US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters

[schmutzie]

My gut reaction:

I think things are too delicate for any other representative of another nation or organisation to come in at this stage. It's hardly a play that needs more actors. Likewise with the EU ambassador's statement a while back.

Then again, as long as people are actually able to talk rather than shout from stages or army barracks, I'm all for it.

[Publicus]

<H1 class=title>Ernest Z Bower is the Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies at the Georgetown University School of International Studies in Washington DC from which Bill Clinton graduated. A private, non profit, non partisan organization, the CSIS is a policy wonk think tank at which US AsstSec of DEPSTATE Dr. Kurt M. Campbell formerly was a SE Asia scholar. In addition. Dr. Campbell is a former Navy intelligence officer in the office of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific Theater, a member of the non partisan and private Council on Foreign Relations in New York City and a former member of the London based International Institute of Strategic Studies.

For more from Dr. Bower on Thailand specifically, I offer the following link:

http://www.csis.org/multimedia/audio-inter...-bower-thailand

Thailand's Political Crisis and the U.S. Policy Response</H1>

• By Ernest Z. BowerApr 30, 2010
  Thailand stands at a historical juncture in its political history. The last seven weeks of street protests by antigovernment, self-proclaimed pro-democracy protesters known as the “Red Shirts” has resulted in violence and deaths and uncovered fissures and conflicts that run deep in Thai society and politics for the world to see. This is not a comfortable place for the proud citizens of the Kingdom of Thailand, yet resolution of the conflict remains elusive. Indeed, recent events suggest a hardening of positions among the key actors. During past spasms of confrontation and violence, the king of Thailand intervened by employing sublime powers emanating from his revered status to send irrefutable signals to reconcile opposing parties. Whether he can again play that role given the nature of the current impasse remains in question. If he cannot, the fundamental issue is how will Thais resolve it without him?
  Q1: What is the nature of the present impasse? Why is it different from other political crises in Thailand?
  A1: In some ways, all Thais knew that the questions being asked in the streets today would have to be answered eventually. They touch the very core of what it is to be Thai and the identity of the country. They involve multiple layers of competition between geographic regions of the country, economic and social classes, business and commercial rivalries, politicians and their factions, and last but not least models of governance. For that reason, they are hard to write about and discuss, particularly for Thais but also for officials and analysts who have covered Thailand in depth and have respect for the country and its people. This fact has made sharing understanding of the crisis difficult. The role of the monarchy as the key pillar of Thailand’s identity had been an untouchable subject, but it has been put in play by the actors involved, and that fact has raised the stakes making this standoff different from any in recent Thai political history.
  After the Asian financial crisis, which began in Thailand in the late 1990s, Thaksin Shinawatra decisively won elections defeating the Democrat-led coalition government who had the unwelcome task of implementing the austere IMF-mandated measures to right the badly damaged economy. Implementing an innovative populist political model perfectly timed for a nation wanting to recover its pride, respect, and economic prosperity, Thaksin built enormous support, particularly among the rural population in the north and northeastern parts of the country. A U.S.-trained policeman from an entrepreneurial Chinese-Thai family in Chiang Mai, he used his wit, guile, and work ethic to certain effect, initially in building the country’s dominant telecom company and then as a politician. In traditional circles of power in Bangkok, especially among the Royal Court, he was considered an outsider, nouveau riche. As he built his base, he and his supporters, including his family and its businesses, challenged traditional centers of Thai political and economic power. Eventually, serious allegations of corruption against him, his family, and key associates began to emerge. These charges came to a head and Thaksin was ousted by a coup in 2006.
  Since then, parties on either side of Thailand’s political, economic, and societal fault lines began to diverge, resulting in today’s seismic crisis. Thaksin, unwilling to accept his ouster by coup, challenged the predominant political architecture of the last eight decades, sparking a movement that has by most reasonable measures moved beyond him into a systemic challenge of the status quo.
  Q2: Who are the key players?
  A2: The key players now include the current government, led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the military, the police, the Royal Palace, the Red Shirts, and the Yellow Shirts. Complicating matters exponentially is the fact that each of these groups is internally divided at varying levels, making near-term resolution seem unlikely.
  Abhisit is the 45-year-old Oxford-educated leader of the Democrat Party. He rules as the head of an unstable coalition of political parties several of whom have threatened to abandon him if he ignores protestors’ calls for dissolution of parliament and new elections. Abhisit has hardened his stance toward the Red Shirt protests in recent days, employing rhetoric describing the protestors as “terrorists” and suggesting an antimonarchy plot has been launched, implicating Red Shirt leaders and an extensive network of others. Such allegations are among the most serious that can be made in the Thai political context and suggest further divergence rather than a negotiated settlement.
  Anupong Paochinda is the commander and chief of the Thai Army. He has been carefully resisting enticements by Abhisit and his government to crack down on the protesters and clear them from their entrenched positions in central Bangkok. Although 27 are dead—including protesters, onlookers, and members of the military and police—the two crackdowns to date on April 10 and 22 have been relatively measured. The Thai military is also divided about how to respond. Divisions are complex and based on loyalties forged among classmates in the military leadership academy, regional alliances, and others.
  The police, like the military, are playing a complicated and careful hand, trying to maintain order but assiduously trying to avoid being manipulated by competing political forces. There are also factions within the police leadership, complicating the role of the police in the drama unfolding in Bangkok.
  The Red Shirts movement includes several different leaders and cliques who are pursuing various agendas ranging from hard-core Thaksin loyalists to committed democracy advocates to those motivated by more personal objectives, including business and commercial opportunities and the benefits of political power.
  The Yellow Shirts are generally political conservatives, including Royalists, who tend to support the status quo ante. They too are a divided lot. Some of their leaders are strong supporters of the Democrat-led coalition government, while others have harshly criticized Abhisit and the military for not taking more decisive action against the Red Shirts. Hardliners in the Yellow Shirt movement have threatened to go into the streets of Bangkok to remove the Red Shirts if the military and police do not take action.
  Q3: What are the prospects for resolving the crisis?
  A3: Near-term prospects for resolution are not promising. Negotiations between the government and the Red Shirts have not yielded results. The Red Shirts demanded dissolution of parliament and new elections, but the government rejected these proposals arguing that free and fair elections would not be possible given the current polarized situation in various parts of the country, particularly the northeast. Hopes that the king might intervene seem to have been dashed when the 82-year-old monarch addressed the nation on television on April 26, but speaking from his hospital in a strained voice, he directed his remarks to new judges instead of the parties standing at the brink of civil war.
  Another possibility is that the opposing sides step back from the abyss. The Democrat Party is under new pressure due to allegations made against it by the Thailand Election Commission related to political fraud. The party could be legally dissolved and its leaders banned from politics for five years if it is found guilty. The case has been transferred to the Office of the Attorney General (AG) and could land in the Constitutional Court if the AG decides not to pursue the charges. On the other side, the Red Shirts have spent nearly two full months in the steaming streets of Bangkok and will eventually need to retrench. This scenario does not constitute resolution however, since the fundamental disagreements of the parties would remain unaddressed.
  If precipitous rhetoric and apocalyptic allegations continue, violent confrontation could return. This could take the form of the military deciding to move against the protesters, or if the Yellow Shirts follow through on their threats, they could try to remove the Red Shirts themselves. Either scenario risks more deaths and violence and could undercut the credibility of key institutions. If the military has to move to break up a clash between the Reds and Yellows, would it also take control of the government, and if it did, how soon would it move to hold elections and under what conditions?
  Q4: What are the implications for the United States?
  A4: The situation presents serious challenges for the United States and Thailand’s other international partners. With the issues at stake in Thailand so close to the core of national identity, most diplomats and policymakers have reasonably tread very carefully, recognizing that the nature of the conflict means that Thais must necessarily find their own answers. However, with 27 dead and nearly 1,000 wounded since the current protests started on March 12—among them foreigners living in or visiting Bangkok—the United States and others cannot stand by mutely. The State Department has issued statements encouraging the parties to return to the table to seek a negotiated settlement, but as noted above, that is not likely.
  Thailand and its crisis cannot be ignored. It is Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy, a linchpin of ASEAN, APEC, and other regional organizations, and one of five U.S. treaty allies in Asia. An unstable Thailand would undercut regional stability and undermine ASEAN. The situation has already strained Thai-Cambodia ties, which were under pressure due to border and off-shore energy disputes. Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen recently aggravated the situation by openly supporting former Thai prime minister Thaksin, anointing him as his special adviser on economic affairs and offering him a luxury villa in Phnom Penh.
  Americans have long-term and historic interests in Thailand, ranging from close political and security ties to core trade and investment links to strong sociocultural ties. Continued political unrest in Thailand is not in the U.S. interest. Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, visited the country in March and called on both the government and the opposition. Continued high-level visits would be well advised, as would visits and signals from ASEAN’s senior officials, the United Nations, and other international partners. Encouragement and outreach to all the key players in Thailand’s crisis should send an important signal to the Thai people that the United States is engaged, cares about Thailand’s future, and wants to see peace and democracy return to its friend and ally. As the United States has seen from its response to the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, not getting it right in Thailand could have historic implications.
  Ernest Bower is a senior adviser and director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
  Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
  
