Backlash Say Hi!
Well blame Mr. Nice aka our dear prime minister for being too cozy for way too long, just to mention a free bus service for enemies of the government. But maybe, hopefully, there’s a strategy behind Abhisit’s policy of passive containment. By doing not much the anger of the people grows, giving Abhisit the green light for stronger action. The luxury hotels around Rajprasong are emptied. Collateral damage minimized they’re ready to go.
But that’s not good and reading blogs and Twitter these days is an even less happy pastime. Red sympathizers seem to get even more radical and determined while the reds’ opponents cannot wait for a crackdown, and bloody it shall be. Not you farang, but many Thais ask for harsh measures. Now you tell me whom to blame. The poor reds for their provocations and open lies about a “peaceful” protest? The rich non-reds for urban arrogance and their deriding of “pure” democracy?
If the reds fail, they’ll be marginalized even further, and they asked for it. If the reds succeed, it’s the ultimate Pyrrhic victory in recent human history. The kingdom will be torn apart by more hate and distrust than ever. An election under these circumstances would lead to the world’s most laughable vote in recent human history. Who would accept an Election Commission’s intervention? With reds not being able to campaign in the south and non-reds hunted down in the north and northeast?
What this country needs now is not an election, but time and talks and compromise. But with the construction of a bamboo fortress in the midst of Bangkok the old Maoist guerilla tactics have arrived. You might need to differentiate. Even worse, there’s not a single element of positive surprise, constructive engagement, a hint of an exchange of ideas or compromise in the reds’ iron stance. Their “fight for democracy” has not only become a contradiction in itself, calling themselves democrats flies in the face of an autocrat.
We witness old-style propaganda warfare – and are told it’s all for the betterment of nation, crown and society. Wait, we were all eager listeners. Thaksin had a voice, a voice reaching all Thais in a way. Many undecided applauded his recent interview with The Times. The benefit of doubt is gone, El Presidente fights for more than his credibility. A few thousand red Rambos and martyrs prepare for the final final final showdown while Bangkokians welcome the many soldiers now securing “dictatorial territory” with food and drinks. The people can’t all be that dumb, can they.
And yes, to be called reactionary in these times is a compliment. Sharing a beer with Dr. Weng & Co. would be OK. The Dr.’s a reasonable guy with good intentions. But seeing how far they’re willing to go while preaching peace and freedom and honesty and democracy and legitimacy and wealth for all, well, they clearly had their chance. And gosh how they blew it.
Over a beer those radicals and extremists can tell me what democracy is all about. But not as leaders.
+++ Related – but hardly noticed – key development? The finally proposed land & building tax. Do I hear land reform? Right, it’s only a basic agreement in principle so far. There’s a long way ahead. Still. Think of the kingdom’s largest property owner. How to handle? What more can reds want.
I’d say repression of the demonstration would be the ultimate pyrrhic victory Dan. As I don’t think moral arguments hold any sway over the people who advocate a crackdown I’ll focus on the practical considerations of those who might order a massacre. I wish I was wrong but I don’t have any reason to suppose that these people will be influenced by compassion either. Ignoring human sentiments then I still think that a bloody crackdown would be a disaster for Thailand. Here are some reasons.
1. It will be clear that the government, not the reds have chosen the violent path. I should think that offering elections earlier would have to at least be tried before you sent in the troops surely? A face saving win win would be elections before October. Nobody has to die and the government gains sufficient time to place its men where it needs them and get its allies snouts into the trough that they are enthusiastically financing. The reds would probably split into factions that accept compromise and there would certainly be some who decided to hold to a harder line. But much smaller numbers would be present and at least then there would be some sort of fait accompli …
2. Whether or not the UDD are destroyed in a crackdown the capacity of Thai people to hold grudges and plan revenge suggest that no senior figure involved in a crackdown will be able to live without heavy security for the rest of their lives. These are not rebellious middle class students. Many of the UDD guards have military training and unforgiving natures. While army generals might be willing to accept this risk I would suggest that many political figures would immediately be forced, purely on the grounds of self preservation, to abandon the government. To be seen to have supported a bloodbath would be very very dangerous for groups like the friends of Newin. I imagine that the Democrat Party would split, perhaps more than once. A fragmentation of the politics of Thailand and possibly the emergence of an armed insurgency would lead back to the 1980′s appointed and approved political leadership. That would be the end of any hope that Thailand was going to develop any time soon into a mature democracy.
