.
I've never really been a student of wars, civil wars, peace outcomes and such, however I was listening to a radio conversation about the Sri Lankan situation where the concepts of just war, premature peace, and lasting peace were considered.
The contention is that peace is more lasting if one side has an overwhelming victory, and civil wars that settle through compromise have a greater chance of re-erupting (30% from memory, compared to 12% for the wars resolved with an overwhelming victory to one side)
That got me thinking to the Thailand political situation, and made me ponder the following questions:
- Is there a chance that a smoothing of tensions now would be a premature peace?
I suppose it would depend on what form the smoothing (compromise) took - if it was a mere settlement with Thaksin, then it is fairly obvious the conflict would inevitably return as the underlying inequalities would remain.
- Is either side capable of an overwhelming victory?
I think this time the old guard cannot win unless they go the Burma/Nth Korea route, in which case there would be NO real winner
Without Thaksin as their leader, the reds (presumably the masses) have a just cause, and if Thailand wants to remain part of a globalized world, then it is clear they are the only side that is capable of ultimate victory.
- Who is reading this long game correctly?
Abhisit and the Democrats seem to be throwing olive branches on aspects of political reform, but at the same time are imposing more draconian measures on dissent.
To me it looks like they are still trying to win the war using the old methods that have been succesful in previous battles, just refined a little for the current times - IMO, those methods will no longer work unless the country has very large resources that the rest of the world wants, a very large population (closer to billions than tens of millions) or nuclear weapons.
On the other side there are conflicting signals:
Thaksin (whether of his own volition or that of his 'paid advisers' :) lately is distancing himself from the role of leader of the revolution - he seems to be reading the long game, and obviously hopes to regain the spoils from the expected ultimate victory by the masses.
Then there is Jakrapob sniping away talking about revolution including possible new strategies using violence & weapons....he too seems to be reading the long game, and seems set on trying to forge a name for himself - I still am having trouble foretelling how he will go down in history: It could be as a great freedom fighter, a paid lackey of a master manipulator, or even a well intentioned fool - only time will tell!
I think the question of premature peace is an important one in the Thailand political situation, and hope my shallow thoughts here can give the deeper thinkers something to ponder.
Sorry, no deep analysis from me as that's somehing I am not capable of - too intellectually lazy, and am in awe of my fellow bloggers on the Thai situation (the only thing we have in common is that we blog, and the fact that they are capable of analysis shows the real difference between an 'opinionated nobody' and a good blogger or an academic)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Chamlong falls off the wagon
.
I thought Tavivoot was having problems, but Chamlong must have been on a real binge.
(sorry, but Tavivoot has removed his book as it was deemed too dangerous - trust me, it was a great read!)
Interview with Chamlong in The Nation:
The PAD is to set up a new political party. What will "new politics" be like?
The new political party will not be a copycat of the now-defunct Palang Dharma Party (PDP) that I founded 21 years ago, but will be established on principles based on lessons learnt by the PDP. A grand PAD meeting on May 24 and 25 will discuss the new party's set-up.
The new party, which has not been named, should command a majority of MP seats after the next general election, and will be a coalition member in the next government.
Hobby: Does he know something we don't?
Palang Dharma actually practised the so-called "new politics" which has been heralded by the PAD, even back before 1988, when the party was established. In 1990, an American professor who did his doctoral thesis at London University, later wrote a book entitled: "Chamlong Srimuang and the New Politics". I guess it was then that the new politics was first recognised.
Hobby: I wonder what Duncan McCargo thinks of that statement?
The new party will be successful because of three factors that Palang Dharma did not have at that time: The Election Commission will watch out for and punish vote-buying, the support of PAD members across the country, and cable channel ASTV.
Hobby: Sure sounds like a winning combination to me.
It is important that the new party lead the coalition in the next government, otherwise it will be no different to all the "old politics", with its vote-buying, mud-slinging and money politics.
Who attempted to assassinate Sondhi Limthongkul, a core PAD leader?
I don't know, but there two motives behind the murder attempt: PAD has tremendous support from the masses across the country and ASTV's success as a mouthpiece for the PAD, which is known as the core of the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra movement.
Why was Sonthi the first target, as a leader of yellow-shirted people, instead of those in red shirts?
The people who gave the order didn't care who they killed, first or later. But the current political turmoil dictated the order of kills. More importanly, there are known leaders of yellow-shirted people, who are even classsified as prime and secondary leaders, while there are no known leaders of red-shirted people. Should Thaksin be killed first? He stays abroad now.
Was there really an effort to lure yellow shirts and red shirts on to the street to fight one another?
