I don’t think that the issue here is the wackiness of the alleged plan or the problem of finding evidence or issuing arrest warrants for those named in the plan.
It is more likely that the government’s aim in making public this alleged plot to overthrow the monarchy is to create the conditions for the government to justify the use of extreme force in cracking down on the Red Shirts.
I think it signals that the aim of the government has moved from one of dispersing the Red protesters who have been “merely” disrupting Bangkok’s central business district, to one of saving the monarchy. The use of deadly force is much more justifiable, and much more likely, in the latter case.
In this regard see this important post by Somsak Jeamthirasakul, which was also carried in today’s Matichon:
which compares what Abhisit’s government is doing now with the whipping up of hysteria about threats to the monarchy before the massacre of 6 October 1976.
See also his alarming recent post which predicts that a large massacre is imminent:
Dear All,
I would like to talk about Republic of kawthoolei . I have many question to ask. How to get karen Indepence.?
Could you answer me please.
Thanks
Hsar
General Robert E. Lee who taught at the VMA always referred to his civil war opponents as “those people” to emotionally distance himself from his former comrades and classmates. I would expect graduates of the CMA to do no less – and even more so in the case of politicians.
To pull this threads together with the one on the military “crisis” it seems to me that a distinction of the said law should be made at this critical point in the Nations history.
The law is being used to provide protection for an institution, not an esteemed individual who has already publically criticised said law on two occasions. I think this has been the case for some time and the strength of application can only increase.
Some people have laughed at the idea that the law applies to national security but those applying it certainly see this to be the case. Of course this begs the question of the definition of national security.
Sounds like the government will be introducing the “Patriot Act” soon. Since a precedent for acceptable draconian actions has already been set by the USA. Who will dare criticise it?
With regards to the age of the proponents I see coincidentally that Imelda Marcos is hitting the campaign trail this month at age 80 and kicked off a popular political campaign with a visit to her husbands shrine.
Don’t dismiss the drive of the older generation!
Like it or not SE Asia still thinks and works dynastically, not corporately ask Rupert Murdoch (79) or Lee Kwan Yiew (87) A simple fact some western observers have trouble comprehending. This applies at all rungs of the social ladder. Just ask a red-shirt about family structure. faces may change but institutions (sanctioned or unsanctioned) will remain unchanged.
PPT points out that AIUSA has now removed its statement calling for Obama’s involvement in Thailand, as they also removed their mid-April ‘call for action’ calling for no use of excessive force against protesters.
I looked at AIUSA’s main page on Thailand Human Rights. Its summary of events ends with “… elections are expected by October 2007.”
The governemnt is playing it’s stongest card here and if it happen to be useless then there is no more they can do. everything they treid has failed to far.
With no disrespect intended, I agree with Chris Beale that some main characters in the Thai government are due for retirement. For example, the king makes no sense any more when he tries to speak,as we can see from the most recent example of his “speech” to the newly appointed judges. Is it fair for the country to keep him 0n the throne? He should be decently retired and replaced by his heir. Surely, Thailand would not come to the end of the world because of this change. The change would be all to the good. Thailand should not be hampered by a weak prime minister and an invalid king at the same time. Just look how Belgium has resolved its dilemma. This year being the 6oth anniversary of the wedding of the king and the queen, the proper present both of them can give to the nation should be the king’s self-proclaimed retirement and the queen’s non-involvement in politics.
If it’s just an excuse for a party which additionally brings in local income there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just too much of a schlep to go out there every year on the off chance of getting lucky. What is more there were rounds of applause at times when neither I nor my Thai wife could see anything.
My Isan partner, born into stifling poverty, tells how as a child, she used to squat in a field to perform her morning ablutions and look up at the planes crossing the sky, telling herself one day she would be up there.
She is, but sadly as the citizen of a foreign land.