  © 2010 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
  Programs Southeast
  

[schmutzie]

Just for talk, if the red will go to the power in the next election waht will do all poeple that call them terrorist?

I mean everybody go away from here because they dont like live in a terrorist country??

Then all people that call ALL red people "terrorist" can show a real evidence about that?

I remember when the yellow sized the airport....many call them "terrorist" but they are all here now to call the red "terrorist".....at the end, if we read some yrs before the yellow was terrorist now red are terrorist so " all Thai" are terrorist for someone.

Some days ago I was inside the red camp in Silom, i also see Seh Deng and take picture to him, if that people are terrorist you newer see one in real guys, i think use the word "terrorist" but they dont know the mean.

In some hours i was there i dont see one gun, noting can used for offence, no weapon notings...also the rangers that make security to Seh Deng dont have nothings, terrorist are something different from this people, i mean the poor people that stay there.

Just for Talk I' m not whit red or yellows only an observer!!!!!!!

I think that you'll find that there is no proper, internationally agreed definition of "terrorism" or "terrorist". That's why in a way, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the current situation in terms of terrorists and non-terrorists. As you seem to be wondering out loud anyway in the above.

It was an unfortunate branding exercise that this term was dragged into the vocabulary of the current protest (troubles? action? situation? political stand off? what would you even use to describe the setup?).

As such, I don't think you should take too much offence from someone calling someone terrorist and feeling more justified in their position by doing so. It basically just serves to derail the debate because it becomes extremely subjective and emotional.

[Publicus]

This is an only slightly distant but immediately applicable analysis and statement of current events in Thailand made by Dr. Ernest Z Bower, Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia Program of the Washington non partisan and non profit Center for Strategic and International Studies, one which all sides can find supportive and, hopefully informative given the developments of the past 36 hours, specifically, the visit to Thailand of US AsstSec of DEPSTATE Dr. Kurt M. Campbell of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

('18th & K' below is the address of the streets in Washington at which the CSIS building is situated.)