Yes, but we did not walk into that trap. Somebody may use the ensuing violence as an excuse to oppress both yellow and red shirts, citing himself as a knight on a white horse. It's the government's duty to deal with lawless protesters, not the PAD's.
As you have confirmed, there was an effort to stage a coup on April 12 and 13, a day before the red-shirted supporters' busiest activities and street protests. Why was it aborted?
A coup was seen as essential to bring peace - and secondly, it may have been used as bargaining power in exchange for a law to pardon [Thaksin], to promulgate a so-called Reconciliation Act, or even to amend the Constitution. Yet, I don't know why it was aborted.
Hobby: Coup by who??? Does the following response provide the answer?
What did the people behind the coup and the assassination attempt want?
They wanted power. They wanted to pardon some wrongdoers so they could escape serving prison terms and asset seizure. Or they wanted more and more power to become bigger in the country.
Does the ideology of some die-hard communists still exist? Was there any effort to revive it along with other tactics [used by the red shirts]?
Some die-hard communists who became Thaksin's allies will still pursue their ideology despite the collapse of Soviet-era communism and the capitalism now adopted by China. But it is very difficult for them to achieve their goal. They came up this time with a clear stance against the monarchy - a policy they never stated clearly during their armed struggle then. And they are complaining about the PAD using their anti-monarchy policy as the main goal in our campaign. It's clear to everyone now that PAD always tells the truth.
Hobby: No comment necessary!
Was Thaksin part of the communists' anti-monarchy movement?
Some of them - but we don't know clearly who is who - may view Thaksin as their ally.
It was the government's duty to uphold and enforce the lese majeste law, as the anti-monarchy doctrine has been spread out and is now widely accepted by people who are highly-respected lecturers, who are admired by their like-minded students.
The anti-monarchy doctrine was a threat to national security and the government must take responsibility for its inaction in dealing with the widespread violation of the lese majeste laws. I can't tell whether the PAD would "take action" to tackle the problem, if the government proved incompetent or was inactive in dealing with the issue.
Hobby: Wonder what action the PAD are planning? I thought they were forming a political party?
What factors would prompt the PAD to launch a new round of rallies? Would the amendment of the Constitution and the pardon law be one of them?
I don't know. We must wait and see.
The PAD staged rallies against two previous governments over plans to amend the Constitution and the pardon law. Why should it be different this time?
We cannot set up such preconditions. We need to analyse the situation because the time and circumstances have changed. The PAD doesn't own the country and cannot tell the government what not to do.
Why do the same conditions not apply like they did during the two previous governments?
We do not know what articles in the Constitution are set to be amended. It's wiser for us not to talk about it in advance.
Will the PAD rally to oust the government if it does nothing to deal with people who want to pursue an anti-monarchy stance?
It's a threat the government has to deal with. It just cannot let these people get away.
How much time should the government be allowed [to act]?
Oh. We don't own the government. We are not that big or powerful. We campaigned against the Samak and Somchai governments because they clearly acted as nominees or puppets of the Thaksin regime.
Hobby: Anyone else see a contradiction with earlier statements?
Even the Abhisit government is practising the old politics at a certain point - by kowtowing to certain groups of powerful people. For example, it has changed its stance on relocation of Thai Airways' operations from Don Mueang to Suvarnabhumi Airport, and it eventually decided to draw back from a ban on alcohol sales during Songkran, under influence from liquor companies.
I don't think the Abhisit government has the actual control, or the Asean Summit in Pattaya would have proceeded and there would have been no attack at the Interior Ministry.
Hobby: I used to like Chamlong, and could symathize with his stance on corruption and moral issues, but this interview shows he is way past it (or should be!)
And no, this interview did not come from Not the Nation
Update:
On reflection, there is a positive of sorts, in that PAD at least appear to be prepared to contest elections and let the people decide whether they want their policies or not.
(BUT if their history is anything to go by, it is doubtful they would ever abide by those election results should things not go the way they want - I suppose they will then morph from a political party back into a protest group, or maybe they will go the Irish way and have a political and a military wing?)
I thought Tavivoot was having problems, but Chamlong must have been on a real binge.
(sorry, but Tavivoot has removed his book as it was deemed too dangerous - trust me, it was a great read!)
Interview with Chamlong in The Nation:
The PAD is to set up a new political party. What will "new politics" be like?
The new political party will not be a copycat of the now-defunct Palang Dharma Party (PDP) that I founded 21 years ago, but will be established on principles based on lessons learnt by the PDP. A grand PAD meeting on May 24 and 25 will discuss the new party's set-up.