3. Even if the operation was properly managed, the bodies removed without a recording of their deaths and few images of the bloodletting allowed to emerge, it would be impossible to disguise the damage inflicted to the infrastructure in the area. A Tiananmen square site in the center of Bangkok would change the character of more than just Erawan. A massacre would cast a shadow of Thailand for years to come. Other likely future events which might have previously been viewed as very significant will be judged and compared to the loss of life of the poor.
4. Some members of the UDD are perversely hoping that a crackdown leading to a massacre will happen. The government will be supporting the agenda of the most extreme elements of the groups opposing it. While these people may not at the moment seem like a significant group, a massacre would give yhem a lot of impetus. A crackdown serves the interests of the most subversive elements of the opposition …
I could go on but surely it’s obvious that a crackdown/massacre would dominate every politically driven choice and decision for some considerable time afterwards. It’s a very stupid choice.
And an afterthought on the land tax idea.
Pigs might fly …
The chances of there being any significant political support for this measure are virtually nil. Only the most serious of financial emergencies could even bring it the point of serious discussion. Suggesting this now is pure propaganda.
You don’t need a massacre to clean up the place and proceed. There should be and there are other ways.
BangkokDan
Why are you supporting the continuing stranglehold by the military over Thailand?
Do you enjoy living in a country where the military maintain a persistent insurgency down south and continually commit crimes without any legal redress?
Perhaps you drive a merc with dark windows and enjoy being able to drive and park without silly restrictions?
Do you enjoy negotiating bribes and corruption in your business dealings?
Do you enjoy the conveniences of cheap and subservient servants?
Do you enjoy the “convenience” of “long shelf life” supermarket shopping instead of fresh healthy food from happy Thai slaves at the traditional markets?
Just curious where you are on some sort of scale …
(BD: I don’t recall supporting this government. But, again, I’m even less supportive of the current actions forced upon a whole nation by a pseudo opposition in the name of democracy. It wasn’t rocket science to find out where they lead us into. Dream on that corruption will be a thing of the past under the reds …)
Abhisit (the “democrat” who’s record show’s he’s afraid of elections), says conditions are not right for an election, but by his own actions (advised by Prem/Prayuth?) things are being set up such that the time will never be right for elections.
The massacre has already happened, and yet people are calling for even more bloodshed – for what purpose other than to avoid an election?
The no-go zones for certain color groups look like lasting for decades, and all because a few families want to hang on to their privileges, and a calvacade of brainwashed crusaders are trying to hang on to a myth.
Sure Dan. But finding a political compromise now seems a remote possibility. The situation was militarized by the emergency decree and this seems to have limited the possibilities of further government negotiation. The Prime Minister was prepared to sit down with them but he’s now been removed from the situation. So long as the reds continue to demand elections and the government continue to resist their demands there seems little room to maneuver.
If the current strategy is to wait the red shirts out then its working in so far as the numbers seem to be dropping a bit. Will they finally give up and decamp? Its possible but it seems to me unlikely.
Intervention from a third party would appear to be the only other possibility. In the past interventions have not usually preceded crackdowns though obviously you can argue that that point has already been reached in recent events. The reds are obviously hoping for something along these lines but there doesn’t seem to be any response forthcoming so far.
I agree with you Dan. A massacre is not the only possible way to proceed. There are other ways. But if there is a crackdown, with live ammunition, and with the military expecting terrorists then I don’t think the term massacre is too strong a word to express the likely result.
Dan, I agree with everything you’ve been saying and I have been saying the same things … and getting death threats for my effort.
It seems a lot of people want to think you have to be on one side or the other but both sides are screwed up. The reds have shot themselves in the foot over a dozen times since this peaceful protest started. They could have continued talks but that is not what Thaksin wanted. The red leaders are taking their cues from Thaksin and he will use them to his own end every time.
Unfortunately there will probably be another military junta in control very soon and then it will start all over again.
My condolences Talen – and welcome to the club! Getting ugly mails these days as well and former loyal voices not writing at all anymore. That’s a new thing, isn’t it, didn’t happen under the yellow mayhem that a red cyber army terrorizes bloggers and tweeters and such. Threatened people email me and ask for help if they should take down posts and comments and such … Brave red world. Not with me. Count me in the opposition from day one. If ever.
BangkokDan
Funny thing, ever since the peaceful protests started the whack jobs have come out of the woodwork and for some reason they think this is just poor Thai people looking for democracy and refuse to see that Thaksin is pulling all the strings and supplying all the money and this all so Thaksin can come back to the country and retake his seat of power … or at least try.
