PM Abhisit Announces Next Election Will Be Held On Nov 14

[jdinasia]

In fact, if you bother to read the Convention, it has no application under the current circumstances existing in Thailand.

Firstly, it applies to parties in an armed conflict ie war.

Secondly, it applies where two or more parties (ie states, not political movements within a state) are involved.

The full Article 18 reads:

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Let's keep some perspective folks.

The red shirts have publicly "declared war" .... they wear uniforms, they have an army, civil war is covered by the Geneva convention. Like all laws this is semantics.

(No I don't think that there is currently a civil war going on but the action of the reds could be called an insurrection AND a pre-cursor to outright civil war if they don't go home.

[jdinasia]

And your opinion on the Reds committing " war crimes " would be jd mate?

I am not a judge ....

But they have armed themselves.

They have declared war publicly.

I think they are guilty of actual insurrection, terrorism, and some are guilty of High Treason..... so war crimes is a moot point.

[way2muchcoffee]

In fact, if you bother to read the Convention, it has no application under the current circumstances existing in Thailand.

Firstly, it applies to parties in an armed conflict ie war.

Secondly, it applies where two or more parties (ie states, not political movements within a state) are involved.

Let's keep some perspective folks.

Evidently the International Red Cross disagrees with you. Following is the part of the Geneva Convention regarding armed conflict not of an international character.

PARAGRAPH 1. -- APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

1. ' Introductory sentence -- Field of application of the Article '

A. ' Cases of armed conflict. ' What is meant by "armed conflict not of an international character"? The expression is so general, so vague, that many of the delegations feared that it might be taken to cover any act committed by force of arms -- any form of anarchy, rebellion, or even plain banditry. For example, if a handful of individuals were to rise in rebellion against the State and attack a police station, would that suffice to bring into being an armed conflict within the meaning of the Article? In order to reply to questions of this sort, it was suggested that the term "conflict" should be defined or -- and this would come to the same thing -- that a list should be given of a certain number of conditions on which the application of the Convention would depend. The idea was finally abandoned, and wisely so. Nevertheless, these different conditions, although in no way obligatory, constitute convenient criteria, and we therefore think it well to give a list drawn from the various amendments discussed; they are as follows (13):

[p.36] (1) That the Party in revolt against the de jure Government possesses an

organized military force, an authority responsible for its acts,

acting within a determinate territory and having the means of

respecting and ensuring respect for the Convention.

(2) That the legal Government is obliged to have recourse to the regular

military forces against insurgents organized as military and in

possession of a part of the national territory.

(3) (a) That the de jure Government has recognized the insurgents as

belligerents; or

( That it has claimed for itself the rights of a belligerent; or

© That it has accorded the insurgents recognition as belligerents

for the purposes only of the present Convention; or

(d) That the dispute has been admitted to the agenda of the Security

Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations as being a

threat to international peace, a breach of the peace, or an act

of aggression.

(4) (a) That the insurgents have an organization purporting to have the

characteristics of a State.

( That the insurgent civil authority exercises de facto authority

over the population within a determinate portion of the national

territory.

© That the armed forces act under the direction of an organized

authority and are prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war.

(d) That the insurgent civil authority agrees to be bound by the

provisions of the Convention.

The first three requirements seem to be met, but it would be a stretch to say that requirement 4 is met. I am not a judge of the world court, but I suspect that a world court would exclude the use of the applicability of the Geneva Convention to Thailand's crisis on this grounds.

However, the International Committee of the Red Cross has the following to say about the applicability of the Geneva Convention to armed conflicts.

Does this mean that Article 3 is not applicable in cases where armed strife breaks out in a country, but does not fulfil any of the above conditions?

We do not subscribe to this view. We think, on the contrary, that the scope of application of the Article must be as wide as possible. There can be no drawbacks in this, since the Article in its reduced form, contrary to what might be thought, does not in any way limit the right of a State to put down rebellion, nor does it increase in the slightest the authority of the rebel party. It merely demands respect for certain rules, which were already recognized as essential in all civilized countries, and embodied in the national legislation of the States in question, long before the Convention was signed.