<H1 class=title>Gut Check Time on Thailand</H1>

• Southeast Asia from 18th & K – 9 April 2010By Ernest Z. BowerApr 10, 2010
  It is gut check time on Thailand. With reports indicating serious injuries to over 80 people as a result of police and Thai military clashing with protesters, TV stations and websites being shuttered and implementation of internal security laws, most Thais don’t recognize their own country.
  Thailand is undergoing a historic political transition. Its international partners have been trying to tread a fine line appropriately allowing Thais room to work through what appears to be fundamental differences regarding governance. In truth, the collective quiet of diplomats and governments recognizes that only Thais can resolve this dispute. Unfortunately, this weekend the dispute passed the lexicon of bloodshed and violence, significantly upping the ante for friends of Thailand.
  The policy choices are not easy. Most countries won’t be able to remain mute any longer, particularly the United States whose foreign policy foundation is built on a tradition of promoting democracy, human rights and freedom. Americans know from their own history that creating viable democratic governance and institutions can be messy and even bloody. Recent experience in Asia backs this up – look at Indonesia’s road to direct elections and the “people’s movements” in the Philippines that have placed presidents in Malacanang as often as elections.
  This is a critical juncture for Thailand and an opportunity for its leaders to make legacy-creating decisions. The window for such interventions may be relatively small as history demonstrates that when people are willing to risk everything for a voice in how they are governed no baton or bullet can keep them down. Thailand itself means “free” land or country.
  Good friends would do well to urge Thais to step back from confrontation and get back on their early path of providing leadership for democracy and growth in Asia
  

[cheguevara]

Just for talk, if the red will go to the power in the next election waht will do all poeple that call them terrorist?

I mean everybody go away from here because they dont like live in a terrorist country??

Then all people that call ALL red people "terrorist" can show a real evidence about that?

I remember when the yellow sized the airport....many call them "terrorist" but they are all here now to call the red "terrorist".....at the end, if we read some yrs before the yellow was terrorist now red are terrorist so " all Thai" are terrorist for someone.

Some days ago I was inside the red camp in Silom, i also see Seh Deng and take picture to him, if that people are terrorist you newer see one in real guys, i think use the word "terrorist" but they dont know the mean.

In some hours i was there i dont see one gun, noting can used for offence, no weapon notings...also the rangers that make security to Seh Deng dont have nothings, terrorist are something different from this people, i mean the poor people that stay there.

Just for Talk I' m not whit red or yellows only an observer!!!!!!!

If they end up winning the elections, these people will just "pull a Newin" and switch sides, claiming that they've always supported the red shirts. Then they'll start beating on the yellow shirts for another year.

[Jimi007]

Just for talk, if the red will go to the power in the next election waht will do all poeple that call them terrorist?

I mean everybody go away from here because they dont like live in a terrorist country??

Then all people that call ALL red people "terrorist" can show a real evidence about that?

I remember when the yellow sized the airport....many call them "terrorist" but they are all here now to call the red "terrorist".....at the end, if we read some yrs before the yellow was terrorist now red are terrorist so " all Thai" are terrorist for someone.

Some days ago I was inside the red camp in Silom, i also see Seh Deng and take picture to him, if that people are terrorist you newer see one in real guys, i think use the word "terrorist" but they dont know the mean.

In some hours i was there i dont see one gun, noting can used for offence, no weapon notings...also the rangers that make security to Seh Deng dont have nothings, terrorist are something different from this people, i mean the poor people that stay there.

Just for Talk I' m not whit red or yellows only an observer!!!!!!!

I think that you'll find that there is no proper, internationally agreed definition of "terrorism" or "terrorist". That's why in a way, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the current situation in terms of terrorists and non-terrorists. As you seem to be wondering out loud anyway in the above.

It was an unfortunate branding exercise that this term was dragged into the vocabulary of the current protest (troubles? action? situation? political stand off? what would you even use to describe the setup?).

As such, I don't think you should take too much offence from someone calling someone terrorist and feeling more justified in their position by doing so. It basically just serves to derail the debate because it becomes extremely subjective and emotional.

I somewhat agree. But someone is firing off guns and other explosive devices at the public, armed forces and police. Not sure who is behind all the anarchy, but it seemed to start around the date which the Supreme Court of Thailand, ruled to seize some of Thakin's assets... Coincidence? Or am I just an old cynic?

[bkksteviejai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/citizensmith/

[schmutzie]

This is an only slightly distant but immediately applicable analysis and statement of current events in Thailand made by Dr. Ernest Z Bower, Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia Program of the Washington non partisan and non profit Center for Strategic and International Studies, one which all sides can find supportive and, hopefully informative given the developments of the past 36 hours, specifically, the visit to Thailand of US AsstSec of DEPSTATE Dr. Kurt M. Campbell of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

('18th & K' below is the address of the streets in Washington at which the CSIS building is situated.)

