Defending The Coup Before International Concerns

[sabaijai]

Kraisak set for Foreign portfolio

Former senator Kraisak Chonhavan has been approached by the coup leaders to serve as foreign minister in the interim government expected to be formed soon, one of his aides told The Nation yesterday.

The source said that Kraisak was seriously weighing the pros and cons of the offer, but was concerned about strong doubts expressed by the international community over the legitimacy of the coup on Tuesday night that overthrew caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Kraisak told a gathering at the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand last night he had had a hard time explaining why the coup was acceptable.

"Four years of human rights violations, four years of abuse of power, four years of uncaring for due process of law ... I was amazed that my lengthy explanations fell on deaf ears," Kraisak said. He said he had been giving interviews to foreign journalists since yesterday morning until late afternoon.

Another speaker at the FCCT, Thitinand Pongsutthirak, a lecturer in the Political Science Faculty at Chulalongkorn University, said the coup, though understandable, represented a 15-year step back in time for Thai democracy.

"Thai democracy took a blow last night [Tuesday night], but democracy is not a one-size-fits-all project."

Thitinand said he did not condone the coup, but hoped that people would take a nuanced view of the situation. He warned that Thaksin could still stage a comeback. "There is potential for a counter-coup in the making," he said.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

[Scott]

It's extremely hard to justify a military coup, especially to a group of politicians and their apointees. Remember the coup is the antithesis of politics. It's about as popular as an outbreak of crabs in a cathouse!

I don't agree with a coup, but it might take sometime for everything to shake down. The country was definitely headed towards problems. It takes a STRONG democracy to face these kinds of problems--I am not sure if Thailand has one or not.

None-the-less, it's hard to justify.

[richard10365]

Professional soldiers usually live by a different set of moral and ethical values than do politicians. Had they not stepped in they would have betrayed the beliefs that they are normally prepared to die for.

When the top elected official tramples on the constitution for his own benefit, then someone has to step in and rescue democracy before it is completely destroyed.

These soldier, sailors, and airmen leading the administrative reform council did what they did for Thailand and the Thai people.

They did their job. The coup, it's not in the rulebook, but it was the right thing to do.

[Crushdepth]

I don't think Thaksin can claim any moral high ground at all. Getting elected isn't a license to break the law, engage in corruption or kill people. Tinkering with the EC and trying to stack the army and everything else with his cronies wasn't exactly my idea of democracy. Inflaming the southern problems from 1 bomb every two years to 70 bombs in one day isn't my idea of successful policy, either. He had to go and I'm glad he's gone.

Thaksin wanted to have a more authoritarian regime, and now he's got one.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Crushdepth

[hammered]

Sometimes I get confused. We have the US, the UK and Australia who are described as 3 of the greatest democracies on earth currently conducting a resisted occupation in a country where virtually nobody wants them after launching an illegal war against the said country. And in at least two of these great democracies the majority of the people didnt want the war. They are now considering doing it all again against another country in the same region. Yet these countries that will happily conduct illegal wars that kill not only thousands of their own citizens but also tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the invaded country, are not happy at a bloodless coup that seems relatively popular in the country in which it took place. Maybe the UK, US and Australia should take a long hard look at where their own wonderful illegal political actions had gotten them before criticizing the actions of others.

[popshirt]

Sometimes I get confused. We have the US, the UK and Australia who are described as 3 of the greatest democracies on earth currently conducting a resisted occupation in a country where virtually nobody wants them after launching an illegal war against the said country. And in at least two of these great democracies the majority of the people didnt want the war. They are now considering doing it all again against another country in the same region. Yet these countries that will happily conduct illegal wars that kill not only thousands of their own citizens but also tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the invaded country, are not happy at a bloodless coup that seems relatively popular in the country in which it took place. Maybe the UK, US and Australia should take a long hard look at where their own wonderful illegal political actions had gotten them before criticizing the actions of others.

I absolutely agree with you.

Also I have found in explaining to western friends about the coup that if I tell them that Thaksin "bought" votes to get elected and stay elected, they seem to understand a bit.

[Artisi]

Although a coup d'etat can be seen as a step backwards, conversely, it could be viewed as a step forward depending on its aims and the precursor to this action.

I feel it is worth mentioning that most of us here are looking at this issue from a western view point who come from societies, in some cases with hundreds of years of constitutional development, both good and bad. Therefore, we need to bear in mind and remember that Thailand is really a new kid on the block still finding its way in developing itself as a stable and cohesive nation.