What Government would dare to claim before the world, in a case of civil disturbances which could justly be described as mere acts of banditry, that, Article 3 not being applicable, it was entitled to leave the wounded uncared for, to torture and mutilate prisoners and take hostages? No Government can object to observing, in its dealings [p.37] with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals.

Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with ' armed forces ' on either side engaged in ' hostilities ' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country.

Edited May 7, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jackspratt]

In fact, if you bother to read the Convention, it has no application under the current circumstances existing in Thailand.

Firstly, it applies to parties in an armed conflict ie war.

Secondly, it applies where two or more parties (ie states, not political movements within a state) are involved.

The full Article 18 reads:

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Let's keep some perspective folks.

The red shirts have publicly "declared war" .... they wear uniforms, they have an army, civil war is covered by the Geneva convention. Like all laws this is semantics.

(No I don't think that there is currently a civil war going on but the action of the reds could be called an insurrection AND a pre-cursor to outright civil war if they don't go home.

No, if there is no civil war going on, it is not semantics - it is simply not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Further, under the Convention, for a "civil war" (however described) to be occurring, the following conditions must be met:

The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:

* The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

* The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

* The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

* The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

[way2muchcoffee]

In fact, if you bother to read the Convention, it has no application under the current circumstances existing in Thailand.

Firstly, it applies to parties in an armed conflict ie war.

Secondly, it applies where two or more parties (ie states, not political movements within a state) are involved.

The full Article 18 reads:

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Let's keep some perspective folks.

No, if there is no civil war going on, it is not semantics - it is simply not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Further, under the Convention, for a "civil war" (however described) to be occurring, the following conditions must be met:

The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:

* The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

* The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

* The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

* The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

I understand what you are saying Jackspratt. I doubt a world court would rule this crisis as applicable to the Geneva Convention. However, if they did, then the red shirt actions at Chulalongkorn Hospital would likely be considered a war crime. Therefore what the red shirts did was totally inexcusable and the severity of their actions cannot be minimized. The only reason what they did is not a war crime is that this crisis doesn't quite fit the definition of a civil war.

Edited May 7, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jackspratt]

I am in no way trying to excuse what they did - but as I said, some perspective is required.

Dragging out the Geneva Convention is a big jump in this debate.

But this small sub-sub-sub section of the debate has probably run its course.

[way2muchcoffee]

I am in no way trying to excuse what they did - but as I said, some perspective is required.

Dragging out the Geneva Convention is a big jump in this debate.

But this small sub-sub-sub section of the debate has probably run its course.

Agreed.

[ozzieman05]

With some red shirts carrying military weapons and some black shirt terrorists mingling in, and with the red shirt leaders guilty of rioting, inciting violence, kidnapping, terrorism, and war crimes,

You forgot that the red shirts are also responsible for the Holocaust and the fake Moon Landings.

Your joking, they were?

I knew they where a bunch of idiots

Must have been a moon party

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thaksin needs blood on Abhisit's hands ASAP - Abhisit is outwitting his every move. The "roadmap" and the reds hesitation in accepting it is making it obvious what the whole purpose of the protests is.

Not at all. The red UDD had accepted it and asked the PM for the date of the House dissolution. Then the yellow PAD came and said that they didn't accept it and wanted the PM to step down, which made the red UDD jump back onto the fence and basically told the PM to come back with the roadmap when he had sorted it out.

That is true - Abhisit had a chance to redeem himself and be decisive - and it's slip, slip, slipping away...

LOL ... anything to defend the reds ...

The LAW requires that the house be dissolved between certain dates to hold an election on the 14th of Nov.

But I guess that you are no longer claiming "the reds won".......

No... don't be disappointed - of course they won - they brought forward the election and cut in half Abhisit's term. You, I recall, were posting about him carrying on for the full term - didin't happen so get used to it.

[whybother]

No... don't be disappointed - of course they won - they brought forward the election and cut in half Abhisit's term. You, I recall, were posting about him carrying on for the full term - didin't happen so get used to it.

So they could have won at the beginning of April then, and there wouldn't be all these people dead and we wouldn't have a ruined economy.

[ChiangMaiFun]

No... don't be disappointed - of course they won - they brought forward the election and cut in half Abhisit's term. You, I recall, were posting about him carrying on for the full term - didin't happen so get used to it.