<H1 class=title>Gut Check Time on Thailand</H1>

• Southeast Asia from 18th & K – 9 April 2010By Ernest Z. BowerApr 10, 2010
  It is gut check time on Thailand. With reports indicating serious injuries to over 80 people as a result of police and Thai military clashing with protesters, TV stations and websites being shuttered and implementation of internal security laws, most Thais don’t recognize their own country.
  Thailand is undergoing a historic political transition. Its international partners have been trying to tread a fine line appropriately allowing Thais room to work through what appears to be fundamental differences regarding governance. In truth, the collective quiet of diplomats and governments recognizes that only Thais can resolve this dispute. Unfortunately, this weekend the dispute passed the lexicon of bloodshed and violence, significantly upping the ante for friends of Thailand.
  The policy choices are not easy. Most countries won’t be able to remain mute any longer, particularly the United States whose foreign policy foundation is built on a tradition of promoting democracy, human rights and freedom. Americans know from their own history that creating viable democratic governance and institutions can be messy and even bloody. Recent experience in Asia backs this up – look at Indonesia’s road to direct elections and the “people’s movements” in the Philippines that have placed presidents in Malacanang as often as elections.
  This is a critical juncture for Thailand and an opportunity for its leaders to make legacy-creating decisions. The window for such interventions may be relatively small as history demonstrates that when people are willing to risk everything for a voice in how they are governed no baton or bullet can keep them down. Thailand itself means “free” land or country.
  Good friends would do well to urge Thais to step back from confrontation and get back on their early path of providing leadership for democracy and growth in Asia
  

Fine. That's an opinion and a slightly patronising and rhetorically kitschy one at that. It just seems to say "you gotta start talking and maybe great things will happen". "Critical juncture" is an abused term and to start a conclusion with "history demonstrates" makes me cringe.

[oceano]

Just for talk, if the red will go to the power in the next election waht will do all poeple that call them terrorist?

I mean everybody go away from here because they dont like live in a terrorist country??

Then all people that call ALL red people "terrorist" can show a real evidence about that?

I remember when the yellow sized the airport....many call them "terrorist" but they are all here now to call the red "terrorist".....at the end, if we read some yrs before the yellow was terrorist now red are terrorist so " all Thai" are terrorist for someone.

Some days ago I was inside the red camp in Silom, i also see Seh Deng and take picture to him, if that people are terrorist you newer see one in real guys, i think use the word "terrorist" but they dont know the mean.

In some hours i was there i dont see one gun, noting can used for offence, no weapon notings...also the rangers that make security to Seh Deng dont have nothings, terrorist are something different from this people, i mean the poor people that stay there.

Just for Talk I' m not whit red or yellows only an observer!!!!!!!

I think that you'll find that there is no proper, internationally agreed definition of "terrorism" or "terrorist". That's why in a way, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the current situation in terms of terrorists and non-terrorists. As you seem to be wondering out loud anyway in the above.

It was an unfortunate branding exercise that this term was dragged into the vocabulary of the current protest (troubles? action? situation? political stand off? what would you even use to describe the setup?).

As such, I don't think you should take too much offence from someone calling someone terrorist and feeling more justified in their position by doing so. It basically just serves to derail the debate because it becomes extremely subjective and emotional.

I somewhat agree. But someone is firing off guns and other explosive devices at the public, armed forces and police. Not sure who is behind all the anarchy, but it seemed to start around the date which the Supreme Court of Thailand, ruled to seize some of Thakin's assets... Coincidence? Or am I just an old cynic?

So i ask" someone have evidence?".

You know Thailand is full of weapon and people that only wait a right time for shoot somewere, i mean i hate someone, for example, i dont go to shoot him direct i wait him fight whit someone and i shoot from my windows.

Also before there was violence.

I dont say they are good or bad , yellow, red, pink all have show they are violent or have gun and they shoot to someone, my point is that not all people are like that, many are good people( also yellow, pink ecc) they only fight in good manner for theyr idea of better life, so is wrong call ALL red/yellow/pink/ terrorist or bad people, only that.

Innocent till we have the prove of guilty, so if this is ours idea of law in western country we must have some REAL evidence that someone is a terrorist and, sorry for say, nobody have real evidence that the red are terrorist.

If someone that call them like that have this evidence i will be the first to say they are.

Why someone of us must insult in bad word someone else only because they dont agree whit them?

[SPQR]

Within the ranks of the Red-Shirt demonstrators are some armed soldiers, effectively a paid militia to serve as a perimeter defense, to deter the police and army from overrunning the UDD camp and apprehending the core leadership in a sudden rush. These security forces are a mixed lot, ranging from well-trained and well-disciplined members of the Thai army, ex-ranger tigers, and some CNF ex-police, down to bangkok mafia enforcers and under-bosses, and an assortment of gun-toting betel-spitting yahoos from the paddies of over a dozen amphurs. The problem guys are gun-nut wingers, who got M79 equipped for this show, and are trying to foment a serious shoot-out, which will paint the police and army in blood. This was included in the price when they were hired for the security work, and the UDD core leadership is not happy with it, but there are a couple things preventing them from kicking these a55holes out of the ranks. Most importantly, they cannot totaly disagree with the argument put back to them by the shoot-first cadre that dirtying the police and army with blood is maybe the only viable counter right now against an army coup to hold the government in an other arbitration, dissolution, and re-election sale this year. The UDD does not want that. The UDD call for immediate dissolution and re-elections stems from the same countenanced loss of oppotunity.

The democrats waiting until November is counting on that outcome exactly to put the next round of elections into a time-frame that permits forming a different coalition of parties. The other problem with disentanglement from the shooters is a loss of vital components of that security, with intel from back-channels out of the police HQ, which are their vital signal to use their "out" before a real raid penetrates their camp to grab up the key leaders.

So the classic deal with the devil you know has them stuck, and the violence is getting serious.

This is a plain old bad time for everyone.

The same old guys are just parked on this topic, wanting to make their opinions into fact de-facto by just repeating them over and again pi55ing on every new contrib to the thread. BARF! Do your pathetic thing to mine, too. I don't care about bored punk-attitude outsiders who heckle from the side-lines.

