In the News: “Dialogue Key to Ending Leftist Violence in Asia”

In the Bangkok Post, Michael Vatikiotis writes that a “new threat is emerging in Asia.”

...[T]he newest non-state armed groups battling governments in the name of justice and freedom draw on what was once thought to be a dead ideology: Marxism.”

Citing examples from India, to Nepal, parts of Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Thailand, Vatikiotis concludes:

... In the experience of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, which has convened dialogue with parties in armed conflict across Asia and Africa for the past decade, resolving any conflict necessitates the initiation of dialogue, almost always in conditions which initially will not be conducive or promising.

More broadly, governments need to recognise that armed violence against the state won’t disappear when Osama bin Laden is one day captured and al-Qaeda defeated.

For millions of disenfranchised people across Asia, whether they are facing ethnic or economic marginalisation, it would appear that Marxist ideas of popular struggle still have enormous appeal.

It would be a shame indeed, if all the effort expended on defeating terrorism this past decade is not related back to the basic root of the problem, which is that when people run out of peaceful ways to see their grievances redressed, they will take up arms.

Rather than becoming obsessed with cultural and religious divides - and in the process reinforcing them - the best way to deal with the problem is to engage in a dialogue to bring about an end to violence, whatever the root cause or driving ideology.”

Read the entire op-ed here.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on December 14, 2009. Respond »

Thai-Cambodian Dispute at the ASEAN Summit

The ASEAN summit that will be held in the Thai resort town of Hua Hin on 23-25 October is complicated enough due to the fears that internal Thai political wrangling will again disrupt the meeting of all ten-member states and six dialogue partners—China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. But whilst a stringent internal security act imposed on the area for the duration of the summit will probably deter protestors on the ground, Thailand may face tougher problems in the meeting room as Cambodia has proposed putting its rancorous border dispute with Thailand on the summit’s agenda.

The dispute is one of the more serious security flashpoints in Southeast Asia, and warrants mediation at the highest level to de-escalate tensions that are now also complicated by internal political fragility in Thailand. But Thailand is unlikely to want to see the issue discussed at a summit where it occupies the chair.

The two countries have already been involved in armed skirmishes over the contested land around the ancient Preah Vihar temple, which an international court ruled as belonging to Cambodia in 1962. The dispute flared up again after the ruined temple was granted UN World heritage Status in 2008. Thailand argues that the maps upon which Cambodia’s claim is based are inaccurate and wants the issue renegotiated.

The issue became entangled in Thailand’s vicious political struggle between the forces of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and strongly royalist “Yellow shirt” protestors who accused Thaksin and his officials of selling out to Cambodia on the issue. Armed clashes along the border killed four in 2008, whilst another skirmish in April this year left three people dead.

More recently, the border itself has become the scene of provocative demonstrations by Yellow shirt protestors demanding that Cambodian troops withdraw from the area. Cambodia has responded by beefing up security and sowing more mines along the border. The situation is made even uglier by unconfirmed reports that the Cambodian government is allowing former Thaksin supporters wanted by the authorities in Thailand to live in Phnom Penh.

As if this situation isn’t bad enough, in the past two weeks, opposition politicians in Thailand are reported to have sent audio clips of Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya allegedly making disparaging remarks about Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Meanwhile, for Cambodia, the escalation of tension, fueled by Thailand’s political crisis has provided an excuse to bolster its military presence along the border. 

None of this augurs well for the summit, where Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya has already found himself backtracking from plans to propose the setting up of a neutral organisation to handle disputes between countries in the region. Earlier Kasit said he believed such a body could be a venue for Thailand and Cambodia to solve their border dispute. But later the Thai foreign ministry firmly quashed the idea of ASEAN involvement in the dispute. So has ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan, who insists that as a bilateral dispute the matter should not be brought to the summit level.

But now that Cambodia has formally asked for the dispute to be placed on the agenda, it seems unlikely that Thailand will be able to avoid discussion of the issue.

The problem is that ASEAN remains woefully ill equipped to deal with such a thorny bilateral issue between member states in any other than an informal setting, which the larger summit environment clearly does not provide. The best way out would be for Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajjiva to make a swift high-level visit to Phnom Penh, or for Hun Sen to visit Thailand ahead of the summit to defuse the issue. Sadly, the level of rancour between the two countries makes this unlikely to happen.