So they could have won at the beginning of April then, and there wouldn't be all these people dead and we wouldn't have a ruined economy.

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

[way2muchcoffee]

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

You have an interesting take on things. Abhisit caused all the trouble?

One might imagine that all the trouble was caused by the illegal demonstrators. They have no right to demonstrate in this way. They should not be in Ratchaprasong. They should not have weapons. They should not violently resist legal dispersal. They should not invade hospitals. They should not kidnap people. They should not incite violence from their stages. They should not take up arms against security forces. They should not block roads and search private cars. They should not attempt to break through road blocks.

So who is it that is causing all the trouble?

Edited May 8, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[ChiangMaiFun]

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

You have an interesting take on things. Abhisit caused all the trouble?

One might imagine that all the trouble was caused by the illegal demonstrators. They have no right to demonstrate in this way. They should not be in Ratchaprasong. They should not have weapons. They should not violently resist legal dispersal. They should not invade hospitals. They should not kidnap people. They should not incite violence from their stages. They should not take up arms against security forces. They should not block roads and search private cars. They should not attempt to break through road blocks.

So who is it that is causing all the trouble?

Well... I like to 'balance' all the yellow rhetoric!

I do believe that Abhisit made some fundamental errors of judgement weeks ago - he showed no leadership and made ambiguous statements without a roadmap - people need to know exactly the dates - he has now given the election date but not the dissolution - it's almost like he enjoys 'playing' with the reds and winding them up.

He should forget about people 'agreeing' and have some balls - he's PM! so decide! you don't get the British PM seeking 'agreement' about the election date - he is PM and he chooses period.

and that is my Baht's worth!

[rixalex]

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble ???

Abhisit offered elections in nine months. Had the reds agreed to that offer, or had they remained at the negotiation table and bargained him down to a shorter time frame, then he would have given a date. They didn't agree to his offer and nor did they remain at the negotiation table. They walked away stating that it was dissolution in 15 days or nothing else. This action by the reds is what led to all the trouble.

As regards your repeated claim that the reds have won, my feeling is there has been no winner in this. The reds as i said were demanding immediate dissolution and lost. Abhisit, who legally was entitled to lead the country for almost another two years, offered elections in nine months and lost. Soldiers and protesters injured and killed most certainly lost. Thai citizens who voted for the MPs in government had the right to expect the government to complete its term. They lost.

There are no winners here.

[way2muchcoffee]

Well... I like to 'balance' all the yellow rhetoric!

Fair enough.

I do believe that Abhisit made some fundamental errors of judgement weeks ago - he showed no leadership and made ambiguous statements without a roadmap - people need to know exactly the dates - he has now given the election date but not the dissolution - it's almost like he enjoys 'playing' with the reds and winding them up.

He should forget about people 'agreeing' and have some balls - he's PM! so decide! you don't get the British PM seeking 'agreement' about the election date - he is PM and he chooses period.

and that is my Baht's worth!

The exact date of dissolution is impossible to provide. The date of elections is dependent on progress of the reconciliation. A specific dissolution date is a demand that will not be met. He has already stated as much. That is the offer on the table.

[whybother]

No... don't be disappointed - of course they won - they brought forward the election and cut in half Abhisit's term. You, I recall, were posting about him carrying on for the full term - didin't happen so get used to it.

So they could have won at the beginning of April then, and there wouldn't be all these people dead and we wouldn't have a ruined economy.

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

The reds stopped negotiating. Abhisit didn't get a chance to set a date.

Once Abhisit realised he wasn't going to be able to clear the protests without the reds causing more death, he decided that he needed to put forward a road map without negotiation from the reds.

Most anti-red (not yellow - I can't believe you still continue with that) posters still think that violent mobs shouldn't get to force elections. But they realise that without elections, there will be a lot more death. And killing lots of protestors and soldiers won't solve the problem.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble ???

Abhisit offered elections in nine months. Had the reds agreed to that offer, or had they remained at the negotiation table and bargained him down to a shorter time frame, then he would have given a date. They didn't agree to his offer and nor did they remain at the negotiation table. They walked away stating that it was dissolution in 15 days or nothing else. This action by the reds is what led to all the trouble.