The new party, which has not been named, should command a majority of MP seats after the next general election, and will be a coalition member in the next government.
Hobby: Does he know something we don't?
Palang Dharma actually practised the so-called "new politics" which has been heralded by the PAD, even back before 1988, when the party was established. In 1990, an American professor who did his doctoral thesis at London University, later wrote a book entitled: "Chamlong Srimuang and the New Politics". I guess it was then that the new politics was first recognised.
Hobby: I wonder what Duncan McCargo thinks of that statement?
The new party will be successful because of three factors that Palang Dharma did not have at that time: The Election Commission will watch out for and punish vote-buying, the support of PAD members across the country, and cable channel ASTV.
Hobby: Sure sounds like a winning combination to me.
It is important that the new party lead the coalition in the next government, otherwise it will be no different to all the "old politics", with its vote-buying, mud-slinging and money politics.
Who attempted to assassinate Sondhi Limthongkul, a core PAD leader?
I don't know, but there two motives behind the murder attempt: PAD has tremendous support from the masses across the country and ASTV's success as a mouthpiece for the PAD, which is known as the core of the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra movement.
Why was Sonthi the first target, as a leader of yellow-shirted people, instead of those in red shirts?
The people who gave the order didn't care who they killed, first or later. But the current political turmoil dictated the order of kills. More importanly, there are known leaders of yellow-shirted people, who are even classsified as prime and secondary leaders, while there are no known leaders of red-shirted people. Should Thaksin be killed first? He stays abroad now.
Was there really an effort to lure yellow shirts and red shirts on to the street to fight one another?
Yes, but we did not walk into that trap. Somebody may use the ensuing violence as an excuse to oppress both yellow and red shirts, citing himself as a knight on a white horse. It's the government's duty to deal with lawless protesters, not the PAD's.
As you have confirmed, there was an effort to stage a coup on April 12 and 13, a day before the red-shirted supporters' busiest activities and street protests. Why was it aborted?
A coup was seen as essential to bring peace - and secondly, it may have been used as bargaining power in exchange for a law to pardon [Thaksin], to promulgate a so-called Reconciliation Act, or even to amend the Constitution. Yet, I don't know why it was aborted.
Hobby: Coup by who??? Does the following response provide the answer?
What did the people behind the coup and the assassination attempt want?
They wanted power. They wanted to pardon some wrongdoers so they could escape serving prison terms and asset seizure. Or they wanted more and more power to become bigger in the country.
Does the ideology of some die-hard communists still exist? Was there any effort to revive it along with other tactics [used by the red shirts]?
Some die-hard communists who became Thaksin's allies will still pursue their ideology despite the collapse of Soviet-era communism and the capitalism now adopted by China. But it is very difficult for them to achieve their goal. They came up this time with a clear stance against the monarchy - a policy they never stated clearly during their armed struggle then. And they are complaining about the PAD using their anti-monarchy policy as the main goal in our campaign. It's clear to everyone now that PAD always tells the truth.
Hobby: No comment necessary!
Was Thaksin part of the communists' anti-monarchy movement?
Some of them - but we don't know clearly who is who - may view Thaksin as their ally.
It was the government's duty to uphold and enforce the lese majeste law, as the anti-monarchy doctrine has been spread out and is now widely accepted by people who are highly-respected lecturers, who are admired by their like-minded students.
The anti-monarchy doctrine was a threat to national security and the government must take responsibility for its inaction in dealing with the widespread violation of the lese majeste laws. I can't tell whether the PAD would "take action" to tackle the problem, if the government proved incompetent or was inactive in dealing with the issue.
Hobby: Wonder what action the PAD are planning? I thought they were forming a political party?
What factors would prompt the PAD to launch a new round of rallies? Would the amendment of the Constitution and the pardon law be one of them?
I don't know. We must wait and see.
The PAD staged rallies against two previous governments over plans to amend the Constitution and the pardon law. Why should it be different this time?
We cannot set up such preconditions. We need to analyse the situation because the time and circumstances have changed. The PAD doesn't own the country and cannot tell the government what not to do.
Why do the same conditions not apply like they did during the two previous governments?
We do not know what articles in the Constitution are set to be amended. It's wiser for us not to talk about it in advance.
Will the PAD rally to oust the government if it does nothing to deal with people who want to pursue an anti-monarchy stance?
It's a threat the government has to deal with. It just cannot let these people get away.
How much time should the government be allowed [to act]?
Oh. We don't own the government. We are not that big or powerful. We campaigned against the Samak and Somchai governments because they clearly acted as nominees or puppets of the Thaksin regime.
Hobby: Anyone else see a contradiction with earlier statements?
