Chasm Too Wide For Talks To Start: Thai Peace Talks

[webfact]

PEACE TALK?

Chasm too wide for talks to start

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The door for political talks between the government and the red shirts remains open but both parties have no idea how to get it started.

Negotiations have not yet begun because the two sides have not fine-tuned their respective stances, said red-shirt group leader, Charan Ditthapichai.

"If talks start soon, supporters might get the impression their sides have already given in," he said in the television programme, Kom Chad Luek, on Monday night.

The ultimate goals of the government and the red shirts were far apart: protesters wanted Parliament to be dissolved while the government wanted the protest to be concluded.

Education Minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat, appointed as the government's negotiator, said the government did not necessarily want the protest to end, rather it wanted demonstrators to keep within the legal framework. "Pouring blood at Government House and the Prime Minister's house is deemed as violent and illegal," he said.

"If the protest was within a legal framework, I think it would not be difficult to begin talks," Chinnaworn told the same programme.

Charan said negotiations could start only when the government ended enforcement of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Bangkok and its outskirts.

"It is not an atmosphere for peace negotiations if armed forces are seen in all areas of the capital," he said.

The government-controlled media also should stop painting the red-shirt protesters in a negative light, he said. Both government media and red-shirt media should create an atmosphere of trust for negotiations, Charan said.

The government has extended the ISA for another week, but reduced the areas it covers, Chinnaworn said.

"I don't think the ISA is a big deal since people in Bangkok and suburbs can accept it and the government can stop its enforcement anytime when the situation returns to normal," he said.

"My concern is that when the red shirts declare a 'class war' they deepen the divide in our society," he said.

"I'm worried that once former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra or politicians like myself disappear from the political scene, the social divides will remain," he said.

Charan said as long as the government refused to dissolve Parliament and call a new election, protests would continue. Another huge protest would be launched on Saturday to mount more pressure on the government.

-- The Nation 2010-03-24

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[BigC]

i worry this country will split into 2. there seems to be no complamice. the yellows will not meet half way neither will the reds.

[way2muchcoffee]

I'm not sure this is true. Abhisit has already stated he would be willing to dissolve house and call elections by the end of the year with the following guarantees from the red side:

1) Freedom to campaign without threat of violence or harassment in all areas of Thailand

2) The Thaksin cases are to be left up to the judiciary. Government meddling is unacceptable.

3) Cessation of all vote-buying and other forms of electoral fraud.

These do not seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps someone from the red side can explain why they can't or won't meet these conditions. They, after all, are simply demanding house dissolution. According to their leaders Thaksin isn't involved in these demonstrations and he doesn't figure into their goals.

Edited March 24, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[scorecard]

I'm not sure this is true. Abhisit has already stated he would be willing to dissolve house and call elections by the end of the year with the following guarantees from the red side:

1) Freedom to campaign without threat of violence or harassment in all areas of Thailand

2) The Thaksin cases are to be left up to the judiciary. Government meddling is unacceptable.

3) Cessation of all vote-buying and other forms of electoral fraud.

These do not seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps someone from the red side can explain why they can't or won't meet these conditions. They, after all, are simply demanding house dissolution. According to their leaders Thaksin isn't involved in these demonstrations and he doesn't figure into their goals.

You remind me of jatuporns demand a few days ago ....and everybody must sign a pact to say they will accept the outcome of the election....

Well what jatuporn is forgettinng is that Thailand has comprhensive electoral laws eneacted by parliamnet and endorsed by the royal gazette, and nobody (individual/party/current government or whoever) can sign a document which for a period of time cancels or overrides the law. The only way any change can be made is to permanently change the actual legislation.

But I disgress, what jatuporn really wants is to set up a scenario whereby his buddies buy the elction but (because of the pact)investigation of vote buying is not allowed.

Very very tricky and dangerous man.

[siampolee]

Surely we are all able to see what the true agenda is concerning this matter.

Thaksins brother demands the he (Thaksin) be allowed unrestricted free entry and exit and the removal of his (Thaksin) prison term so as to allow a dialogue between the umpteen factions involved in trying to get their hands on the country and its money.

The whole Red Shirt leadership is in disarray, the moderates who are in the minority are losing the battle to the extremists who wish to incite a civil war in the pursuit of one mans (?) dreams and the nations nightmare.

Jatuporns promises are not worth a mosquitoes fart.

[Jingthing]

i worry this country will split into 2. there seems to be no complamice. the yellows will not meet half way neither will the reds.

The yellows (PAD) are not involved in these discussions. It is the the red shirts and the Abhisit led democrat party government. The government is correct to be skeptical about the red position. So they want ISA lifted? Why is that so important? So they can have more opportunity to stage their previously announced violent efforts to topple the government?

