Red-Shirt Leaders To Spell Out Conditions In Joining Peace Process

[webfact]

Red-Shirt Leaders to Spell Out Conditions in Joining Peace Process

BANGKOK: -- The red-shirt group held a press conference to respond to the prime minister's peace initiative and demanded all sides to accept results of the next election.

The anti-government red-shirt group held a press conference earlier this evening to announce its stance on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's five-point peace plan.

Core leader Nutthawut Saikua stated that the red-shirt group will accept the PM's reconciliation plan if it could bring peace back to the country.

He also called on all sides to respect results of the upcoming election.

Nutthawut added that the group's acceptance of the premier's road map to peace is not a victory of any side but of the country as a whole.

He went on to say that red-shirt leaders will hold a meeting again tomorrow to conclude on conditions for their acceptance of the peace plan and the result will be announced later in the day.

Regarding the opposition to the reconciliation plan by the multicolored-shirt group and the People's Alliance for Democracy, Nutthawut said it is the government's duty to solve the problem.

However, red-shirt leaders did not say when they will disband the demonstration at Ratchaprasong Intersection after agreeing to join the peace process.

This morning, Nutthawut spoke of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's reconciliation plan, reiterating that the red-shirt group is prepared to move forward in line with the plan but stated that the PM must create understanding with groups that do not agree with his road map, including the People's Alliance for Democracy and the multicolored-shirt group.

The red-shirt group as a whole has agreed to the prime minister's road map for peace, noting the coalition government and the Democrat Party's support for the plan as their deciding factor.

The group's leaders are set to meet this afternoon to discuss their approach to the plan.

Despite their concurrence with the plan, the red-shirt leaders have continued to criticize the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation, or CRES, decrying its unchanged aggressive stance against their demonstration.

-- Tan Network 2010-05-07

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[webfact]

Red Shirt protesters affirm to join PM's road map for national reconciliation

BANGKOK (TNA) -- The anti-government 'Red Shirt' United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) affirmed Friday they would join Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's road map for national reconciliation but said it needed one more day to conclude its stance, according to UDD leader Natthawut Saikua.

Mr Natthawut told reporters after the discussion with other Red Shirt leaders that the UDD would join the road map for reconciliation with the government or any other organisation that shared the same idea that peaceful means should be implemented to solve political problems.

This standpoint of UDD would be permanent and would not change, he said.

If the cooperation between the Red Shirts and the government or any other organisation could successfully resolve the political standoff peacefully, the UDD would consider that the success was not the triumph of the group or government but the victory of all Thais, Mr Natthawut said.

The Red Shirts considered that the premier had successfully started the first step of the process leading to national reconciliation after his ruling Democrat party and parties in the coalition government had support the plan, he said.

The opposition of the road map by the multi-coloured group and the Yellow Shirt” People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) was the government and the premier personal responsibility to deal with that as the UDD did not want to be blamed that it was buying the time for the process.

He said the UDD core leaders also affirmed that they would not seek amnesty from criminal charges against them and would go through the legal process until the cases were completed.

The UDD, however, urged all people who were involved in the April 10 and 28 incidents when the Red Shirt protesters clashes with the security forces were taken into legal process in similar way as Red Shirt leaders to seek the responsible people for the loss of lives.

All stakeholders including political parties must show their willingness publicly that they would accept the result of the upcoming general election as it would be the decision of voters all over the country, he said.

Mr Natthawut also said that the UDD leadership will meet again on Saturday to get a clearer picture of the road map and conclude its position that it will propose to the government. (TNA)

-- TNA 2010-05-07

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[geovalin]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

Edited May 7, 2010 by webfact
edited by Admin

[erobando]

After the hospital invasion, I think joining the peace process is their only option.

IMO now the multi-colors and, especially, the Yellows are the ones who will be taking PR hits with their more militant stances.

Maybe the Chulalongkorn hospital incident was a good thing.

