance to them.

The Cold War ideology that had divided the world and was violently fought over in Laos has also changed. And it is specifically this change that seems lost on the coup plot.

While some might view the arrest and upcoming trial of General Vang as another betrayal of the Hmong there will also be many who will question whether Secret War logic has any place in Hmong’s future.

สมน้ำหน้า or น่าสงสาร?

Pro-Thaksin/Anti-Junta protesters at Sanam Luang on June 15th, 2007.


Thaksin Shinawatra’s political future has been dealt another serious blow with the Assets Examination Commission’s (AEC) decision to freeze his bank accounts pending a series of investigations into alleged corruption.

The decision, effective immediately, will place 21 bank accounts and approximately Bt 53 billion (US $1.6 billion) in suspension until the outcome of five separate charges are investigated.

The debate that the AEC decision will now inspire can be aptly summarized by two popular Thai phrases; สมน้ำหน้า and น่าสงสาร.

สมน้ำหน้า, or som nam nah, can roughly be translated as ‘it serves (someone) right’1 and there are bound to be thousands of people uttering the phrase with unrestrained glee as they hear of the AEC decision.

Thaksin’s tenure, in the eyes of numerous critics, was characterized by his habitual abuse of power and his obscene wealth is certainly fueling his critic’s anger.

The most notorious of allegations, and certainly instrumental in Thaksin’s overthrow, was the sale of his telcom giant, Shin Corp, to the Singapore based Temasek.

The deal netted Thaksin and his family Bt 73.3 billion and, much to the fury of the critics, went 100% untaxed.

Thaksin is accused of using his position as Prime Minister to manipulate tax laws in the transaction which suggests that his position as a political leader was more about advancing his own business interests than working for the betterment of the country.

For those in the som nam nah camp, the Junta has finally taken off their kid gloves and begun to dismantle Thaksin’s political/financial foundation.

Last week’s decision by the Constitutional Tribunal to disband Thai Rak Thai and ban Thaksin from politics for five years, coupled with the investigation by the AEC, are going to be serious, if not fatal, decisions for the future of the former Prime Minister.

For those saying som nam nah, Thaksin certainly had this coming and the decision by the AEC will be welcome, if not long overdue.

And then there is the other camp.

น่าสงสาร, or nah song san, is translated as ‘it’s a pity’ and the 10,000 plus demonstrators on the Bangkok streets venting anger at the Junta and waving pictures of Thaksin are certainly thinking this way.

For Thaksin’s supporters the AEC decision will be viewed as the further prosecution of their rightfully elected leader.

Thaksin’s popularity, particularly the rural poor who benefited from his 30 baht healthcare scheme, is undisputed.

His success, overwhelmingly proved at the polls, was not simply through populist policies but also orchestrated by his personal popularity.

The fact that he was Thailand’s richest business man seemingly holds no contradiction as self-professed champion of the rural poor.

Thai politics has always been plagued by corruption so why should rural voters, whom have been given unprecedented political attention and pro-poor policies, be fussed about corruption-as-usual?

Now that the AEC along with the Constitutional Tribunal, who were both created by the Junta, have implimented serious efforts to permanently remove Thaksin his supporters will certainly be saying nah song san for their former leader.

More importantly than expressing their pity will be the possibility that they will express their anger.

As previously stated, the streets are teeming with anti-junta/pro-Thaksin supporters and they could turn their sympathy for Thaksin into a serious expression of anger on the streets in the coming days and weeks.

Some, like the editor of the english language daily The Nation, Tulsathit Taptim, are even speculating that Thaksin could instigate a dangerous game of brinkmanship and attempt to start a full scale violent revolt against the Junta.

What the som nam nah and nah song san arguments reveal is how deeply polarized the country is over the former Prime Minister and in Thai politics in general.

The recent decisions against Thaksin, by both the AEC and the Constitutional Tribunal, look more likely to result in further political chaos in the short term than pave the way for national political reconciliation in the long term.

But there is one last group who don’t fall into either camp and their expression might be อะไรก็ได้ or arai ga dai.