You should have some respect. The Thai people are a beautiful bunch, and their country and history are seriously cool. They have come to the moment of truth on their political machinery, and have to step into the 21st century with it, good and bad with all of this mess. The process is messy enough on the loyalty re-shuffling level, but on top of which it is being harrassed by a bunck of KEE-NOK gun-talkers. I am sad the Thai people are getting robbed of this momentary opportunity for a breakthrough. The statements of the leaders on both sides do not go to much trouble to sound intelligent when there is killing taking place. They should be doing their best work right now on winning people with ideas, but the public debate has lost all imtimacy, and Thais are horrified by the criminal violence being thrown upon the scene by the shooters. I am glad Campbell put the US in a conciliatory position last week, but now more must be done, and the US cannot help much from a perfectly balanced middle spot on the fence. Good time for a gut-check. Good time to check your hate at the door, too. The carefully played police and army presences are left with no options now. Some of the eye to eye killing that is coming is gut-wrenching to think about. Soldiers on both sides will recognize former colleages and even family in their sights as they end this thing.

[Publicus]

This is an only slightly distant but immediately applicable analysis and statement of current events in Thailand made by Dr. Ernest Z Bower, Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia Program of the Washington non partisan and non profit Center for Strategic and International Studies, one which all sides can find supportive and, hopefully informative given the developments of the past 36 hours, specifically, the visit to Thailand of US AsstSec of DEPSTATE Dr. Kurt M. Campbell of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

('18th & K' below is the address of the streets in Washington at which the CSIS building is situated.)

<H1 class=title>Gut Check Time on Thailand</H1>

• Southeast Asia from 18th & K – 9 April 2010By Ernest Z. BowerApr 10, 2010
  It is gut check time on Thailand. With reports indicating serious injuries to over 80 people as a result of police and Thai military clashing with protesters, TV stations and websites being shuttered and implementation of internal security laws, most Thais don't recognize their own country.
  Thailand is undergoing a historic political transition. Its international partners have been trying to tread a fine line appropriately allowing Thais room to work through what appears to be fundamental differences regarding governance. In truth, the collective quiet of diplomats and governments recognizes that only Thais can resolve this dispute. Unfortunately, this weekend the dispute passed the lexicon of bloodshed and violence, significantly upping the ante for friends of Thailand.
  The policy choices are not easy. Most countries won't be able to remain mute any longer, particularly the United States whose foreign policy foundation is built on a tradition of promoting democracy, human rights and freedom. Americans know from their own history that creating viable democratic governance and institutions can be messy and even bloody. Recent experience in Asia backs this up – look at Indonesia's road to direct elections and the "people's movements" in the Philippines that have placed presidents in Malacanang as often as elections.
  This is a critical juncture for Thailand and an opportunity for its leaders to make legacy-creating decisions. The window for such interventions may be relatively small as history demonstrates that when people are willing to risk everything for a voice in how they are governed no baton or bullet can keep them down. Thailand itself means "free" land or country.
  Good friends would do well to urge Thais to step back from confrontation and get back on their early path of providing leadership for democracy and growth in Asia
  

Fine. That's an opinion and a slightly patronising and rhetorically kitschy one at that. It just seems to say "you gotta start talking and maybe great things will happen". "Critical juncture" is an abused term and to start a conclusion with "history demonstrates" makes me cringe.

I share the view that being glib and trite is a path to nowhere, which is why you might want to reconsider your pedestrian post. Making the comfortable, self-satisfied and smug "cringe" is always a good idea and practice.

The term "history demonstrates" is a major reason why from its founding the beast called "American Exceptionalism" to the ways of the Old World were conceived, implemented and continues to prove its validity, viability and I'm confident venerability.

[wagner54]

Be a bit firkin daft NOT to talk to the reds, considering many/most people think that they would win an election right now.

May be your maid thinks so, but certainly not the majority of Thais

Lets see what an election brings, I think you wil lbe unpleasantly surprised.

[Xangsamhua]

What a misleading topic heading! He didn't meet with the "protesters"; he met with banned TRT and PPP executives, Chaturon, Phongthep, Noppadol, etc.

These men are opposition figures, but not protestors or terrorists.

The US opposed the coup in 2006, so politically they have no conflict with coup-deposed former ministers like Chaturon. The fact that these people have been banned from political involvement in Thailand is a consequence of this country's ancient practice of punishing everybody associated with a wrongdoer (at least they don't execute them and their families now). A TRT executive was caught buying votes, so the whole 111 executive members were banned. Weird. Why shouldn't the US spokesman meet with them? And there's no need for government representatives to attend a meeting between an overseas official and opposition figures.

[SPQR]

This is an only slightly distant but immediately applicable analysis and statement of current events in Thailand made by Dr. Ernest Z Bower, Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia Program of the Washington non partisan and non profit Center for Strategic and International Studies, one which all sides can find supportive and, hopefully informative given the developments of the past 36 hours, specifically, the visit to Thailand of US AsstSec of DEPSTATE Dr. Kurt M. Campbell of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

('18th & K' below is the address of the streets in Washington at which the CSIS building is situated.)