It forced the Reds to back down a bit and allowed Abhisit to propose an out in which no sides lose face.

Edit: It's not a given that the PTP will win the next election.

It's hard to see them winning a majority. They'd have to defeat most of the Bumjaithai MP's (won't happen) AND pick up a couple dozen seats elsewhere..

It will come down to who can form a coalition.

Edited May 7, 2010 by erobando

[givenall]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

dDon’t worry, the way this is going Thailand will not become Burma, is becoming Beirut

[basjke]

So I assume that after their press conference they cleaned up their protest site and went home.Is that what happened?

[basjke]

He said the UDD core leaders also affirmed that they would not seek amnesty from criminal charges against them and would go through the legal process until the cases were completed.

-- TNA 2010-05-07

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Exactly they don't seek amnesty they only DEMAND that all charges are dropped completely.

[Neurath]

Red-Shirt Leaders to Spell Out Conditions in Joining Peace Process

1. "We want all people to judge us by the color of our shirt not the content of our character"

[salty]

They called on all sides to respect results of upcoming elections. Just like all sides respect the law when it doesn't suit them.

[lazurus]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

dDon't worry, the way this is going Thailand will not become Burma, is becoming Beirut

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

[Jingthing]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

dDon't worry, the way this is going Thailand will not become Burma, is becoming Beirut

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

Edited May 7, 2010 by webfact
quote edited by Admin

[lazurus]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

dDon't worry, the way this is going Thailand will not become Burma, is becoming Beirut

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if CNN or the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

Edited May 7, 2010 by webfact
quote edited by Admin

[way2muchcoffee]

They called on all sides to respect results of upcoming elections. Just like all sides respect the law when it doesn't suit them.

This is an interesting point. I can think of several cases in which various groups would likely not accept the results of the next election.

(1) If candidates from some parties are threatened or harassed when campaigning in certain areas.

(2) If campaign materials or posters are defaced or destroyed in certain areas at the request of any political party member.

(3) If any party is caught buying votes or engaging in any other form of electoral fraud.

(4) If voters are intimidated or harassed into voting for one particular party over another.

(5) If any party excessively uses media to disseminate proven lies about any other candidate or party.

It also depends on what a party does once they have power and government. If a party unilaterally attempts to change the constitution without including other parties then various groups would not accept it. If attempts are made to grant amnesty to certain people for their crimes this too would cause various groups to rise up in protests.

Edited May 7, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Neurath]

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

If it's called illegitimate, does that mean it was a bastard of an election?

[jdinasia]

Reds ----

We'll go home IF -----

You ignore that we are still illegally protesting.

You don't search us on our way out of town.

You don't prevent us from bringing more people into our illegal protest site.

etc etc etc

[givenall]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

dDon't worry, the way this is going Thailand will not become Burma, is becoming Beirut

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

It would be hard for Thaksin and his friends buy vote since they spend a lot of money in this fiasco and most of Thailand know and hate Red Shirts due to their behavior during last month

[Jingthing]

Reds ----

We'll go home IF -----

You ignore that we are still illegally protesting.

You don't search us on our way out of town.

You don't prevent us from bringing more people into our illegal protest site.

etc etc etc

Yes, and they "demand" the state of emergency be lifted before they leave town. If they are peacefully dispersing and have nothing to hide, why do they need this demand?

[brahmburgers]

They called on all sides to respect results of upcoming elections. Just like all sides respect the law when it doesn't suit them.

This is an interesting point. I can think of several cases in which various groups would likely not accept the results of the next election.

(1) If candidates from some parties are threatened or harassed when campaigning in certain areas.

(2) If campaign materials or posters are defaced or destroyed in certain areas at the request of any political party member.

(3) If any party is caught buying votes or engaging in any other form of electoral fraud.

(4) If voters are intimidated or harassed into voting for one particular party over another.

(5) If any party excessively uses media to disseminate proven lies about any other candidate or party.