I think this is a dangerous game of control for the army (as neither the currently controlling Amartya, nor the govt the Reds wish to propel to power will give up wrestling over the men with the guns). The next govt need to manipulate them just as much and will, and part of the problem of disloyalty is that officers favoured by both have been unfairly promoted causing resentment in the ranks, Thaksin was especially good at this.
In fact, if you read Phongpaichit/Baker’s insightful biography of Thaksin you’ll note that he specifically brought the generals back into politics, after decade of them taking a backseat, he strengthened their role, and placed his men in top govt positions, unfortunately for him some of them ‘betrayed’ him.
So, there are your roots in this crisis perhaps, then the coup, then a higher power apparently using them to steal power in Jan 2009, and they are getting fed up with it.
In my opinion the army aren’t terribly good at actually being an army, their strategies in the South have failed miserably, they are proving to be in two minds here too.
Despite all Reds painting them as the enemy I think they’ve been correct in so far refusing to clear out the people and shooting Thais, in other countries it would be expected of them to flatten Rajaprasong, but this is the second time they have been unco-operative with a govt ordering them on the people – once each for the two different govts, and they deserve some credit for that. They are stuck between a rock and hard place, but it’s their own making – they were incompetent enough to let these Black Shirts get out of hand, steal their weapons (and some of their men) and it seems apparent their intelligence is hopeless.
Like the writer of this piece, I have been appalled by Zawacki’s disgraceful handling of his position.
I have sent numerous emails requesting information about AI’s links to the PAD. I am met with dissembling obfuscation.
I ask Zawacki directly when AI will take action against LM – “we’re working in secret with high-level contacts in the government.” (who does he think he is? Hilary bloody Clinton?)
Dismissive, arrogant and opaque, AI’s Thailand mission comes across like a backwards banana regime. Which, given the context and company they keep, shouldn’t be a great surprise.
Why am I perturbed by this?
Because I expect better from an organisation I’ve supported for many years.
Not just grovelling, biased press releases from someone who is clearly not fit for purpose and who has been completely seduced by the carefully calibrated myths of Thailand.
The description of divisions in the RTA are compelling and the author is to be thanked for explaining this dimension of the crisis. We always know there’s something there, but not exactly what.
But I would like to raise some issues of how these factions are described, or interpreted. The differences between the competing groups and individuals are described as over advancement in the officers corps. There are references to the rival classes, to officers who play politics for advancement, to the clique of the Queen’s guard, to the queen meddling, to the role of graft in the promotions business (the GT200 and airship cases), to “demoralised” “career soldiers”; to officers experienced in combat, etc.
Read quickly, one would conclude there are a bunch of corrupt guys who played to the palace for their promotions and, on the other side, a lot of bitter “professionals” who kept their heads down and stayed away from the games. Some of the commenters seem to have read it that way.
But for the details: the writer describes officers in the promotion line –like Gen Thanasak and Gen Wannathip — who are professionals, apparently have good field experience, and are Queen’s guards. He described the two current bosses, one who is reluctant to crack down on the protestors, another who wants a coup, and he binds them together by corrupt deals. Also Queen’s guards.
The unnamed general’s quote is the bull’s eye of the article: it creates a division between “career soldiers” and those “leaders who have climbed to the top without direct experience in real combat, but only through honorary decorations.”
Then the author describes the Men in Black hit squad as possibly aiming to assassinate more leading and promotion-bound officers, and on behalf of whom? — The jealous “career soldiers” left behind? Other political soldiers left behind? Soldiers who tied their future to Thaksin (meaning formerly political, now not)?
So I would like to, with greatest respect for his contribution, ask the author, does it not really boil down to rival cliques, mostly on CMA class bases, competing for promotions and other spoils? That they are all necessarily political, winners and losers? And that it is the same old refrain, not unlike the Manoon-Chamlong Young Turks of Class 7 who played the professional/purity angle when they were losers?