Arai ga dai means something akin to ‘whatever’ and there will certainly be some Thais expressing this sentiment.

Bt 53 billion might seem like a lot of money but, as both critics and supports concede, it is widely assumed that Thaksin has transferred ample funds from the country and can live comfortable ‘whatever’ the outcome of the AEC investigation.

_______________________________________________________

1 สมน้ำหน้า or som nam nah is actually an idiom with a more abstract etymology than simply meaning 'serves (someone) right'. Som means appropriate, nam means water, and nah means face. The appropriate (som) word is literal but the water (nam) and face (nah) are not. I initially thought it meant tears but, in fact, it stems from an older - before the arrival of the mirror - concept. The water and face idea is actually an expression of gazing upon one's own face (told to me as looking into the water inside a freshly split coconut) in the reflection of water during a time of soul searching. So, som nam nah really means something like; the appropriate self refection of one who is faced with a conflict of their own creation. Either way of understanding it, it makes an endlessly comical statement when employed at the inconvenience of friends but it makes and even harsher attack upon one's enemy.

Chaturon Chaisang: Second Class Citizen

Chaturon Chaisaeng at the FCCT.

Khun Chaturon Chaisaeng, acting leader of the now dissolved Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, greeted the assembled press at the Foreign Correspondents Club Thailand this evening with the opening remarks;

"Thank-you for allowing me to use my freedom of speech…one of the last freedoms I have left."

Although the general ban on political parties, which began after the September 19th coup d’etat, has recently been lifted, Chaturon and 110 other members of TRT have been banned by the Constitutional Court from politics for the next five years.

Yet beyond being banned from participation as a political candidate or even a member of a political party Chaturon and TRT seem to be at risk of losing their freedom of speech also.

T-ITV (formerly I-TV until the junta-installed-government decided that a television station not controlled by the military or government was a bad idea and launched questionable legal action and took over the station three months ago) was scheduled to interview Khun Chaturon for a new talk show until the office of the Prime Minister intervened.

A senior staff member with T-ITV informed me that the station was threatened by a government official who said "if they (reporters) interview someone we don’t like" the station’s staff salaries would not be paid.

Since the government take over three months ago the staff have not been paid.

The government has promised that next week the long overdue salaries would be paid but it seems that I-TV must self-censor its broadcasts if they plan to get paid and stay on air.

During Chaturon’s press conference he claimed that the coup and the recent Constitutional Tribunal’s decision are part of the same effort by the military to dismantle the enormous electoral power that TRT commands.

"One can not help thinking that it had all been planed" claimed Chaturon.

What the military establishment wanted all along was to disband the TRT and create a "weak coalition (between the) democrats and the military" claimed Chaturon.

If the junta was sincere about seeking a return to democracy then freedom of the press is essential and freedom for citizens, even those banned from political office, to speak is implicit.

Khun Chaturon is a banned political actor yet he is still an influential figure whose opinion could add to a healthy political discourse in a proper functioning democracy.

Yet, as the ongoing crisis demonstrates, Thailand is not only far from a functional democracy but also appears to be heading in the wrong direction.

Chaturon claimed that the junta was "determined to destroy us (TRT) from the beginning" and he might be right.

Many have questioned the Constitutional Tribunal’s black and white exoneration of the Democrats and the political assassination of the TRT.

Now, if the junta continues what appears to be the persecution of the TRT, they are at risk of permanently derailing a return to Thailand’s once fragile democracy.

Worse yet, by persecuting a political party with 16 million voters, the junta could create political martyrs that will certainly look to the future to exact their revenge.

Victors Justice = Dictators Justice

Although it is common knowledge that some protesters at the Anti-Junta Pro-Thaksin rallies are being paid ฿300 baht (about $10 usd) to attend, the enthusiastic support from many protesters seems genuine. The Thaksin supporter pictured here was crying during Thaksin's June 15 speech to supporters.


Thailand’s historical Constitutional Tribunal verdict has just been handed down and it appears that ‘justice’ was based upon the persuasive barrel-of-a-gun commanded by the military dictatorship rather than a step towards resolution to the political crisis.