It also depends on what a party does once they have power and government. If a party unilaterally attempts to change the constitution without including other parties then various groups would not accept it. If attempts are made to grant amnesty to certain people for their crimes this too would cause various groups to rise up in protests.

Good points. Anyone who just started observing the situation at this point (like Thaksin's hired lawyers) would be justified in seeing the Reds as relatively moderate, fair-minded people. However, anyone who has objectively followed the Reds' actions of the past weeks (and earlier) will know them by their actions. One of their more despicable activities is to actively harass any campaigning which doesn't directly ape their rhetoric. Sometimes, the harassment can even lead to murder, as happened in Udon Thani. I hate to say it, but I see Thailand's electoral process as jumping from the frying pan in to the fire. The brand of 'democracy' that the Reds' practice is mob rule backed by armed thugs, and it bodes ill for any measure of fair elections in coming months.

[animatic]

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if CNN or the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

Yes exactly. The UK has been so often held up here as the icon of how it works in this type of parliamentary system,

and surprise surprise surprise, UK has a nearly identical Hung Parliament problem...

So will the BNP start taking over Trafalgar Square with Nick Clegg until Brown resigns from economic blackmail

and lets Cameron come in and become a fascist dictator.

I suspect the Brits will sort this a bit better than the Thais have....

CNN's Amanpour only asked the question:

'The opposition says your government is illegitimate, what do you have to say to that.'

Not the same thing as calling it illegitimate. Just a way to set up the question to him.

Edited May 7, 2010 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if CNN or the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

Ah but, I doubt Gordon will have to telephone the head of the armed forces to see if it is Ok with him.

[Redsunset]

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if CNN or the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

Yes exactly. The UK has been so often held up here as the icon of how it works in this type of parliamentary system,

and surprise surprise surprise, UK has a nearly identical Hung Parliament problem...

So will the BNP start taking over Trafalgar Square with Nick Clegg until Brown resigns from economic blackmail

and lets Cameron come in and become a fascist dictator.

I suspect the Brits will sort this a bit better than the Thais have....

CNN's Amanpour only asked the question:

'The opposition says your government is illegitimate, what do you have to say to that.'

Not the same thing as calling it illegitimate. Just a way to set up the question to him.

The Brits have some lousy leaders, but their system works.

[wlcart]

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

I would argue that the UK past half a decade of politics is nothing close to what has happened in Thailand.

No coups, no overran airports or downtown, no PM tossed out by the courts and no parties dissolved.

Overall the UK is a much more stable, rational and egalitarianism political system.

I would not call Thailand's current government illegitimate, but I wouldn't call them the most legitimate either. Yes the PM came to power through the process of law, but it was a pretty goofy process. I think most any state would have some pretty ticked off citizens under those circumstances.

[webfact]

A post and several quoted replies edited.

Please read the forum rules about libel.

That know-how will avoid a warning or suspension

[Publicus]

They called on all sides to respect results of upcoming elections. Just like all sides respect the law when it doesn't suit them.

This is an interesting point. I can think of several cases in which various groups would likely not accept the results of the next election.

(1) If candidates from some parties are threatened or harassed when campaigning in certain areas.

(2) If campaign materials or posters are defaced or destroyed in certain areas at the request of any political party member.

(3) If any party is caught buying votes or engaging in any other form of electoral fraud.

(4) If voters are intimidated or harassed into voting for one particular party over another.

(5) If any party excessively uses media to disseminate proven lies about any other candidate or party.

It also depends on what a party does once they have power and government. If a party unilaterally attempts to change the constitution without including other parties then various groups would not accept it. If attempts are made to grant amnesty to certain people for their crimes this too would cause various groups to rise up in protests.

Quite. The above listing is good but not intented to be a comprehensive bill of particulars as to why independent and expert monitoring of the next election is required, necessary, essential.

Whenever the next election, independent observers are a must and a necessity if either side - or the electorate in general - are to accept the results. Thai sovereignty and pride (face) won't allow the required and necessary formal state or international observers such as from the EU and/or even the UN. However, neutral and honestly democratic observers are absolutely required to monitor and report the next election, positively required, a necessary prerequisite.