And then I would like to suggest another paradigm: that beyond the competition for spoils, the issues are loyalty and obedience, and there is not a clear definition of how this should work. A military needs to be loyal and obedient to the civilian political commanders. In Thailand you have the throne — and its representatives, in this case Prem and the queen — and then you have the prime minister.
The tradition has been loyalty to the throne, made easier when Prem was PM, because he commanded and channeled the loyalty. But ever since Prem moved upward and Chatichai came in as PM, there has been tension over this, and, probably, real confusion in the ranks. (Just how is loyalty to the civilian command taught at CMA?)
In the past this tension did not normally matter much, because the only things to gain were spoils of office, and perhaps the ability to reinforce the ideology of the military-palace management of politics.
But now, since Thaksin came up, the palace has been in survival mode, and fighting to maintain and reward allegiance. And those officers who chose to be close to Thaksin rather than
Prem — or didn’t straddle that split well — lost out.
That’s politics, but it is also understanding who is the ultimate commander, who and what you are loyal to. Abhisit is seen by some as attached to the alleged “political” generals in power or on the rise, but what he has done has realigned government house as one node of civilian command with the palace — understandable since both share the view of Thaksin as a systemic threat.
The problem then is if there is a divide in the civilian command over reaction — some asking the generals for a fast but brutal crackdown, others like Abhisit willing to take a more measured or calm approach.
Military leadership always has to be politically conscious and politically wily. But it must be confusing now — if you are a senior RTA officer, who is your ultimate commander, and what institutions are you to defend?
“As the soul of the nation, he should warn his wife not to meddle in the national security operations or control her behaviour,”
This quote is attributed to two sources? Presume it’s a generalisation?
“Entrenched military involvement in politics and political involvement in the military have demoralized career soldiers. There is no sincere respect for the current and future leaders who have climbed to the top without direct experience in real combat, but only through honorary decorations,”
In a country full of corruption (with the fingers pointed at both police and army for being role models), surely this hardly a deviation from the norm over the past 20 years?
Looking at the footage available it’s blatantly obvious the late Colonel Romklao was taken out by a highly trained force with a dedicated mission.
Given Arisman’s attitude prior to the April 22nd and actions of the red shirt protesters that night compared to previous nights I personally have no doubt whoever fired the M79’s into the Silom crowd was coordinating directly with them.
There’s been plenty written about the economic/ class aspects of this conflict, but relatively little about the generational change afoot here.
Prem, the King, and The Queen are now very old – and so are their advisers.
In Australia, High Court Judges – equivalent to Supreme Court in the US – gladly retire at the compulsory age of 70.
My first point is that HMK and HMQ are getting advice from people way beyond retirement age in Western societies.
My second point is that much younger people like Abhisit and even
his more senior Suthep, are nonetheless playing the old Cold War game here – a throwback to the past of at least twenty years ago –
with all this LM nonsense against the Red-Shirts.
Are they cynically sucking up to the now very old elite ?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Suthep threatens arrests
I don’t think that the issue here is the wackiness of the alleged plan or the problem of finding evidence or issuing arrest warrants for those named in the plan.
It is more likely that the government’s aim in making public this alleged plot to overthrow the monarchy is to create the conditions for the government to justify the use of extreme force in cracking down on the Red Shirts.
I think it signals that the aim of the government has moved from one of dispersing the Red protesters who have been “merely” disrupting Bangkok’s central business district, to one of saving the monarchy. The use of deadly force is much more justifiable, and much more likely, in the latter case.
In this regard see this important post by Somsak Jeamthirasakul, which was also carried in today’s Matichon:
“р╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣М р╣Ар╕зр╕Кр╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕░: р╕Бр╕│р╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Зр╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕ер╕░р╕Др╕гр╣Бр╕Вр╕зр╕Щр╕Др╕н”
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1272396993&grpid=01&catid=
which compares what Abhisit’s government is doing now with the whipping up of hysteria about threats to the monarchy before the massacre of 6 October 1976.