The Democrat party escaped unharmed while the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party was dealt a death sentence. TRT has been dissolved and their executives barred for five years in politics.

The legal debate whether the judgement was politically motivated will take time to emerge yet the immediate consequences are easier to understand.

The Democrats, whom have mustered a rather ineffectual opposition to the TRT, are now positioned to dominate a politically decimated election landscape. The newspapers are already hailing Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as the next Prime Minister.

The future of the political juggernaut TRT, whom command upwards of 16 million voters, seems final.

The acting leader of TRT, Chaturon Chaisaeng, in an emotionally charged post-verdict statement, claimed that the decision was "unacceptable" and that "The country is now under a dictatorship."

He might have a point.

The junta has been singularly obsessed with erasing former Prime Minster Thaksin’s questionable legacy from Thai politics and the Tribunal’s ruling might be understood as the last nail in the TRT coffin.

Backing the Tribunal’s decision is the up-coming draft constitution. Replacing the popular 1997 ‘people’s constitution’ that the junta resigned to the rubbish bin when seizing power, has been described as decidedly ‘anti-Thaksin’ and a legal way of removing Thaksin and his TRT from political office.

So what about the backlash, particularly the TRT supporters?

That is what everyone is asking. Businesses are planning to close, people are talking about stalking up on food, and rumours that floods of TRT supporters are aiming for Bangkok are ripe.

Tomorrow will be a fresh, and possibly violent, day in Thai politics. A day in which the country’s most popular political party has been dissolved by a military dictatorship and the electorate will come out to express their anger.

Judgement Day

How will the military react to large scale angry street protests? No one is sure because, so far, they have been very small. Yet tomorrow's uncertainty could force the junta to act.

The only thing certain on the eve of Thailand's historic constitutional ruling is that it is a perfect recipe for chaos.

Tomorrow the Constitutional Tribunal will hand down its verdict on the conduct of the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) and Democrat parties in last April’s elections.

TRT is accused of fronting smaller parties in place of a legitimate opposition because most political parties had boycotted the elections. The Democrats, in turn, are accused of luring TRT into electoral fraud by encouraging small parties to accept TRT funds and fill the required opposition role.

Although shady elections are the norm rather than the exception the current crisis is threatening to see both the TRT and the Democrat parties disbanded and their executives barred from running for public office for five years.

The consequences of dismantling the country’s two main political parties is fraught with long term consequences but the short term consequences are what most are worried about now.

TRT alone has 16 million supporters and their reaction to a negative ruling has the very real potential to be expressed with violence.

Yet it isnt as one demensional as only TRT supporters as there are various factions with grievances to express. Anti-Coup protesters, whose strength and ferocity has been steadily growing, are likely to gain further support from the Tribunal ruling. The legitimacy of the junta is already weak but the dissolution or punishment of mainstream political parties is certain to bolster the numbers of protesters waving anti-coup placards.

Mixed into the equation is the consistent threat of politically motivated bomb attacks in the capital. Since the New Year’s Eve bombings there have been at least two more attacks and foreign embassies have been issuing near-monthly warnings that a new wave of attacks is immanent. Already, bomb squads are on the prowl around shopping centers, transportation hubs, political party headquarters, and the Constitutional Tribunal building.

Bhumibol Adulyadej, the country’s highly revered monarch, has already expressed his wishes that this political crisis will pass without bloodshed but his outlook was somewhat bleak. He warned the tribunal judges to "make a right interpretation (of the law) or the country will be doomed" yet he said that any decision they make will still result in heavy criticism.

One of the few leaders that might be able to scale down the potential violence is the former Prime Minister. Yet any plea for calm from Thaksin is unlikely. Although he is prone to populist rhetoric claiming love for his country he knows that blood in the streets does more to damage the image of the military than his TRT party.

In preparation for massive protests the Council for National Security (CNS) has deployed a 15,000 strong security force in strategic locations across Bangkok and setup road blocks in the provinces to stop protesters from entering the city.