This latest development, if handled professionaly, fairly, and mindfully could well be the start of better things for the long term future of Thailand.

[womble]

Sometimes I get confused. We have the US, the UK and Australia who are described as 3 of the greatest democracies on earth currently conducting a resisted occupation in a country where virtually nobody wants them after launching an illegal war against the said country. And in at least two of these great democracies the majority of the people didnt want the war. They are now considering doing it all again against another country in the same region. Yet these countries that will happily conduct illegal wars that kill not only thousands of their own citizens but also tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the invaded country, are not happy at a bloodless coup that seems relatively popular in the country in which it took place. Maybe the UK, US and Australia should take a long hard look at where their own wonderful illegal political actions had gotten them before criticizing the actions of others.

I absolutely agree with you.

Also I have found in explaining to western friends about the coup that if I tell them that Thaksin "bought" votes to get elected and stay elected, they seem to understand a bit.

Yeah, spot on. Also, how many coups in other countries have been sponsored by the US and UK.

And how many of those were bloodless?

The hipicritical foreign policy of the US and UK knows no bounds.

I don't see the coup in Thailand as a step forwards or backwards, it's a step sideways.

What we had with Thaksin could hadly be seen as a working democracy, and as it wasn't possible to get rid of an increaseingly dangerous and desperate leader through demorcratic means, there was no alternative.

Frankly this is the best possible outcome, no one has died or been injured, if the PAD demonstration had occured yesterday in all likelyhood it would have turned violent.

The the Armys pre emptive take over adverted just the loss of a single life then i'd say it's a success.

Foreign governments can be all high and mighty with their convenient notions of democracy, but at this point in time the Thai Armys unorthodox route to re-instating democracy in Thailand somehow seems far more successfull than any attempt I have seen made by western governments to bring about Democracy.

If power is conceeded within two weeks, and the constitution is strengthened before new elections within a year then Thailand can be proud and hold it's head up high in the international community as one of the rare cases where unorthodox methods of Maintaining Democracy has worked.

[veteran]

So far so good, I hope they keep it this way and not like in 91.

[Plus]

Funny they asked Kraisak whose father was ousted in the previous coup.

He didn't mention this fact in the article, however. I understand his biggest concern - credibility issue. It's all fine and dandy as long as people trust the generals but foreigners aren't sure about their intentions.

It will take a long time for any politician to gain credibility on international scale, no matter how sensible his policies and proposals appear - foreigners will always have to check with generals first.

This is not the way things work in the world these days.

[alexth]

It's extremely hard to justify a military coup, especially to a group of politicians and their apointees. Remember the coup is the antithesis of politics. It's about as popular as an outbreak of crabs in a cathouse!

I don't agree with a coup, but it might take sometime for everything to shake down. The country was definitely headed towards problems. It takes a STRONG democracy to face these kinds of problems--I am not sure if Thailand has one or not.

None-the-less, it's hard to justify.

I'll throw my 2 cents in it and I'd say Thailand does not have the democracy concept. What just happened was necessary, Thaksin had to go, even though we can't be sure that what's coming will be for the better or for the worse, there arestill many things that need to be shaken. Let's not forget that democracy must also be supported by people and (hopefully I won't get bashed for this), the majority of the thais aren't ready yet to understand the concept of democracy; we had many examples where a wrong understood democracy turned itself into a chaos.

[womble]

Most uneducated Thais, particulary those in the countryside are not bothered about the concepts of Democracy. The things that matter more to them are assistance and developement of their communites. Whatever goes on in Bangkok in their eyes often has little effect on them, this is why they liked Thakisn, for once they were noticed.

What use is Democracy to you if you are ignored? This is what happened in the past. Whilst Thaksin was undemorcratic himself, this mattered little to rural folk as he was providing for their needs, or at least in their eyes better than anyone else has.

Hopefully the Thaksin years will bring about a stronger Democracy with far stronger checks and balances whilst at the same time reminding future leaders that the rural folk must be taken care of.

[fruittbatt]

I'll throw my 2 cents in it and I'd say Thailand does not have the democracy concept. What just happened was necessary, Thaksin had to go, even though we can't be sure that what's coming will be for the better or for the worse, there arestill many things that need to be shaken. Let's not forget that democracy must also be supported by people and (hopefully I won't get bashed for this), the majority of the thais aren't ready yet to understand the concept of democracy; we had many examples where a wrong understood democracy turned itself into a chaos.