See also his alarming recent post which predicts that a large massacre is imminent:
р╕зр╕┤р╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕лр╣Мр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣М р╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Др╕╖р╕Щр╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Чр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Щр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Фр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣И
http://www.thailiberal.org/index.php?showtopic=47182
The Republic of Kawthoolei and Thomas Bleming
Dear All,
I would like to talk about Republic of kawthoolei . I have many question to ask. How to get karen Indepence.?
Could you answer me please.
Thanks
Hsar
“The deep political crisis within the Royal Thai Army officer corps”
General Robert E. Lee who taught at the VMA always referred to his civil war opponents as “those people” to emotionally distance himself from his former comrades and classmates. I would expect graduates of the CMA to do no less – and even more so in the case of politicians.
Suthep threatens arrests
To pull this threads together with the one on the military “crisis” it seems to me that a distinction of the said law should be made at this critical point in the Nations history.
The law is being used to provide protection for an institution, not an esteemed individual who has already publically criticised said law on two occasions. I think this has been the case for some time and the strength of application can only increase.
Some people have laughed at the idea that the law applies to national security but those applying it certainly see this to be the case. Of course this begs the question of the definition of national security.
Sounds like the government will be introducing the “Patriot Act” soon. Since a precedent for acceptable draconian actions has already been set by the USA. Who will dare criticise it?
With regards to the age of the proponents I see coincidentally that Imelda Marcos is hitting the campaign trail this month at age 80 and kicked off a popular political campaign with a visit to her husbands shrine.
Don’t dismiss the drive of the older generation!
Like it or not SE Asia still thinks and works dynastically, not corporately ask Rupert Murdoch (79) or Lee Kwan Yiew (87) A simple fact some western observers have trouble comprehending. This applies at all rungs of the social ladder. Just ask a red-shirt about family structure. faces may change but institutions (sanctioned or unsanctioned) will remain unchanged.
The betrayal of human rights mandarins
PPT points out that AIUSA has now removed its statement calling for Obama’s involvement in Thailand, as they also removed their mid-April ‘call for action’ calling for no use of excessive force against protesters.
I looked at AIUSA’s main page on Thailand Human Rights. Its summary of events ends with “… elections are expected by October 2007.”
Suthep threatens arrests
The governemnt is playing it’s stongest card here and if it happen to be useless then there is no more they can do. everything they treid has failed to far.
Suthep threatens arrests
All I can say to all this rubbish propagated by the “democrat” govt is – Bring back the guillotine…..
Its starting to look terribly like suppression of the masses.
Suthep threatens arrests
With no disrespect intended, I agree with Chris Beale that some main characters in the Thai government are due for retirement. For example, the king makes no sense any more when he tries to speak,as we can see from the most recent example of his “speech” to the newly appointed judges. Is it fair for the country to keep him 0n the throne? He should be decently retired and replaced by his heir. Surely, Thailand would not come to the end of the world because of this change. The change would be all to the good. Thailand should not be hampered by a weak prime minister and an invalid king at the same time. Just look how Belgium has resolved its dilemma. This year being the 6oth anniversary of the wedding of the king and the queen, the proper present both of them can give to the nation should be the king’s self-proclaimed retirement and the queen’s non-involvement in politics.
End of the rains retreat in northeast Thailand: Political commentary on a boat
If it’s just an excuse for a party which additionally brings in local income there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just too much of a schlep to go out there every year on the off chance of getting lucky. What is more there were rounds of applause at times when neither I nor my Thai wife could see anything.
Suthep threatens arrests
It looks like this chart from the US military in Afghanistan may be the model for the recent one from the Thai military.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134802f18a5970c-popup
Andrew Sullivan calls them beautiful pointless graphs.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/beautiful-pointless-graphs.html#more
The speech that wasn’t televised
My Isan partner, born into stifling poverty, tells how as a child, she used to squat in a field to perform her morning ablutions and look up at the planes crossing the sky, telling herself one day she would be up there.