On another front, the military has been deployed to TV and newspaper stations. Although initially it seemed to suggest a crackdown on the already restricted media it actually falls in line with the climate of coups. The soldiers are ‘guarding’ the media outlets in case a rouge faction of the military – obviously unhappy with the Tribunal’s decision NOT to dissolve TRT and/or the Democrats – decides to launch a fresh coup.

Although there is now way to know if violence will be ignited on the Bangkok streets tomorrow and what that chaos might actually mean for the country it could be a preferred outcome of some in the military.

The junta, when justifying last year's coup d’etat, claimed that they were duty bound to intervene because ‘unprecedented divisions in society’ would lead to prolonged political violence. If violence does erupt, the junta can use the same logic they used to seize power but this time to extend their time in power.

Initially, such a senario might seem a bit farfetched yet one worried reporter at Thailand’s T-ITV reminded me that the junta in Burma has been using that same excuse to remain in power since losing the general elections there back in 1990.

Tomorrow might just be a point in history that illumiates the true motives of those in power. The military has, since their coup, maintained that they will return power to the people. If the junta does not capitalize upon tomorrow’s expected chaos then they might actually be telling the truth about Thailand’s return to democracy.

The Climate of Coups

Troops reading the paper on top of their tank the morning after last year's coup. The newpaper's headline reads 'สนธิยืนยัน' or 'Sonthi Confirmed' meaning that General Sonthi Boonyaratglin was confirmed as coup leader.

Since the September 19th 2006 toppling of Prime Minister Thaksin there have been consistent rumours that another coup d’etat is looming.

The following is a typical scenario of how new coup predictions emerge.

On February 5th The Nation newspaper was reporting on the speculation of a new coup.

Troops from Thailand’s Second Army stationed in Nakhon Ratchasima were rumoured to be on their way to Bangkok under the orders of a rogue military commander and the Junta leader, General Sonthi, was in full denial mode.

A well connected academic from Mahidol University called me that evening and reported that General Sonthi was seeking to consolidate power and would launch a coup against the junta's own installed government.

Apparently that is a bit of a Thai tradition when it comes to coup history here.

Another phone call from an acquaintance at a European news agency casually asked if I had seen large numbers of troops or heard any gunfire or loud explosions.

My apartment happens to be near the Information and Communications Technology Ministry – which controls broadcast media capabilities – so the question was not that far-fetched.

The next day, a journalist from Thailand’s I-TV called and reported that the event was more of a 'coup-lite’ because infighting in the junta almost erupting into open hostility but either a power-sharing compromise or a barrel-of-a-gun compromise had been reached before actual fighting began.

Although most people seem to agree that something happened, no one is sure exactly what that something was.

Mixed into coup prognostications are ongoing bomb threats.

On April 11th the Canadian embassy sent sms messages (mobile phone text messages) to their nationals claiming that "Canadians should exercise caution and monitor local news due to reports of possible bombings in and around Bangkok between 11-17 April."

The New Year’s Eve bombings, despite convincing evidence pointing to insurgents in the deep south, are still being blamed upon ‘elements of the old regime’ so the threat of fresh bomb attacks further fuels the climate of political instability.

The latest coup rumor began yesterday evening with a phone call from an academic asking if I had ‘heard anything of another coup?’

To which I replied; ‘Just the usual rumors, what have you heard?’

‘I heard from a friend with police contacts who claims that between the 1st and the 5th of next month (May) the police will be keeping their families at home and preparing to retreat at the sight of large military movements. They (the police) are convinced something is about to happen.’

On the night of the last-year’s coup the police did, indeed, retreat from sight as they are closely aligned with the previous government so the rumor does contain some intriguing details.

So, once again, the forecast is suggesting a high probability of political turmoil and chances of a coup.

Whether another coup is imminent will only be answered over the next week but the consistency of the rumours is an undeniable reflection of the turbulent political climate and the lack of confidence in the junta.