<H1 class=title>Gut Check Time on Thailand</H1>

• Southeast Asia from 18th & K – 9 April 2010By Ernest Z. BowerApr 10, 2010
  It is gut check time on Thailand. With reports indicating serious injuries to over 80 people as a result of police and Thai military clashing with protesters, TV stations and websites being shuttered and implementation of internal security laws, most Thais don't recognize their own country.
  Thailand is undergoing a historic political transition. Its international partners have been trying to tread a fine line appropriately allowing Thais room to work through what appears to be fundamental differences regarding governance. In truth, the collective quiet of diplomats and governments recognizes that only Thais can resolve this dispute. Unfortunately, this weekend the dispute passed the lexicon of bloodshed and violence, significantly upping the ante for friends of Thailand.
  The policy choices are not easy. Most countries won't be able to remain mute any longer, particularly the United States whose foreign policy foundation is built on a tradition of promoting democracy, human rights and freedom. Americans know from their own history that creating viable democratic governance and institutions can be messy and even bloody. Recent experience in Asia backs this up – look at Indonesia's road to direct elections and the "people's movements" in the Philippines that have placed presidents in Malacanang as often as elections.
  This is a critical juncture for Thailand and an opportunity for its leaders to make legacy-creating decisions. The window for such interventions may be relatively small as history demonstrates that when people are willing to risk everything for a voice in how they are governed no baton or bullet can keep them down. Thailand itself means "free" land or country.
  Good friends would do well to urge Thais to step back from confrontation and get back on their early path of providing leadership for democracy and growth in Asia
  

Fine. That's an opinion and a slightly patronising and rhetorically kitschy one at that. It just seems to say "you gotta start talking and maybe great things will happen". "Critical juncture" is an abused term and to start a conclusion with "history demonstrates" makes me cringe.

I share the view that being glib and trite is a path to nowhere, which is why you might want to reconsider your pedestrian post. Making the comfortable, self-satisfied and smug "cringe" is always a good idea and practice.

The term "history demonstrates" is a major reason why from its founding the beast called "American Exceptionalism" to the ways of the Old World were conceived, implemented and continues to prove its validity, viability and I'm confident venerability.

Publicus, I agree 100% with those statements. The Thai version of democracy is immune to tking the path of exceptionalism, at least intellectually. The Thai business world is another story. Exceptionalism is a pretty good charter for the path they have followed, entrenching the old money in new development, cutting out the middle and lower echeclons of the working community from the takings in the process. That is business EVERYWHERE in capitalist marketplaces. Now, its politicl, and the Thais want a solution that represents everyone, here is another classic, where the law of the jungle is upheld in business and attacked as unsuitable in politics. We all know these lessons from our own national histories, and we all know our western nations have NOT SOLVED

THESE PROBLEMS, so we offer no exapmle of action to the Thais, and they thank us very much to hush our mouths as they take this scary step for themselves.......

[yoshiwara]

Within the ranks of the Red-Shirt demonstrators are some armed soldiers, effectively a paid militia to serve as a perimeter defense, to deter the police and army from overrunning the UDD camp and apprehending the core leadership in a sudden rush. These security forces are a mixed lot, ranging from well-trained and well-disciplined members of the Thai army, ex-ranger tigers, and some CNF ex-police, down to bangkok mafia enforcers and under-bosses, and an assortment of gun-toting betel-spitting yahoos from the paddies of over a dozen amphurs. The problem guys are gun-nut wingers, who got M79 equipped for this show, and are trying to foment a serious shoot-out, which will paint the police and army in blood. This was included in the price when they were hired for the security work, and the UDD core leadership is not happy with it, but there are a couple things preventing them from kicking these a55holes out of the ranks. Most importantly, they cannot totaly disagree with the argument put back to them by the shoot-first cadre that dirtying the police and army with blood is maybe the only viable counter right now against an army coup to hold the government in an other arbitration, dissolution, and re-election sale this year. The UDD does not want that. The UDD call for immediate dissolution and re-elections stems from the same countenanced loss of oppotunity.

The democrats waiting until November is counting on that outcome exactly to put the next round of elections into a time-frame that permits forming a different coalition of parties. The other problem with disentanglement from the shooters is a loss of vital components of that security, with intel from back-channels out of the police HQ, which are their vital signal to use their "out" before a real raid penetrates their camp to grab up the key leaders.

So the classic deal with the devil you know has them stuck, and the violence is getting serious.

This is a plain old bad time for everyone.

The same old guys are just parked on this topic, wanting to make their opinions into fact de-facto by just repeating them over and again pi55ing on every new contrib to the thread. BARF! Do your pathetic thing to mine, too. I don't care about bored punk-attitude outsiders who heckle from the side-lines.

You should have some respect. The Thai people are a beautiful bunch, and their country and history are seriously cool. They have come to the moment of truth on their political machinery, and have to step into the 21st century with it, good and bad with all of this mess. The process is messy enough on the loyalty re-shuffling level, but on top of which it is being harrassed by a bunck of KEE-NOK gun-talkers. I am sad the Thai people are getting robbed of this momentary opportunity for a breakthrough. The statements of the leaders on both sides do not go to much trouble to sound intelligent when there is killing taking place. They should be doing their best work right now on winning people with ideas, but the public debate has lost all imtimacy, and Thais are horrified by the criminal violence being thrown upon the scene by the shooters. I am glad Campbell put the US in a conciliatory position last week, but now more must be done, and the US cannot help much from a perfectly balanced middle spot on the fence. Good time for a gut-check. Good time to check your hate at the door, too. The carefully played police and army presences are left with no options now. Some of the eye to eye killing that is coming is gut-wrenching to think about. Soldiers on both sides will recognize former colleages and even family in their sights as they end this thing.

It would be extra-interesting if Thaksin has an independent line into these guys.

The new election date does not give him his original objective.

In short, he has options.

[BSJ]

Is this just a prelude to a sudden influx of U.S. airboard troops being landed by helicopter...or parachuted in......with the drop zone being Patpong? Would be convenient as they could conduct their business and have R&R in the same place!