She is, but sadly as the citizen of a foreign land.
“The deep political crisis within the Royal Thai Army officer corps”
I think this is a dangerous game of control for the army (as neither the currently controlling Amartya, nor the govt the Reds wish to propel to power will give up wrestling over the men with the guns). The next govt need to manipulate them just as much and will, and part of the problem of disloyalty is that officers favoured by both have been unfairly promoted causing resentment in the ranks, Thaksin was especially good at this.
In fact, if you read Phongpaichit/Baker’s insightful biography of Thaksin you’ll note that he specifically brought the generals back into politics, after decade of them taking a backseat, he strengthened their role, and placed his men in top govt positions, unfortunately for him some of them ‘betrayed’ him.
So, there are your roots in this crisis perhaps, then the coup, then a higher power apparently using them to steal power in Jan 2009, and they are getting fed up with it.
In my opinion the army aren’t terribly good at actually being an army, their strategies in the South have failed miserably, they are proving to be in two minds here too.
Despite all Reds painting them as the enemy I think they’ve been correct in so far refusing to clear out the people and shooting Thais, in other countries it would be expected of them to flatten Rajaprasong, but this is the second time they have been unco-operative with a govt ordering them on the people – once each for the two different govts, and they deserve some credit for that. They are stuck between a rock and hard place, but it’s their own making – they were incompetent enough to let these Black Shirts get out of hand, steal their weapons (and some of their men) and it seems apparent their intelligence is hopeless.
Video of Thailand on the Verge
[…] […]
The betrayal of human rights mandarins
Like the writer of this piece, I have been appalled by Zawacki’s disgraceful handling of his position.
I have sent numerous emails requesting information about AI’s links to the PAD. I am met with dissembling obfuscation.
I ask Zawacki directly when AI will take action against LM – “we’re working in secret with high-level contacts in the government.” (who does he think he is? Hilary bloody Clinton?)
Dismissive, arrogant and opaque, AI’s Thailand mission comes across like a backwards banana regime. Which, given the context and company they keep, shouldn’t be a great surprise.
Why am I perturbed by this?
Because I expect better from an organisation I’ve supported for many years.
Not just grovelling, biased press releases from someone who is clearly not fit for purpose and who has been completely seduced by the carefully calibrated myths of Thailand.
“The deep political crisis within the Royal Thai Army officer corps”
The description of divisions in the RTA are compelling and the author is to be thanked for explaining this dimension of the crisis. We always know there’s something there, but not exactly what.
But I would like to raise some issues of how these factions are described, or interpreted. The differences between the competing groups and individuals are described as over advancement in the officers corps. There are references to the rival classes, to officers who play politics for advancement, to the clique of the Queen’s guard, to the queen meddling, to the role of graft in the promotions business (the GT200 and airship cases), to “demoralised” “career soldiers”; to officers experienced in combat, etc.
Read quickly, one would conclude there are a bunch of corrupt guys who played to the palace for their promotions and, on the other side, a lot of bitter “professionals” who kept their heads down and stayed away from the games. Some of the commenters seem to have read it that way.
But for the details: the writer describes officers in the promotion line –like Gen Thanasak and Gen Wannathip — who are professionals, apparently have good field experience, and are Queen’s guards. He described the two current bosses, one who is reluctant to crack down on the protestors, another who wants a coup, and he binds them together by corrupt deals. Also Queen’s guards.
The unnamed general’s quote is the bull’s eye of the article: it creates a division between “career soldiers” and those “leaders who have climbed to the top without direct experience in real combat, but only through honorary decorations.”
Then the author describes the Men in Black hit squad as possibly aiming to assassinate more leading and promotion-bound officers, and on behalf of whom? — The jealous “career soldiers” left behind? Other political soldiers left behind? Soldiers who tied their future to Thaksin (meaning formerly political, now not)?