The Carter Center of the Nobel Peace Laureate citizen Jimmy Carter have great global experience and reputation in this respect. The government needs to invite citizen Carter and his expert, neutral, experienced, credible election observers to come to Thailand to observe. There wouldn't be any supervision by the Carter Center, only disassociated observers and neutral observation. The Reds would need to agree and accept this nature of election observation if an outcome in their favor were to be believed, credible, definitive - legitimate if you will.

Thai democracy is in such a pickle of a fix that no one would accept the outcome of the next election, for some reasons noted above, but there are many more reasons such and the negative reputation of the army in elections, the record of Red violence and intimidation in anything they do, Yellow bias concerning their particularly presumed limits of Thai democracy, among yet other factors and realities - for example, could Abhisit campaign in Chiang Mai without again risking his life?

Edited May 7, 2010 by Publicus

[cheguevara]

So I assume that after their press conference they cleaned up their protest site and went home.Is that what happened?

The Prime Minister hasn't announced the date yet on when he will dissolve he House, so the red shirts haven't announced the date either when they will be going home. Abhisit wants to play a game, so let's play it.

[jdinasia]

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if CNN or the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

Ah but, I doubt Gordon will have to telephone the head of the armed forces to see if it is Ok with him.

Will the head of the opposition party be tapped to be the head of the People's Army of the UK? and will the opposition party have to call a convicted felon hiding in another country to evade justice?

[basjke]

So I assume that after their press conference they cleaned up their protest site and went home.Is that what happened?

The Prime Minister hasn't announced the date yet on when he will dissolve he House, so the red shirts haven't announced the date either when they will be going home. Abhisit wants to play a game, so let's play it.

Is it only me then that have read several times already and confirmed by several official instances that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 September.Or maybe they want to hear exact date,hour,minutes after the hour,seconds after the minute.....?

[eggomaniac]

Here are some conditions one of the sides wants.

*Fair elections with no vote buying.

*Stable goverment that can complete a term without a 'coup'

* A political system that automaticall filters out corruption and conflictof interest of elected members. a watch dog that see, hear ans smell signs of it and bark and bite.

=

Now, you tell me which side is demanding these conditions, red or yellow? 555

The Joseph Solution impelements those conditions, and more, guaranteed.

Edited May 7, 2010 by eggomaniac

[cheguevara]

So I assume that after their press conference they cleaned up their protest site and went home.Is that what happened?

The Prime Minister hasn't announced the date yet on when he will dissolve he House, so the red shirts haven't announced the date either when they will be going home. Abhisit wants to play a game, so let's play it.

Is it only me then that have read several times already and confirmed by several official instances that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 September.Or maybe they want to hear exact date,hour,minutes after the hour,seconds after the minute.....?

Why is it that Abhisit can't give an exact date? Nobody is asking it down to the second or minute, but they're asking for the exact date.

[eggomaniac]

They called on all sides to respect results of upcoming elections. Just like all sides respect the law when it doesn't suit them.

This is an interesting point. I can think of several cases in which various groups would likely not accept the results of the next election.

(1) If candidates from some parties are threatened or harassed when campaigning in certain areas.

(2) If campaign materials or posters are defaced or destroyed in certain areas at the request of any political party member.

(3) If any party is caught buying votes or engaging in any other form of electoral fraud.

(4) If voters are intimidated or harassed into voting for one particular party over another.

(5) If any party excessively uses media to disseminate proven lies about any other candidate or party.

It also depends on what a party does once they have power and government. If a party unilaterally attempts to change the constitution without including other parties then various groups would not accept it. If attempts are made to grant amnesty to certain people for their crimes this too would cause various groups to rise up in protests.

EGGsactly! This is tomorrow's headlines today.

Your whole post can be summarized in one word.. 'Thailand'