Yes, the average red supporter and the people of rural Thailand do need a voice and they do have real grievances but Thaksin doesn’t care about them he only cares about what they can do for him … and so far they are doing their damnedest for him.
yob: congratulations on living up to your name!
It should have been possible to get the govt to come down from their nine month timeline if the reds gave ground as well. Instead we have this impasse.
The reds have got plenty of legitimate grievances but not much in the way of strategy. Their huge numbers give them the capacity for disruption, but they don’t know what to do with it. There was an article in The Guardian a while back, Dr. Weng being asked by reporters what they were going to do next. His answer: “I don’t know that myself.”
If they are still getting their instructions from Thaksin … perhaps that’s just as well, cos I wouldn’t trust the rest of them to run the country. As far as Arisman goes, I wouldn’t trust him with a bottle of Aspirin, unless it had a child-proof cap.
And then you have all the voiceless they represent. As someone said about the British army during WWI: lions led by donkeys.
I agree there can’t be a winner anymore. What’s the use in victory when you’re standing on rubble, right?
It’s always been a seriously flawed society and the French revolution never passed here.
I feel sorry for all well-meaning protesters, but as for the red movement as a whole: whatever they’re selling, I’m not buying.
And as for those red keyboard warriors and other sad sacks, oh well …
Any solution has to be peaceful or else it will lack credibility.
Oh, I long for that happy bygone era of blog posts about delicious, healthy, reasonably-priced cheese made here in Bangkok…
(That’s not a criticism of your blog, BD; rather, it’s my wistful way of saying, wouldn’t it be fantastic if we could all just wake up and the political nightmare would be over?)
Khun Dan, remember one of my favorite philosophical phrases:
It is just laughably sad that some people cannot accept the fact that you have different views from them, whereas their bile towards your comment is hypocritically funny since they are preaching about democratic expression.
You look into the abyss and you see red shirts at the bottom of it and you dance on their bodies. That may be the outcome, but you should shudder at the cost. Not just in lives but in the repression that must follow in order to continue to protect the privileges of a frightened middle class and an arrogant ruling class.
“It is just laughably sad that” … Dan continues to write in style of The Nation. Now his posts rival Sophon’s op-eds! (Tulsie in comparison to Sophon is just a merry ting-tong clown who initiates polls to find a better acronym to oxymoron “multicolored” / “no color” LOL
)
To go into details and attempt to debunk all the fallacies one by one would be too time consuming.
Well, I guess Dan gets desired result: his own club. Or perhaps he gets some score at drawing internet traffic to his blog’s website.
Anyway, whatever … have fun, Dan!
And Oneditorial – are you Tulsie by chance?
(I doubt it would be Sophon)
(BD: That’s quite an accusation antiPADshist 555. If you’re a regular reader of the News Feed you will know that there never ever was a single piece mentioned written by Sophon. Now that guy’s a reactionary!)
Hear hear Oneditorial and I have to agree with Dan.
As a Thai, one thing that saddens me most about the two fractions and even with the multi-color shirts people. At the end of the day, it comes down to who you support but not what.
Can’t we see that we are just political pawns for the most powerful few to play Titans still and it’s 2010 not 1510.
If we support people, we, Thais will never get to taste real democracy. Freedom to vote for an ideal is more important than for a person.
Until we, Thais, learn that one man one vote means freedom to have idea then we that’s it we are stuck.
Political parties must have a manifestos and party leaders must know them and we must vote for this not people.
Have we Thais become so shallow as to waste our vote so that some people can keep their rich and powerful lifestyles regardless of poverty, economic crisis, legal rights and wrong?
October 10th demonstration was a real fight for democracy. But not this.
These types of demonstrations simply teach us how to bully each other. It allows some people a chance to live out Ramboesque dreams of invincibility against the rich and powerful. And if they do fall then they simply give their lives away freely for no good to Thailand.
Just in case any of you missed the statements by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on the Thai situation, the following are some key highlights:
From Human Rights Watch:
- The UDD protest turned violent on April 7 when Arisman Pongruangrong, a leader of the UDD, led protesters from their rally site at Phan Fa Bridge to surround the parliament building while cabinet ministers and members of parliament (MPs) were meeting. As the riot police retreated, the protesters forced their way through the barred gate using a truck and entered the parliament compound … a MP from the pro-Thaksin Puea Thai Party urged the crowd on, the protesters assaulted a military police officer from Suthep’s protection team and seized his weapons (including a pistol and an M16 assault rifle)
- Human Rights Watch noted that under orders from Prime Minister Abhisit, soldiers and police initially showed great restraint in the face of provocations by protestors. Both the raid on the parliament compound on April 7 and the confrontation at the Thaicom satellite station on April 9 seemed calculated to bring a violent response by the security forces.