Posted by Michael Vatikiotis on October 14, 2009. Respond »

Taking Thailand’s Political Pulse

A year ago at this time Thailand was in political disarray, with the anti-Thaksin People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD, or the “yellow shirts”) occupying the Prime Minister’s office, forcing the government to work out of the VIP lounge of the domestic airport.  The chaos would intensify into late 2008 when the PAD took over Bangkok’s international airport for three days, but would subside when government was reshuffled to form a coalition with the Democrat Party in the lead.  Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva faced an early test in March of 2009 when the pro-Thaksin National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD, or the “red shirts”) disrupted an ASEAN meeting in Pattaya.  Since then, Abhisit has engaged parliament in a dialogue on constitutional reform.  This has produced a period of political calm, however tentative, as the government focuses on recovery from the economic crisis.

Thailand’s present image in the international community is based in considerable part on the political events of 2006-2008.  Some Thai policymakers and analysts maintain that the international media and some Western governments have been too quick to downgrade Thailand as a democracy and underestimate the country’s commitment to work through its political problems.  The Asia Foundation’s new survey on “Constitutional Reform and Democracy in Thailand – A National Survey of the Thai People” tends to support that view.  Conducted in the early summer of this year, the survey tests a range of public attitudes, including Thailand’s overall direction, the constitution, democratic values and Thai institutions.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents believed that Thailand is headed in the wrong direction, but a greater portion (64%) attributed that to economic distress, with 41% citing political conflict.  Nevertheless, 53% were satisfied with the performance of the current government and 44% dissatisfied.  Respondents were evenly split (45% each way) on whether constitutional change would help reduce or spark further political conflict, but a strong majority – 67% - believed that any such reform should be pursued through a process that consulted the Thai public.  This harks back to the process of drafting the 1997 Constitution, in which teams traveled around the country to conduct public hearings.

The survey’s findings on Thai understanding of democracy are interesting compared to similar polls The Asia Foundation has sponsored in several Asian countries over the decade.  Democracy received strong support as a form of government, and nearly half of Thai respondents equate it with the protection of rights, which describes a liberal democracy, one of the more advanced forms.  (In contrast, a survey conducted in Cambodia earlier in the decade indicated that a majority of Cambodians linked democracy to peace rather than to political processes, an outcome that should not be surprising in light of the country’s 25-year civil war and invasions by external powers.)

Other findings may presage issues down the road.  A majority of respondents (64%) had greatest confidence in the Thai judiciary but ranked the military as second.  Parliament and the media received confidence scores in the 20’s.  More surprising was the fact that non-governmental organizations also received a low rating – 21% - which flies in the face of the inclination of Western aid organizations to see a civil society approach as a curative for political problems.  Thai policymakers may be disconcerted by the survey’s finding that 62% of Thais surveyed opposed changing Article 237 of the Constitution, which enables the Constitutional Court to dissolve a political party and ban its senior executive members from politics for five years if any senior party leaders are convicted of electoral fraud.  Amending Article 237 has been on the top of the government’s list of constitutional reforms since the color-coded street violence subsided, on the assumption that disenfranchising an entire political party – and the people who voted for it – only exacerbates political conflict.

“Constitutional Reform and Democracy in Thailand” is unprecedented in the information it reveals about Thailand in the midst of a complicated political dynamic, and it should be read closely by US policymakers and Southeast Asia analysts.  However, two aspects might be strengthened in the next version of the survey.  As the survey managers freely admit, for security reasons they did not poll in the three southernmost, Muslim-majority provinces of Thailand, the seat of intense communal conflict since 2004.  The survey results from these provinces could not only deepen understanding of Thai attitudes towards democracy but may also offer insights into the nature of the conflict itself.  The survey managers indicate that they will poll in these provinces next year, but that may be an optimistic timetable.

It may also be useful for future surveys to be more vigorous in examining the tendency in Thailand to pursue constitutionalism through a plethora of charters – the country has had 18 constitutions in 77 years (or roughly one new constitution every five years) – rather than the more stable process of amending a single constitution.  Further consolidation of Thailand’s democracy may depend in part upon the country’s willingness and ability to adhere to a charter that is formed with public input and support, and that has mechanisms for progressive reform.  Tackling this underlying problem could further strengthen an already impressive and timely political survey,

Posted by Catharin Dalpino on October 12, 2009. Respond »

Additional Resources: International Crisis Group on Southern Thailand

The International Crisis Group has released a new report on “Recruiting Militants in Southern Thailand.” The paper concludes:

Even as the political battle between the government and supporters of ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra – in itself violent – plays out in the capital, Thailand needs to address the political grievances that have long fuelled resentment: the disregard for Malay ethnic identity and language, the lack of account­ability for human rights abuses, and the under-representation of Malay Muslims in local political and government structures.

.

Read the summary and access the full paper here.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on June 24, 2009. Respond »