[schmutzie]

This is an only slightly distant but immediately applicable analysis and statement of current events in Thailand made by Dr. Ernest Z Bower, Senior Advisor and Director, Southeast Asia Program of the Washington non partisan and non profit Center for Strategic and International Studies, one which all sides can find supportive and, hopefully informative given the developments of the past 36 hours, specifically, the visit to Thailand of US AsstSec of DEPSTATE Dr. Kurt M. Campbell of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

('18th & K' below is the address of the streets in Washington at which the CSIS building is situated.)

<H1 class=title>Gut Check Time on Thailand</H1>

• Southeast Asia from 18th & K – 9 April 2010By Ernest Z. BowerApr 10, 2010
  It is gut check time on Thailand. With reports indicating serious injuries to over 80 people as a result of police and Thai military clashing with protesters, TV stations and websites being shuttered and implementation of internal security laws, most Thais don't recognize their own country.
  Thailand is undergoing a historic political transition. Its international partners have been trying to tread a fine line appropriately allowing Thais room to work through what appears to be fundamental differences regarding governance. In truth, the collective quiet of diplomats and governments recognizes that only Thais can resolve this dispute. Unfortunately, this weekend the dispute passed the lexicon of bloodshed and violence, significantly upping the ante for friends of Thailand.
  The policy choices are not easy. Most countries won't be able to remain mute any longer, particularly the United States whose foreign policy foundation is built on a tradition of promoting democracy, human rights and freedom. Americans know from their own history that creating viable democratic governance and institutions can be messy and even bloody. Recent experience in Asia backs this up – look at Indonesia's road to direct elections and the "people's movements" in the Philippines that have placed presidents in Malacanang as often as elections.
  This is a critical juncture for Thailand and an opportunity for its leaders to make legacy-creating decisions. The window for such interventions may be relatively small as history demonstrates that when people are willing to risk everything for a voice in how they are governed no baton or bullet can keep them down. Thailand itself means "free" land or country.
  Good friends would do well to urge Thais to step back from confrontation and get back on their early path of providing leadership for democracy and growth in Asia
  

Fine. That's an opinion and a slightly patronising and rhetorically kitschy one at that. It just seems to say "you gotta start talking and maybe great things will happen". "Critical juncture" is an abused term and to start a conclusion with "history demonstrates" makes me cringe.

I share the view that being glib and trite is a path to nowhere, which is why you might want to reconsider your pedestrian post. Making the comfortable, self-satisfied and smug "cringe" is always a good idea and practice.

The term "history demonstrates" is a major reason why from its founding the beast called "American Exceptionalism" to the ways of the Old World were conceived, implemented and continues to prove its validity, viability and I'm confident venerability.

I take your reply to be playful. However, I can't help it but bite when accused of making pedestrian posts: You've posted two excerpts from a senior advisor with a phd sitting at CSIS in Washington, that reads like a poor man's departmental brief. Do you agree that this is really a historical juncture from which, if "resolved", Thailand will finally be able to proceed towards a prosperous future for all Thais?

He proposes that negotiations must take place and encourages American diplomacy to support that where possible. The reason being, that Thailand is a key partner and player in the Asian Pacific region...and..?

I'm wondering why Mr. Campbell doesn't pop over to Singapore whilst he's in town and has a meeting with a couple of banned politicians over there.

Oh well, you've reduced me to another ranter. Good job.

[Publicus]

Is this just a prelude to a sudden influx of U.S. airboard troops being landed by helicopter...or parachuted in......with the drop zone being Patpong? Would be convenient as they could conduct their business and have R&R in the same place!

While PM, or at least so I have it from excellent sources, Thaksin had planned an invasion of Patpong not by a massive straight hard on airborne insertion but by having his ever loyal police spring out of the sewer manholes (or was it into manholes???) to seize each nightspot and its manholes regardless of gender/sex/glbt orientation to extract as much in cash payments to Oak as possible all the while having Oak on the ground directing all of the crack airborne manhole insertions of troops plunging their awesome projectile weapons into the designated and directed targets. Those were the good old days of both squareface and Oak himself.

Ah, all good things come to an end.

[featography]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Maybe the US knows something the rest of you don't.

[Publicus]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Maybe the US knows something the rest of you don't.

What we all know is that the government refers to certain elements among the Red Shirts as terrorists.

Significantly however, the US Government hasn't ever said, proclaimed or announced that the Red Shirts are terrorists. If you or anyone can present a statement by the US Government, explicit or implicit, that the US Government has after careful investigation and thorough documentation declared the Red Shirts to be terrorists, kindly provide the link to me myself and to all of us.

Yes, I consider the Red Shirts to be terrorists but does my government, on the basis of its standard definitions of who and what constitutes terrorists, consider and declare after a thorough investigation the Red Shirts of Thailand to be terrorists? No, the US Government considers the Red Shirts, as obnoxious as they are to myself and to many of us, as not at all being on the official US Government list of terrorists.

So let's quit this crap about the US, supposedly and absurdly, having some double standard about negotiang with terrorists in Pratcha. At least until and when, if ever, the US Government does in fact declare and present supporting evidence to of course include conclusive proof that it officially considers the Red Shirts to be "terrorists."

Until those of you hollering (false) double standards against the US negotiating with Thailand terrorists can cite that the US Government has officially found the Red Shirts to be terrorists, stuff your bogus and America hating bullshit.

[Redsunset]

What a misleading topic heading! He didn't meet with the "protesters"; he met with banned TRT and PPP executives, Chaturon, Phongthep, Noppadol, etc.