Edited March 24, 2010 by Jingthing

[way2muchcoffee]

Shameless bump. Not one redshirt supporter has bothered to comment on my post this morning on this thread. Is this because there is no defense for what the redshirts are doing? Is it because there is no justification for their not agreeing to the conditions set forth for a house dissolution? Is it because they all know that the only explanation for the reluctance of the redshirts is that house dissolution is not really what they want, despite what they say through loudspeakers?

Edited March 24, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[animatic]

Chasm seems to between Payaps ears.

Payap yap yap yap.

[scorecard]

Chasm seems to between Payaps ears.

Payap yap yap yap.

The bottom line is that payap is a shinatwatra, the clan who think they are above the law, the law doesn't apply to them, a conviction of a shin should just be cancelled, they have the right to avoid paying tax, because they are shinatwatras.

Well how does that fit with the current campaign (they've had so many campaigns, all on different themes, it's difficult to know which is the current one) about the class war? But of course they are shins, they are special, they are outside of the law and accepted/acceptable behaviors.

[khunjamespittman]

Shameless bump. Not one redshirt supporter has bothered to comment on my post this morning on this thread. Is this because there is no defense for what the redshirts are doing? Is it because there is no justification for their not agreeing to the conditions set forth for a house dissolution? Is it because they all know that the only explanation for the reluctance of the redshirts is that house dissolution is not really what they want, despite what they say through loudspeakers?

LOL

Could it be that people or tired of one-sided diatribes? Maybe nobody cares what you have to say!

You might try chainging your tune!

[anotherpeter]

Shameless bump. Not one redshirt supporter has bothered to comment on my post this morning on this thread. Is this because there is no defense for what the redshirts are doing? Is it because there is no justification for their not agreeing to the conditions set forth for a house dissolution? Is it because they all know that the only explanation for the reluctance of the redshirts is that house dissolution is not really what they want, despite what they say through loudspeakers?

They've run out of meaningless one liners. All their arguements have been shot to peices, so they've given up trying to apologise for Thaksin.

Edited March 25, 2010 by anotherpeter

[animatic]

Shameless bump. Not one redshirt supporter has bothered to comment on my post this morning on this thread. Is this because there is no defense for what the redshirts are doing? Is it because there is no justification for their not agreeing to the conditions set forth for a house dissolution? Is it because they all know that the only explanation for the reluctance of the redshirts is that house dissolution is not really what they want, despite what they say through loudspeakers?

LOL

Could it be that people or tired of one-sided diatribes? Maybe nobody cares what you have to say!

You might try chainging your tune!

(Quietly handing Kuhn James a mirror, personal iPod of his own recordings

and teapot to interact with hourly....)

[Thai at Heart]

Could it be that after various street protests of various lengths by various colours, it is becoming apparent that it shouldn't be possible to hold a government to ransom simply by virtue of marching somewhere?

Neither side of the protesters represented the majority, it is just that the first bunch prevailed because the incumbent government a the time handled it so badly, and the leader of those protesters was willing and ABLE to sit there for months. Times have already changed in the life of political protest in Thailand.

Good I say.

[Insight]

Shameless bump. Not one redshirt supporter has bothered to comment on my post this morning on this thread. Is this because there is no defense for what the redshirts are doing? Is it because there is no justification for their not agreeing to the conditions set forth for a house dissolution? Is it because they all know that the only explanation for the reluctance of the redshirts is that house dissolution is not really what they want, despite what they say through loudspeakers?

LOL

Could it be that people or tired of one-sided diatribes? Maybe nobody cares what you have to say!

You might try chainging your tune!

I care about what you say, khunjamespittman, specifically about why are Abhisit's conditions for house dissolution too much for the democracy-loving red shirts to accept. They seem perfectly in line with democracy to me.

What do you say?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Insight

[way2muchcoffee]

Shameless bump. Not one redshirt supporter has bothered to comment on my post this morning on this thread. Is this because there is no defense for what the redshirts are doing? Is it because there is no justification for their not agreeing to the conditions set forth for a house dissolution? Is it because they all know that the only explanation for the reluctance of the redshirts is that house dissolution is not really what they want, despite what they say through loudspeakers?

LOL

Could it be that people or tired of one-sided diatribes? Maybe nobody cares what you have to say!

You might try chainging your tune!

Well - that's about what I expected. No attempt to answer the question, which was originally phrased in a respectful way. I agree that the second post was inflammatory, but that was because I had really hoped there could be some answer. The question is fundamental to the current demonstrations.

I repeat:

The redshirt goal is house dissolution and Abhisit has expressed willingness to do exactly that. He simply requires:

1) Freedom to campaign in all regions for all parties

2) Leave the Thaksin cases to the judiciary without political meddling

3) No vote buying or electoral fraud in the next election

The redshirt goal is for house dissolution and these are the required conditions. Yet the reds balk. It is logical to assume that the redshirts are unwilling to meet these conditions. My question is why?

Edited March 25, 2010 by way2muchcoffee