Actually Thailand has a strong democratic concept, and not only amongst the urban and westernised middle-classes in Bkk. Traditional organisation in Thai villages also had and still has democratic and participatory structures and practices available to men and women.

I'm no expert on Thai history, but it seems to me that Taksin was perceived as a charismatic leader by the rural population yet abused his very real power to unite Thailand as a democracy by his sheer greed, ruthless "wars", and corrupt practices. He alienated large sections of the urban educated middle classes. The greatest opportunity for democracy in Thailand was blown to pieces by a megalomaniac whose "global" business ambitions were paramount.

Edited September 21, 2006 by fruittbatt

[womble]

You are assuming the Junta doesnt have other objectives. Big assumption, just look at Burma next door.

From what we have seen so far and from those who seem to be advising and working with the Junta, things look good.

Announcing a two week deadline for a civilian PM was a clever move, providing they keep to the deadline and appoint someone who the public trust, it will do a lot to ally any fears people may have.

Also it seems that slowly but surely they are re-instating parts of the constitution, hopefully we will not see a complete new constitution, just some modifications and strengthening of the checks and balances.

I think that is what we will see.

and with a bit of luck an election in 6 months, not 1 year.

There are other elections to be held soon, if these elections are allowed to take place, with the current EC, that too will be very positive.

[womble]

I'll throw my 2 cents in it and I'd say Thailand does not have the democracy concept. What just happened was necessary, Thaksin had to go, even though we can't be sure that what's coming will be for the better or for the worse, there arestill many things that need to be shaken. Let's not forget that democracy must also be supported by people and (hopefully I won't get bashed for this), the majority of the thais aren't ready yet to understand the concept of democracy; we had many examples where a wrong understood democracy turned itself into a chaos.

Actually Thailand has a strong democratic concept, and not only amongst the urban and westernised middle-classes in Bkk. Traditional organisation in Thai villages also had and still has democratic and participatory structures and practices available to men and women.

Yes and no, remember, that is also a lot of nepotism in these rural organisations, which is anything but Demorcratic.

Thailands history of cronyism and selfenrichment is one of the things that has always been one of the major factors damaging Democracy.

[Hollywood]

Sometimes I get confused. We have the US, the UK and Australia who are described as 3 of the greatest democracies on earth currently conducting a resisted occupation in a country where virtually nobody wants them after launching an illegal war against the said country. And in at least two of these great democracies the majority of the people didnt want the war. They are now considering doing it all again against another country in the same region. Yet these countries that will happily conduct illegal wars that kill not only thousands of their own citizens but also tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the invaded country, are not happy at a bloodless coup that seems relatively popular in the country in which it took place. Maybe the UK, US and Australia should take a long hard look at where their own wonderful illegal political actions had gotten them before criticizing the actions of others.

I agree with you completely. We in the USA have to sit and watch what is happening to this country and to other countries by Bush for 2 more years. No wonder Bush and his regime buddies frown on this smart action by the Thai military.

[fruittbatt]

I'll throw my 2 cents in it and I'd say Thailand does not have the democracy concept. What just happened was necessary, Thaksin had to go, even though we can't be sure that what's coming will be for the better or for the worse, there arestill many things that need to be shaken. Let's not forget that democracy must also be supported by people and (hopefully I won't get bashed for this), the majority of the thais aren't ready yet to understand the concept of democracy; we had many examples where a wrong understood democracy turned itself into a chaos.

Actually Thailand has a strong democratic concept, and not only amongst the urban and westernised middle-classes in Bkk. Traditional organisation in Thai villages also had and still has democratic and participatory structures and practices available to men and women.

Yes and no, remember, that is also a lot of nepotism in these rural organisations, which is anything but Demorcratic.

Thailands history of cronyism and selfenrichment is one of the things that has always been one of the major factors damaging Democracy.

Yes, I agree, that's the other side of the coin...with Taksin's actions being a prime example. Yet, he had the opportunity to do so much.... Edited September 21, 2006 by fruittbatt

[womble]

Yes, he could have done so much good, he had pratically the whole country united when he took office, but his unbelieveable greed and deluded visions of selfimportance ultimately led to yet another chapter in one of the worlds longest books on the subject of the holy grail of democracy.

Edited September 21, 2006 by womble

[george]

Thread closed. Please read this:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=84529