So I would like to, with greatest respect for his contribution, ask the author, does it not really boil down to rival cliques, mostly on CMA class bases, competing for promotions and other spoils? That they are all necessarily political, winners and losers? And that it is the same old refrain, not unlike the Manoon-Chamlong Young Turks of Class 7 who played the professional/purity angle when they were losers?
And then I would like to suggest another paradigm: that beyond the competition for spoils, the issues are loyalty and obedience, and there is not a clear definition of how this should work. A military needs to be loyal and obedient to the civilian political commanders. In Thailand you have the throne — and its representatives, in this case Prem and the queen — and then you have the prime minister.
The tradition has been loyalty to the throne, made easier when Prem was PM, because he commanded and channeled the loyalty. But ever since Prem moved upward and Chatichai came in as PM, there has been tension over this, and, probably, real confusion in the ranks. (Just how is loyalty to the civilian command taught at CMA?)
In the past this tension did not normally matter much, because the only things to gain were spoils of office, and perhaps the ability to reinforce the ideology of the military-palace management of politics.
But now, since Thaksin came up, the palace has been in survival mode, and fighting to maintain and reward allegiance. And those officers who chose to be close to Thaksin rather than
Prem — or didn’t straddle that split well — lost out.
That’s politics, but it is also understanding who is the ultimate commander, who and what you are loyal to. Abhisit is seen by some as attached to the alleged “political” generals in power or on the rise, but what he has done has realigned government house as one node of civilian command with the palace — understandable since both share the view of Thaksin as a systemic threat.
The problem then is if there is a divide in the civilian command over reaction — some asking the generals for a fast but brutal crackdown, others like Abhisit willing to take a more measured or calm approach.
Military leadership always has to be politically conscious and politically wily. But it must be confusing now — if you are a senior RTA officer, who is your ultimate commander, and what institutions are you to defend?
“The deep political crisis within the Royal Thai Army officer corps”
Call me picky, but….
“As the soul of the nation, he should warn his wife not to meddle in the national security operations or control her behaviour,”
This quote is attributed to two sources? Presume it’s a generalisation?
“Entrenched military involvement in politics and political involvement in the military have demoralized career soldiers. There is no sincere respect for the current and future leaders who have climbed to the top without direct experience in real combat, but only through honorary decorations,”
In a country full of corruption (with the fingers pointed at both police and army for being role models), surely this hardly a deviation from the norm over the past 20 years?
Looking at the footage available it’s blatantly obvious the late Colonel Romklao was taken out by a highly trained force with a dedicated mission.
Given Arisman’s attitude prior to the April 22nd and actions of the red shirt protesters that night compared to previous nights I personally have no doubt whoever fired the M79’s into the Silom crowd was coordinating directly with them.
Suthep threatens arrests
The old Monarchy card again!
Why aint i surprised ?
The betrayal of human rights mandarins
Amnesty International USA asks Obama to intervene in Thailand…….they seem more interested in preventing a bloodbath in Thailand than AI Thailand………..
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ai-usa-urges-president-obama-to-send-a-special-envoy-to-thailand/
Suthep threatens arrests
There’s been plenty written about the economic/ class aspects of this conflict, but relatively little about the generational change afoot here.
Prem, the King, and The Queen are now very old – and so are their advisers.
In Australia, High Court Judges – equivalent to Supreme Court in the US – gladly retire at the compulsory age of 70.
My first point is that HMK and HMQ are getting advice from people way beyond retirement age in Western societies.
My second point is that much younger people like Abhisit and even
his more senior Suthep, are nonetheless playing the old Cold War game here – a throwback to the past of at least twenty years ago –
with all this LM nonsense against the Red-Shirts.
Are they cynically sucking up to the now very old elite ?
Suthep threatens arrests
This page was featured in Matichon website (again).
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1272371634&grpid=01&catid=