As regards your repeated claim that the reds have won, my feeling is there has been no winner in this. The reds as i said were demanding immediate dissolution and lost. Abhisit, who legally was entitled to lead the country for almost another two years, offered elections in nine months and lost. Soldiers and protesters injured and killed most certainly lost. Thai citizens who voted for the MPs in government had the right to expect the government to complete its term. They lost.

There are no winners here.

Yes I suppose 'won' is emotive - so I'll stop using it - but my view holds that if Abhisit (forget about all the tenatative 'offerings') had made a definitive, bold and exact plan it would have helped tremendously and taken the wind out of the reds sails.. and he didn't - he huffed and puffed and DID NOT blow the house down.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Well... I like to 'balance' all the yellow rhetoric!

Fair enough.

I do believe that Abhisit made some fundamental errors of judgement weeks ago - he showed no leadership and made ambiguous statements without a roadmap - people need to know exactly the dates - he has now given the election date but not the dissolution - it's almost like he enjoys 'playing' with the reds and winding them up.

He should forget about people 'agreeing' and have some balls - he's PM! so decide! you don't get the British PM seeking 'agreement' about the election date - he is PM and he chooses period.

and that is my Baht's worth!

The exact date of dissolution is impossible to provide. The date of elections is dependent on progress of the reconciliation. A specific dissolution date is a demand that will not be met. He has already stated as much. That is the offer on the table.

I do play Devil's Advocate sometimes and probably 'overstate' my position - which is fair game with all you lot to contend with!

I really (really) do think he should stop all this 'reconcilliation' BS and just LEAD - set the dates - be decisive - call everyone (who wants to come) to a series of meetings to clear the mess up - get as much congruence as possible - have the election and whoever is elected enforce the law 100% without fear or favour - he should also allow mediation from an 'outside' nation - which he has foolishly refused (another sign of frog in the coconut!).

[rixalex]

Yes I suppose 'won' is emotive - so I'll stop using it - but my view holds that if Abhisit (forget about all the tenatative 'offerings') had made a definitive, bold and exact plan it would have helped tremendously and taken the wind out of the reds sails.. and he didn't - he huffed and puffed and DID NOT blow the house down.

Negotiation isn't about making definitive, bold and exact plans - otherwise it wouldn't be negotiation - just one man laying down the rules. It's about exchanging ideas and reaching a compromise. That was what Abhisit was hoping to do. When the reds deserted the negotiation table, he hoped that their protests would remain peaceful and in the meantime, he could pursuade them back for more discussions. Sadly this didn't happen. For this i blame the reds. Their ronin friends destroyed the peace and the red leaders defiantly stuck to their unreasonable demands.

[whybother]

<snip>

I really (really) do think he should stop all this 'reconcilliation' BS and just LEAD - set the dates - be decisive - call everyone (who wants to come) to a series of meetings to clear the mess up - get as much congruence as possible - have the election and whoever is elected enforce the law 100% without fear or favour - he should also allow mediation from an 'outside' nation - which he has foolishly refused (another sign of frog in the coconut!).

Yes. Abhisit should just lead. Have elections in Dec 2011 when they are scheduled. Done. Finished.

But that's not going to solve the problem is it.

That's why *negotiations* are required.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Yes I suppose 'won' is emotive - so I'll stop using it - but my view holds that if Abhisit (forget about all the tenatative 'offerings') had made a definitive, bold and exact plan it would have helped tremendously and taken the wind out of the reds sails.. and he didn't - he huffed and puffed and DID NOT blow the house down.

Negotiation isn't about making definitive, bold and exact plans - otherwise it wouldn't be negotiation - just one man laying down the rules. It's about exchanging ideas and reaching a compromise. That was what Abhisit was hoping to do. When the reds deserted the negotiation table, he hoped that their protests would remain peaceful and in the meantime, he could pursuade them back for more discussions. Sadly this didn't happen. For this i blame the reds. Their ronin friends destroyed the peace and the red leaders defiantly stuck to their unreasonable demands.

Don't need to negotiate - he's PM but behaving like he's a man with no mandate - hey wait a minute he doesn't have a mandate! but joking aside you were all for 'cracking' down and being decisive now you're all calling for negotiating and moderation - strange...