Even the Abhisit government is practising the old politics at a certain point - by kowtowing to certain groups of powerful people. For example, it has changed its stance on relocation of Thai Airways' operations from Don Mueang to Suvarnabhumi Airport, and it eventually decided to draw back from a ban on alcohol sales during Songkran, under influence from liquor companies.
I don't think the Abhisit government has the actual control, or the Asean Summit in Pattaya would have proceeded and there would have been no attack at the Interior Ministry.
Hobby: I used to like Chamlong, and could symathize with his stance on corruption and moral issues, but this interview shows he is way past it (or should be!)
And no, this interview did not come from Not the Nation
Update:
On reflection, there is a positive of sorts, in that PAD at least appear to be prepared to contest elections and let the people decide whether they want their policies or not.
(BUT if their history is anything to go by, it is doubtful they would ever abide by those election results should things not go the way they want - I suppose they will then morph from a political party back into a protest group, or maybe they will go the Irish way and have a political and a military wing?)
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
On Attachment/Detachment
.
Have a listen to Part 2 on this page
Update: If the above link does not work, manually go to this page: http://degreesofemotion.wordpress.com/eckhart-tolle-a-new-earth-cd2/
(listen to Part 2 - actually, IMO, the whole book is very good)
Eckhart Tolle in 'A New Earth':
"How do we let go of attachment to things? Don't even try. It's impossible. Attachment to things drops away by itself when you no longer seek to find yourself in them. In the meantime, just be aware of your attachment to things. Sometimes you may not know you are attached to something, which is to say identified, until you lose it or there is a threat of loss. If you then become upset, anxious, and so on, it means you are attached. If you are aware that you are identified with a thing, the identification is no longer total. 'I am the awareness that is aware that there is attachment'. That's the beginning of the transformation of consciousness."
If only the Thai leaders were truly Buddhist!
Have a listen to Part 2 on this page
Update: If the above link does not work, manually go to this page: http://degreesofemotion.wordpress.com/eckhart-tolle-a-new-earth-cd2/
(listen to Part 2 - actually, IMO, the whole book is very good)
Eckhart Tolle in 'A New Earth':
"How do we let go of attachment to things? Don't even try. It's impossible. Attachment to things drops away by itself when you no longer seek to find yourself in them. In the meantime, just be aware of your attachment to things. Sometimes you may not know you are attached to something, which is to say identified, until you lose it or there is a threat of loss. If you then become upset, anxious, and so on, it means you are attached. If you are aware that you are identified with a thing, the identification is no longer total. 'I am the awareness that is aware that there is attachment'. That's the beginning of the transformation of consciousness."
If only the Thai leaders were truly Buddhist!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Reform or Perish
.
Its all been said before, back & forth we go about Prem, Thaksin, uneducated masses, corrupt, selfish, manipulative, greedy elites & military, police, politicians, third hands, thainess, aversion to loss of face etc etc etc.
Hopefully I have the self control to make this my final comment on Thai politics:
Now is the time for Abhisit to decide how he wants to go down in history - it's his choice whether he is seen as another in a long line of elite manipulators, or a true reformer.
Whichever route he chooses, he is unlikely to win a fair election in the short term, but if he chooses reform he at least will eventually be fondly remembered by the majority
(and he is actually young enough that he might one day win an election fair & square, once the masses realize that no one is semi-divine, not HMK nor Thaksin)
Choose wrongly, and blowback is inevitable.
Obviously, there are quite a few others who also could make a difference, but I still think the most important players are still Thaksin, Prem & Abhisit.
Thaksin & Prem have already had ample opportunities to change and have shown no sign of doing so - time is not on Prem's side and his successor is unlikely to have nearly as much clout, so unless they are bloodyminded & stupid enough to go the Burma route, change is inevitable.
Thaksin is in a lot of hot water now, but I dont think it is too late for him to change - if he started to show some remorse and humility, he could be back sooner than expected - and I don't mean grovelling to Prem, rather he needs to be honest about the good and the bad of his own past actions - if he can do that there is probably no need for the yellow shirts to even exist.
Whether the red shirts need to exist will depend on what Abhisit does, but he has had enough warning from events over this Songkran, that if he chooses wrongly then the next uprising will be much bigger and harder to quell (especially if the reds have dropped the blind allegiance to Thaksin by then)
It's up to the Thais to sort the mechanics of the reform, but obviously the constitution rewrite needs to be an inclusive consultative process, and any remaining contentious items will have to go to a fair referendum, with all sides having an equal opportunity to present their arguments.