- When the protesters tried to storm the compound, they were stopped with water cannons. The protesters threw rocks and bricks at the soldiers. Soldiers used batons and shields, teargas, and rubber bullets to disperse the protesters. Video footage and still photos showed some soldiers firing M16 and TAR21 assault rifles in the air with live ammunition throughout that afternoon. Human Rights Watch has obtained photos showing that magazines of those assault rifles were loaded with the live ammunition (green-tipped 5.56-mm ball M855 ammunition). Teargas canisters were thrown from a military helicopter at the protesters, risking death and serious injuries among protestors from the falling canisters.
- The situation on April 10 became more violent after nightfall as both sides engaged in gunfights. The protesters regrouped and fought back with metal pipes and sharpened bamboo sticks. Some of them hurled petrol bombs at the soldiers, while others attacked the soldiers with improvised explosive devices. Some soldiers were filmed shooting with live ammunition directly at the protesters with M16 and TAR21 assault rifles.
- On the night of April 10, protesters armed with M16 and AK47 assault rifles fired upon soldiers at Khok Wua Intersection on Rajdamnoen Road. Some of them fired M79 grenades and threw M67 hand grenades at the soldiers. Video footage showed that these gunmen operated with a high degree of skill and coordination. Some of their attacks appeared to be aimed specifically at killing and maiming commanding officers of the army units involved in crowd dispersal operations.
- Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that some UDD protesters stopped ambulances on their way to hospitals. They dragged injured soldiers out of the ambulances and beat them.
- In light of increasing casualties on both sides, the government announced around 9 p.m. that crowd dispersal operations would be ceased. In addition to the deaths and injuries, the UDD claims that many protesters have gone missing since the clash on April 10.
- UDD leader Nathawut publicly urged protesters to loot and destroy high-end shopping malls in that area. While under pressure from the military to clear the area, Abhisit ordered the government not to attempt to disperse the UDD protesters at Ratchaprasong intersection for fear of heavy casualties and damages.
- “Prime Minister Abhisit’s announcement that he will investigate the conduct of the security forces is unprecedented, but he needs to show the will and ability to follow through,” said Adams. “At the same time, regardless of their stated grievances, those in the UDD responsible for crimes must be brought to justice. The UDD’s leaders should understand that when they use violence, they cannot claim to be a peaceful movement.”
- Human Rights Watch expressed concern over the broad-based immunity provision in the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in a State of Emergency (Emergency Decree), originally declared by the Thaksin government … Section 17 of the Emergency Decree breaches Thailand’s international obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to investigate all such violations regardless of circumstances, and hold perpetrators to account.
- Some UDD leaders and protesters have reacted aggressively towards Thai reporters who criticized their protest or exposed their acts of violence and abuses. On April 11, reporters were pressured to leave the protest site at Phan Fa Bridge. On the same day, mobile broadcast vans of Modern Nine TV and TPBS TV were seized by red-shirted protesters at the Thaicome satellite office in Pathumthani province. The UDD protesters have targeted the government’s NBT TV for protests, including by attacking the NBT TV headquarters in Bangkok and its provincial offices with M79 grenades. UDD protesters attacked the headquarters of Channel 5 TV in Bangkok with M67 hand grenades.
- “The government undermines its claims to be democratic when it engages in such widespread censorship of political views,” said Adams. “Both journalists and media freedom in Thailand have been at risk from the political conflict.”
Source:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/04/12/thailand-end-political-violence-bring-offenders-justice
From Amnesty International’s statement:
- Amnesty International welcomes the Thai government’s pledge to investigate promptly, effectively, and impartially the recent violence, and urges it to provide accountability for any violations by security forces as well as abuses by violent protesters.
- The military used lethal force in the operations, while some individuals among the protesters also used guns and grenades, as well as improvised weapons.
- Amnesty International recognises the Thai government’s obligation to protect the lives and well-being of all people, including by exercising due diligence to prevent attacks by non-state actors.