Dogs Don’t Give Birth to Humans, Coups Don’t Give Birth to Democracy

Immediately after the September 19th coup d'etat a considerable number of foreign journalists and academics in Bangkok showered praise upon the new military leaders.

Thaksin’s divisive and failing policies coupled with his grotesque arrogance were too much for most and anything, even the strong arm of the military toppling a democratically elected government, was deemed preferable to his prolonged tenure.

One of the few initial, and rather vocal, voices opposing the junta was Professor Giles Ungpakorn of Chulalongkorn University.

About a week after the coup Giles gave a particularly spirited attack against the junta while it was still unfashionable to do so.

While Bangkok's residents were still lining up to have their pictures taken with the flower draped soldiers Giles was at the Foreign Correspondents Club Thailand reprimanding the assembled foreign media and pro-junta academics.

Supporters of the coup were ‘tank liberals’ he claimed and rhetorically questioned whether academics that supported the coup would “all burn their Comparative Politics books and scrap all courses on ‘democratization’ in favor of teaching military science and tank maintenance?”

Giles’ academic wrath has now been focused into valuable new book titled A Coup for the Rich – Thailand’s Political Crisis.

The book is certainly ‘hot of the press’ but it’s not exactly for sale. It seems that Thailand’s supposedly prestigious Chulalongkorn University has opted for self-censorship and the school’s bookstore will not be selling the book.

What makes the book particularly worth reading is both the fact that its banning reflects the pathetic state of press freedom in Thailand as well as its blunt and open critique of Thai politics.

Giles lashes insightful criticism on almost everyone. The military, the pu yai (upper class), and even the monarchy are fair game.

Such criticism is not just refreshing in a country where open political discussion is extremely curtailed but it is essential if Thailand is to solve the on-going political crisis.

What Giles does best though is bring a clever, spirited, and serious challenge to Thailand’s increasingly confined political space.

His unprecedented questioning of the monarchy is nothing short of breath-taking.

In a climate of fear where any rational questioning of the monarchy has the very real possibility of leading to a prison term it is important to have an academic brave enough to raise important issues that are essential elements to resolving Thailand’s political quagmire.

The book does have flaws though. Giles follows a rather strict socialist ideology that tends to lionize the poor as free from the bigoted villainy of the upper class. Unfortunately, humanity's capacity for bad behavior spans all classes so poverty doesn't automatically result in higher morals values as the book often suggests.

But such criticism is limited. Not only has Giles initiated essential political dialogue that Thailand is starving for, but he initiates dialogue with a comedic flare that is often absent in the academic world.

While scolding the international media for our lackadaisical challenge to military rule he gave a wily smile and reminded us that dogs don’t give birth to humans, should we expect coups to give birth to democracy?

_________________________________

*As far as I know the only place to buy Giles' book is still from his office in the faculty of political science at Chulalongkorn. If anyone know's another source, please leave a comment and let us know.

The Thin Line of Military Rule

It didn't take long for protests to form and test the limits of marshal law. The golden object at center on the top of Democracy Monument is a representation of Thailand's constitution. Protesters are particularly angry that the 1997 constitution was thrown out. Bangkok - 2006.

In the days and weeks following September 19, 2006, when the military deposed controversial Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, there was a palpable sense of celebration in Bangkok.

Prior to the coup the country had been locked in a dangerous stalemate; many urban middle-class citizens despised the Prime Minister, yet he commanded enough support in the rural areas to remain in office.

Most analysts worried that the political divide, aggravated by Thaksin’s failure to either step-down or negotiate with the mounting opposition, would not just keep the country trapped in political limbo but would lead to serious and bloody clashes in the streets.

When General Sonthi Boonyaratglin’s tanks forced Thaksin from power many people celebrated because they felt that the stalemate had been broken without bloodshed, and were hopeful that the political crisis was over.

Thailand was in its coup d’etat honeymoon period.

Now that two months have passed, the optimistic honeymoon period is now giving way to a much more cynical mood.

The removal of the stalemate by military muscle has revealed itself to be a temporary solution. The “unprecedented divisions in society” that the Junta cited as their rationale for moving against the government may not be so easily healed.