[ChiangMaiFun]

<snip>

I really (really) do think he should stop all this 'reconcilliation' BS and just LEAD - set the dates - be decisive - call everyone (who wants to come) to a series of meetings to clear the mess up - get as much congruence as possible - have the election and whoever is elected enforce the law 100% without fear or favour - he should also allow mediation from an 'outside' nation - which he has foolishly refused (another sign of frog in the coconut!).

Yes. Abhisit should just lead. Have elections in Dec 2011 when they are scheduled. Done. Finished.

But that's not going to solve the problem is it.

That's why *negotiations* are required.

So he's proved not to be a leader right? he's caved in and set the date NOW is the time to firm that up with details and stick to it - better be a late leader than never! reds have said they will go with the roadmap - good - now deliver it this is no time for being wimpy.

[gregb]

What exactly is wrong with a pro-Thaksin party winning the election if the majority of Thais want them? Isn't that how Democracy works? Majority rules?

Yet one more person with a warped view of democracy. In a democracy "the law rules". The majority simply gets to select the person or people that help to decide the best way to guide the country within the supreme rule of law. Otherwise, all you get is tyranny by the majority, which is exactly what the country was facing with Thaksin.

Somewhere else in this thread someone mentioned that 82% of Thais are OK with corruption in the government. This is the real problem. As long as the law is not respected, you CAN NOT have democracy. There is simply no possibility for it to work.

Democracy should be abolished in Thailand until the people grow up. If anyone really wants it, they have to do what is necessary to earn it. If they continue paying the officer 200 baht on the side of the road for their traffic violations, then they do not want democracy.

It really is as simple as that. No democracy until significant gains are made against corruption. This is another case of Thailand putting on a facade to cover the blight underneath.

In the mean time, let the palace select some people to lead the country and move on. The people will determine when they are ready for democracy through their actions.

[whybother]

<snip>

I really (really) do think he should stop all this 'reconcilliation' BS and just LEAD - set the dates - be decisive - call everyone (who wants to come) to a series of meetings to clear the mess up - get as much congruence as possible - have the election and whoever is elected enforce the law 100% without fear or favour - he should also allow mediation from an 'outside' nation - which he has foolishly refused (another sign of frog in the coconut!).

Yes. Abhisit should just lead. Have elections in Dec 2011 when they are scheduled. Done. Finished.

But that's not going to solve the problem is it.

That's why *negotiations* are required.

So he's proved not to be a leader right? he's caved in and set the date NOW is the time to firm that up with details and stick to it - better be a late leader than never! reds have said they will go with the roadmap - good - now deliver it this is no time for being wimpy.

Leading doesn't mean doing everything you want without listening to the people (all, not just red). Doing your own thing, controlling everything, is called dictatorship.

Abhisit hasn't necessarily "caved in". He has compromised. He still gets to do the main things that he wants - budget, army reshuffle, possibly constitution change.

And to solve the issues with minority mobs on the streets and to avoid more bloodshed, he has brought the elections forward.

Solving problems is leadership. Abhisit doesn't have enough time to solve all of Thailand's problems, but IMO he is moving forward.

Let's see if the reds want to move forward. The yellows don't.

Edited May 8, 2010 by whybother

[ChiangMaiFun]

<snip>

I really (really) do think he should stop all this 'reconcilliation' BS and just LEAD - set the dates - be decisive - call everyone (who wants to come) to a series of meetings to clear the mess up - get as much congruence as possible - have the election and whoever is elected enforce the law 100% without fear or favour - he should also allow mediation from an 'outside' nation - which he has foolishly refused (another sign of frog in the coconut!).

Yes. Abhisit should just lead. Have elections in Dec 2011 when they are scheduled. Done. Finished.

But that's not going to solve the problem is it.

That's why *negotiations* are required.

So he's proved not to be a leader right? he's caved in and set the date NOW is the time to firm that up with details and stick to it - better be a late leader than never! reds have said they will go with the roadmap - good - now deliver it this is no time for being wimpy.

Leading doesn't mean doing everything you want without listening to the people (all, not just red). Doing your own thing, controlling everything, is called dictatorship.