- Amnesty International also pointed out that the right to freedom of assembly protects only peaceful assembly, and that those who engage in human rights abuses may be subject to accountability for their actions. Opposition political leaders, including former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, an ally of the UDD – should publicly commit to ending human rights abuses, and to specifically ask their supporters to refrain from further violent attacks on political opponents.
- Thai security forces must adhere to international principles on crowd dispersal and the use of force.
Source:
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/22893/
The reds have a reasonable demand: new elections. The government has made a reasonable offer: new election in six months. If they have come that far, why can’t they work it out? While new elections may not be the end of the story, it would prevent further violence here and now.
Unfortunately, the government has lost credibility in the April 10th clash, but the red shirts have lost credibility long before that, because their chosen methods include sabotage, terrorism, blackmailing and violence against security forces as well as civilians.
The only acceptable course of action for the red shirts is to immediately dissolve the protests, abstain from further violence and resume talks. Anyone accusing one party for using violence while excusing the other party, hasn’t really learned the lesson.
Cheers, CMX
When the government started to stuff the NGOs with people of obvious yellow shirt sympathies most of us thought it was a case of the military wanting to avoid the consequences of certain operational neccessities in the south. Seeing how partisan the statements coming from these organizations are now I guess the military are better advance planners than the events of April 10 might suggests.
It doesn’t matter how much propaganda the very powerful forces supporting the government put out. These kind of interventions now only succeed in making the propagandist look partisan and as prey to double standards as the organs of government themselves. Who are they trying to convince? It seems that until recently, most of the privileged Sino-Thai middle class are The Nation readers and yellow sympathizers. Their support has been predicated on the idea that neutralizing the new type of popular politics developed by Thaksin & Co. would lead to a return to business as usual or Thai-style democracy. The Economist this week called this view “Sufficiency Democracy” and if the economy had continued to function as it did under the Thaksin then it’s possible that this would have been a successful strategy. The problem is that there has been a collapse underway in the key sectors that employ the unskilled and low education people who comprise the rank and file of red shirt demonstrators (if not their sympathizers). Industrial production, new construction and some sectors of agricultural production have all taken big hits recently. That means that the people on the street have very little to lose but their lives. In many cases I suspect that their livelihoods are forfeit already. It’s this kind of hard focused support that makes the red shirts so difficult to dispose of in the traditional Thai manner.
Even if you try to read these comments as even handed and detached then they seem simply to serve the purpose of staying that we are not taking sides.
(BD: Was afraid you’d call Brad Adams biased.)
Biased Dan? Not obviously so surely. But I’d describe his words as mealy mouthed …
Anyway, surely we are all biased by our own agendas? Nothing wrong with that so long as these agendas are declared of course.
I don’t know what hits are you talking about Jaded, the economy grows and expands and prior to red protests the outlook among the population was overwhelmingly positive.
A lot of “people on the street” go to work every day and demonstrate in the evenings.
Now that’s a tricky one Jaded with Brad Adams.
You may remember that he was denounced as biased in the final days of Sri Lanka’s civil war. Denounced as being biased against the Tamil Tigers – considered to be a terrorist organization by many Western governments.
As a rule of thumb, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are most likely quite able to get a pretty solid picture of what is really going on on the ground.
BangkokDan
I know zip about Amnesty in Asia but I have had experiences with them elsewhere. When I was in college twenty years ago I even worked with them for a bit. I think I have some inkling of the political games they have to play to achieve an impact. Being mealy mouthed is part of their operational model. I would equate listening to Amnesty on Thailand to reading Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s ratings on large banks. To have a business they need to be very careful who they downgrade. Amnesty wants to have an impact so it needs to be cautious when it denounces practices or behavior. In the case of both the ratings agencies and Amnesty this can create conflicts of interest …
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/26/the-betrayal-of-human-right
From someone who is obviously far better informed than myself. What does it say about the state of the human rights movements in Thailand that the person who wrote this has chosen to remain anonymous?
Actually, what does it say about Thailand’s culture that it has taken this long for the piece to see the light of day?
I had missed this when it came out but it’s highly relevant to any Amnesty discussion …
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/ai-on-thailand/
What timing!
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/the-battle-for-bangkok/
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ai-usa-urges-president-obama-to-send-a-special-envoy-to-thailand/
You could not make this up. Its actually beyond parody …
I looked at AIUSA’s main page on Thailand Human Rights. Its summary of events ends with “… elections are expected by October 2007.””
HRW/Brad Adams’ latest:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/05/05/letter-prime-minister-abhisit-thailands-candidacy-un-human-rights-council