Worse yet, the Junta’s foray into the political arena has created a host of new problems. In order to seize power the military trespassed upon democratic terrain, declared martial law, banned political gatherings, severely censored the media, and dissolved the popular 1997 constitution.

Removing Thaksin might have been popular at first, but once people realised that the “bloodless” coup d’etat had also delivered a serious blow to civil society and democracy, the political price of the coup increased dramatically.

The coup has also raised uncomfortable memories of military rule.

In the years 1971, 1973, and 1991 Thailand experienced violent struggles between supporters of civilian democratic rule and the military.

Those violent struggles have shaped Thailand’s political arena significantly. Clearly attempting to distance themselves from that history, one of the first statements made by the Junta (re-branded the Council for National Security), was that they would install an interim civilian government and hold elections within a year.

The appointment of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and his quasi-civilian government was seen as a good start, but one might argue that it is merely a token nod towards democracy.

The Junta has still reserved the right to dismiss the new government if they choose, so clearly power remains firmly in the military’s hands.

Anti-coup sentiment is already starting to appear on the streets of Bangkok.

The first act of direct defiance against martial law saw about 300 protesters gather around Democracy Monument to demand elections and the reinstatement of the 1997 constitution.

It was a cautious baby step as far as public dissent goes, but an important one nonetheless.

The huge anti-Thaksin protests that had rumbled around the capital before the coup might begin to trade in their old placards for anti-coup placards and return to the streets.

If this happens, the Junta will be faced with a damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario. If they end martial law and allow protestors to gather, the numbers could swell into a dangerous challenge to the Junta’s authority.

If they quash the budding movement they will trigger historical comparisons to the brutal military regimes of the past.

There is one situation that the Junta could capitalize upon in order to retain public support. This revolves around their dramatic policy u-turn vis-a-vis the insurgency-racked Southern provinces.

Unlike Thaksin’s violent and wholly incompetent track record in the South, the Junta has pulled back the stick and extended an olive branch.

This should not come as a real surprise since General Sonthi was, before seizing power, the military commander in charge of pacifying the uprising.

He had also publicly quarrelled with Thaksin’s strategy but was bound by hierarchy to submit to the Prime Minister’s authority.

Now that Sonthi is in charge he might just be in a position to alter the course of the rebellion. This would be a monumental undertaking, however, since Thaksin’s antagonistic failures did not simply produce sympathy for the separatists, but has opened the door for real Islamic extremists, who may be intent on declaring jihad.

Despite the changing mood, the Junta might still survive their brief tenure with some popularity intact, but they are on very perilous ground.

If they can resuscitate the basic rights of the citizens, restore democracy, avoid negative historical comparisons with past military regimes, weather the challenges from civil society, and make positive changes in the increasingly bleak Southern rebellion, then they could earn a novel place in Thai political history.

But their chances for success are extremely low and there seem to be a number of pivotal forks in the road.

If, for example, the “unprecedented divisions in society” have not been healed after a year of military rule, would the Junta postpone elections? If such a delay did take place, or if any other hurdle scuttles the Junta’s exit plan, then the Junta’s reputation and governing term might quickly transform into a dictatorship.

As the Thai people are well-aware, such a dictatorship might have much darker prospects than Thaksin’s controversial tenure.

Coup d'etat or Revolution?

Combat troops deployed to guard against a possible counter-coup at Democracy Monument. Bangkok - September 20, 2006.

On September 19th the Thai military, lead by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, removed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power.

The event was quickly labelled a coup d’etat and the international community – particularly Western states – condemned it and lamented the break down of democratic principles.

The view from the streets of Bangkok has been rather different.

The word revolution (ปฏิวัต) has been used to describe the recent events and scenes of citizens giving flowers to soldiers seem to support the idea of a popular movement against an unpopular government.

The difficulty is that ‘coup d’etat’ and ‘revolution’ are not interchangeable terms and each describes very different events.

The expression coup d’etat carries with it ideas of ruthless tyrants vandalizing democratic ideals in bloody street clashes.