Before that reform can even happen, the first obstacle to be tackled is whether to prosecute all leaders on both the yellow and red sides, or to grant amnesties all round - whatever they choose, both sides need to be treated equally, otherwise there will be blowback one way or the other.
I wish them good luck in sorting this political mess out, so they can then move on to resolving the Southern Thailand insurgency.
Make the wrong moves and the south wont be the only place where there is an insurgency.
Thailand needs change, the genie is out of the bottle, and the old ways to put it back in will no longer work - heed the warnings!
Its all been said before, back & forth we go about Prem, Thaksin, uneducated masses, corrupt, selfish, manipulative, greedy elites & military, police, politicians, third hands, thainess, aversion to loss of face etc etc etc.
Hopefully I have the self control to make this my final comment on Thai politics:
Now is the time for Abhisit to decide how he wants to go down in history - it's his choice whether he is seen as another in a long line of elite manipulators, or a true reformer.
Whichever route he chooses, he is unlikely to win a fair election in the short term, but if he chooses reform he at least will eventually be fondly remembered by the majority
(and he is actually young enough that he might one day win an election fair & square, once the masses realize that no one is semi-divine, not HMK nor Thaksin)
Choose wrongly, and blowback is inevitable.
Obviously, there are quite a few others who also could make a difference, but I still think the most important players are still Thaksin, Prem & Abhisit.
Thaksin & Prem have already had ample opportunities to change and have shown no sign of doing so - time is not on Prem's side and his successor is unlikely to have nearly as much clout, so unless they are bloodyminded & stupid enough to go the Burma route, change is inevitable.
Thaksin is in a lot of hot water now, but I dont think it is too late for him to change - if he started to show some remorse and humility, he could be back sooner than expected - and I don't mean grovelling to Prem, rather he needs to be honest about the good and the bad of his own past actions - if he can do that there is probably no need for the yellow shirts to even exist.
Whether the red shirts need to exist will depend on what Abhisit does, but he has had enough warning from events over this Songkran, that if he chooses wrongly then the next uprising will be much bigger and harder to quell (especially if the reds have dropped the blind allegiance to Thaksin by then)
It's up to the Thais to sort the mechanics of the reform, but obviously the constitution rewrite needs to be an inclusive consultative process, and any remaining contentious items will have to go to a fair referendum, with all sides having an equal opportunity to present their arguments.
Before that reform can even happen, the first obstacle to be tackled is whether to prosecute all leaders on both the yellow and red sides, or to grant amnesties all round - whatever they choose, both sides need to be treated equally, otherwise there will be blowback one way or the other.
I wish them good luck in sorting this political mess out, so they can then move on to resolving the Southern Thailand insurgency.
Make the wrong moves and the south wont be the only place where there is an insurgency.
Thailand needs change, the genie is out of the bottle, and the old ways to put it back in will no longer work - heed the warnings!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thailand Lucky
.
It's time for an upbeat comment, so I'm looking on the bright side, and here's my spin on things:
- The uprising of the downtrodden in Thailand was inevitable
- The Thaksin phenomenon has helped bring it on (again he is the accidental democrat!)
- Thailand is very fortunate to have Abhisit as the PM during these times, because his handling of such an uprising is likely to be much more delicate than how most (if not all) of his predecessors would have handled it
- The military appear to finally be acting in a competent manner
(time will tell just how competent they have been in either avoiding or covering up injuries & fatalities!)
- Slowly, peoples eyes are being opened (on both sides of the conflict) and eventually they will be able to see through the Newin, Prem & Thaksin's of this world
My thoughts are with all in Thailand at this time, and especially those reds genuinely protesting for a better & fairer Thailand, the soldiers genuinely trying to do their job, and those yellows and others who genuinely want less corruption, and more checks and balances.
It's time for an upbeat comment, so I'm looking on the bright side, and here's my spin on things:
- The uprising of the downtrodden in Thailand was inevitable
- The Thaksin phenomenon has helped bring it on (again he is the accidental democrat!)
- Thailand is very fortunate to have Abhisit as the PM during these times, because his handling of such an uprising is likely to be much more delicate than how most (if not all) of his predecessors would have handled it
- The military appear to finally be acting in a competent manner
(time will tell just how competent they have been in either avoiding or covering up injuries & fatalities!)
- Slowly, peoples eyes are being opened (on both sides of the conflict) and eventually they will be able to see through the Newin, Prem & Thaksin's of this world
My thoughts are with all in Thailand at this time, and especially those reds genuinely protesting for a better & fairer Thailand, the soldiers genuinely trying to do their job, and those yellows and others who genuinely want less corruption, and more checks and balances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)