Abhisit hasn't necessarily "caved in". He has compromised. He still gets to do the main things that he wants - budget, army reshuffle, possibly constitution change.

And to solve the issues with minority mobs on the streets and to avoid more bloodshed, he has brought the elections forward.

Solving problems is leadership. Abhisit doesn't have enough time to solve all of Thailand's problems, but IMO he is moving forward.

Let's see if the reds want to move forward. The yellows don't.

Leadership and management are different things - Abhisit comes across to me as a competent, well-educated manager but not a leader.

Can you imagine any other country where the PM does 'nothing' because they want to negotiate the date of an election with the opposition? I stick to my premise - he should set the dates, set the road map and deliver it.

[rixalex]

Don't need to negotiate -

He shouldn't need to negotiate that is true, but he is being held to ransom but a minority group who have taken over parts of Bangkok and which includes a number of extremely violent people. The army and the police have shown themselves to be weak and unable to do their jobs. As such, Abhisit has no choice but to negotiate. Nothing to do with his leadership qualities. Everything to do with him having to work with a disfunctional state.

joking aside you were all for 'cracking' down and being decisive now you're all calling for negotiating and moderation - strange...

If by "cracking down" you mean enforcing law and order, yes i was for that. As i say though, the people responsible for enforcing law and order have shown themselves incapable, and so hence why negotiation and moderation is the only other option for Abhisit, besides simply standing down and letting Thaksin and his red chums take this country over by force.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Don't need to negotiate -

He shouldn't need to negotiate that is true, but he is being held to ransom but a minority group who have taken over parts of Bangkok and which includes a number of extremely violent people. The army and the police have shown themselves to be weak and unable to do their jobs. As such, Abhisit has no choice but to negotiate. Nothing to do with his leadership qualities. Everything to do with him having to work with a disfunctional state.

joking aside you were all for 'cracking' down and being decisive now you're all calling for negotiating and moderation - strange...

If by "cracking down" you mean enforcing law and order, yes i was for that. As i say though, the people responsible for enforcing law and order have shown themselves incapable, and so hence why negotiation and moderation is the only other option for Abhisit, besides simply standing down and letting Thaksin and his red chums take this country over by force.

Thanks for a well thought out reply - I guess I'm slightly (don't get too excited) warming to your theme, however, I still hold true to the principal (even within this dysfunctional 'hole') that 'if' he had laid out a well-though out plan with dates and timeline much of this 'may' not have happened - and if it did he should have shut off all supplies and utilities - over within a week.

So 8/10 for management/PR and all that jazz but 2/10 for leadership in a crisis - a completely different thing calling for a completely different leadership style.

[otherstuff1957]

Hopefully, the more moderate people among the Reds, Yellows and the Govt. will be able to push the roadmap through without further violence. I, for one, have my fingers crossed, but the violence from last night (whether from Sae Dang's group or from some previously inactive PAD extremists) and the thousands of new Reds arriving today are not good signs.

Here is a map showing the geographic results of the last general election:

Obviously, the North, Issan and the South are pretty much going to vote the same way in the next election. The big question is, will the ongoing Red protest result in more blue in central Thailand or more red? Quite, frankly, I don't think we will know the answer until November.

[rixalex]

Thanks for a well thought out reply - I guess I'm slightly (don't get too excited) warming to your theme, however, I still hold true to the principal (even within this dysfunctional 'hole') that 'if' he had laid out a well-though out plan with dates and timeline much of this 'may' not have happened - and if it did he should have shut off all supplies and utilities - over within a week.

As i have already said, i think laying down the law in terms of dates and timelines would not have gone down well had he started off with that, as he would of been accused of being unprepared to listen and inflexible. I think he had to start by exhausting all possibilities of negotiating a way out of this. I'm sorry it failed. For that i hold Thaksin responsible. I think had Abhisit been negotiating with the three red leaders alone they could have worked something out.

P.S. CMF, your ability to stay open-minded does you a credit that we could all learn from

[Chaimai]

P.S. CMF, your ability to stay open-minded does you a credit that we could all learn from

Hear, hear. I have had my disagreements with CMF but it is refreshing to see this open-minded approach to a changing situation.

i think the 2/10 is a harsh score for Abhisit's 'leadership' given that he is not performing on a level playing field.