Revolution, on the other had, conjures images of a people’s power movement breaking free from the iron grip of a brutal and unjust dictatorship.

If the terms coup d’etat and revolution have both been used to describe the toppling of Thaksin’s government then Thailand’s political crisis might be best understood as being a combination of both.

Was it a Coup?

The short answer is clearly ‘yes’ but the long answer is ‘yes, but…’.

Tanks did roll, combat troops were deployed, and Thaksin was overthrown by General Sonthi – that is a fact.

Yet the long answer would have to question Thaksin’s corrosive effect on democracy and the consequences of allowing him to remain in power.

Thaksin’s rise to power in 2001 as a populist billionaire was indeed a happier time in Thai democracy.

Sure, the Thai political arena is known to creatively bend the rules which results in vast sums of money exchanging hands, positions of power being doled out to cronies or family members, and blood is often spilled but there certainly are recognizable democratic traits.

At the poll booths citizens are free to choose who they like and the election process is perceived internationally as free and fair.

As Thaksin’s political problems began to mount the rules of democracy declined.

Libel suits launched by Thaksin against the media and private individuals became commonplace.

Yes, the media was free to say what they wanted but most could simply not afford it. Thaksin’s gang of lawyers had forced the media to ‘self censor’ to avoid costly and time consuming legal battles.

Thaksin had also dismantled the foundations of Thailand’s democratic institutions. The ranks of the judiciary, the Senate, and the now disgraced Election Commission were all swollen with Thaksin’s friends and family.

The most recent snap election that Thaksin called to defuse the myriad of calls for him to step down resulted in a boycotted single-party election, massive claims of fraud, a rare intervention by the king, the election’s subsequent annulment, and finally the jailing of pro-Thaksin Election Commission officials for malfeasance.

Thaksin’s stubborn grip on power had simply destroyed the democratic process.

Was it a Revolution then?

Maybe not a textbook revolution but there has been widespread public support.

The tanks forming road blocks around the seat of political power, Government House, have been covered in flowers in a spontaneous gesture by the residents of Bangkok.

The military has reciprocated with its own symbolic gesture of alliance to the people. Although the troops are combat ready, most have removed their ammunition clips from their rifles.

Yes, they are armed, but not armed against the people.

The justification for seizing power, as claimed by the military’s new Committee for Democratic Reform, was based upon welfare of the people.

Speculation that the highly polarized political crisis would lead to violent clashes was not just speculation but the public was resigned to the inevitability of violence.

Violent incidents between pro and anti-Thaksin camps were growing in frequency and in brutality in the weeks before military take over.

A large anti-Thaksin protest by the People’s Alliance for Democracy that was scheduled to take place if the military intervention had not happened had the very real possibility of massive bloodshed.

Rumours were circulating that a well armed division of Forestry Police were being transported to Bangkok put down the protest.

Because widespread violence was expected the military claims they were duty bound to intervene.

The highly influential retired General, Prem Tinsulanonda, just over a month before the military action, gave a speech to cadets telling them that the loyalty of the military is to the king first, the citizens next, and the government trailing behind in a distant third.

It seems as though Prem’s words were not just hollow rhetoric but a strategic declaration of military alignment with the growing number of dissatisfied citizens.

A final, and extremely important, indication that the military action was on behalf of the people was the action’s royal approval. It is well known in Thailand that the King’s approval can legitimize or topple a government.

During the last major conflict that brought soldiers onto the streets, in 1991, the King intervened with some ‘words of advice’ and diffused a violent power struggle.

It was vitally important for the military leaders to have royal approval but, more revealing, is that royal approval would not likely have been granted if the overthrow of the government wasn’t in the people’s best interest.

During the first week of military rule there has been a palpable sense of revolution on the Bangkok streets.

The challenge is now for the military to maintain that feeling of revolution. Yet to maintain the revolutionary goodwill it will require the military to step down and return the political realm to civilian control.

If the feeling of revolution is lost then a true textbook coup d’etat has taken place and an era of military rule, an era of dictatorship, has began.