These men are opposition figures, but not protestors or terrorists.

The US opposed the coup in 2006, so politically they have no conflict with coup-deposed former ministers like Chaturon. The fact that these people have been banned from political involvement in Thailand is a consequence of this country's ancient practice of punishing everybody associated with a wrongdoer (at least they don't execute them and their families now). A TRT executive was caught buying votes, so the whole 111 executive members were banned. Weird. Why shouldn't the US spokesman meet with them? And there's no need for government representatives to attend a meeting between an overseas official and opposition figures.

Xangsamhua, I am stunned at how naive, nosy and embarassing the U.S. Assist. Secretary of State is. Here is a quote about the U.S.'s position from the lead article:

"Campbell's statement reflects Washington's support for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)'s campaign."

It just reeks of cluelessness.... the crap that follow are word from an IGNORANT BUREAUCRAT - embarassing, uninformed, political BS.... just nice flowery bullshit.

How embarassing... I am an American and his behavior is so incredibly STUPID!!!!

[Redsunset]

Is this just a prelude to a sudden influx of U.S. airboard troops being landed by helicopter...or parachuted in......with the drop zone being Patpong? Would be convenient as they could conduct their business and have R&R in the same place!

lols!!! Well, given the stupidity of the U.S. in this case, they might just drop those troops on the Government House instead and start table dancing with the female government staff!

[Redsunset]

Campbell's statement reflects Washington's support for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)'s campaign.

???

Eggsactly.

The is article writer laying in something on his own not reflected in the QUOTED talk.

The article writer is making a HUGE assumption then..... very misleading.

[Valentine]

Was his visit officially sanctioned? If not why did he meet with banned politicians right during the middle of a positive peace negotiating deal being brokered.

[Traxster]

Bloody Yanks,why don't they mind their own business ?

[featography]

I wonder how much time Mr. Campbell has even spent in Thailand? Does he know the political culture and the players?

Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I'd say he knows quite a bit more about politics in Thailand than some of the forum members here.

Bingo

[Gonzo the Face]

What a hypocrite! I can't believe the guy would even talk to these red terrorists.

maybe check out the asiatimes online article by Shawn Crispin it lays a how the USA may be involved.

Don't know how much of this article you were able to read ,,,,,, but it seems to be blocked or censored thie morning..... anyone else have a problem opening it ???

I would be interested in what it has to say.

Seems the US doesn't have enough problems of it own ...... poking noses in again where they would be better off taking care of their own problems

[Thai-Aust]

"More than 10 Democrats were also invited to attend the breakfast meeting, but none of them went. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn also declined the invitation," a political source said.

[Valentine]

What a hypocrite! I can't believe the guy would even talk to these red terrorists.

maybe check out the asiatimes online article by Shawn Crispin it lays a how the USA may be involved.

Don't know how much of this article you were able to read ,,,,,, but it seems to be blocked or censored thie morning..... anyone else have a problem opening it ???

I would be interested in what it has to say.

Seems the US doesn't have enough problems of it own ...... poking noses in again where they would be better off taking care of their own problems

I just googled this, shawn crispin asia times & it came up OK.

[Publicus]

What a misleading topic heading! He didn't meet with the "protesters"; he met with banned TRT and PPP executives, Chaturon, Phongthep, Noppadol, etc.

These men are opposition figures, but not protestors or terrorists.

The US opposed the coup in 2006, so politically they have no conflict with coup-deposed former ministers like Chaturon. The fact that these people have been banned from political involvement in Thailand is a consequence of this country's ancient practice of punishing everybody associated with a wrongdoer (at least they don't execute them and their families now). A TRT executive was caught buying votes, so the whole 111 executive members were banned. Weird. Why shouldn't the US spokesman meet with them? And there's no need for government representatives to attend a meeting between an overseas official and opposition figures.

Xangsamhua, I am stunned at how naive, nosy and embarassing the U.S. Assist. Secretary of State is. Here is a quote about the U.S.'s position from the lead article:

"Campbell's statement reflects Washington's support for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)'s campaign."

It just reeks of cluelessness.... the crap that follow are word from an IGNORANT BUREAUCRAT - embarassing, uninformed, political BS.... just nice flowery bullshit.

How embarassing... I am an American and his behavior is so incredibly STUPID!!!!

See my post above in this thread presenting the whole and complete statement of AsstSec Campbell. Moreover, your rhetoric is silly and rediculous. The position of Assistant Secretary of any Executive Department of the government of the United States is not the bureaucrat General Service (GS) position but, rather, is a Senior Executive Service (SES) position, the difference being that one who holds a SES position is nominated by the POTUS (Obama) and must be disposed by vote of the US Senate after appropriate public hearings into the qualifications of the president's nominee to the SES position.

So AsstSec Campbell is a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate after a fully private White House vetting followed by a fully public Senate Q & A vetting, both by vote of the appropriate Senate committee of jursidiction and subsequently by the entire Senate. No General Service 'bureaucrat' appointed to the GS Schedule is in any way subject to this procedure, vetting or process. The man is not a bureaucrat. He's a policy decision making expert specialist who is fully qualified to make executive level decisions and directly to consult with the Department Secretary (in this instance SECSTATE Clinton), appropriately to advise the Department Secretary and, on occasion, the POTUS himself.

I actually now could begin to see how so many ignorant morons of the world presume Americans to be stupid. Heavens, do try not to drive this Old World image and inherent prejudice to a greater misimpression than you have to date. did you study US government in high school like the majority of us? WhaddayouorareyoulikeBushorsomethin?

Edited May 10, 2010 by Publicus