Debunking the Flawed Thai Succession Crisis Thesis: Part 2

This is my 2nd post on debunking some of the myths that have crept in around the “Succession Crisis” thesis as being determinative of Thailand’s present political problems. 

True to form, after my last piece, the usual suspects launched into quite silly and pointless personal attacks against me on both twitter and Facebook. It’s a shame they can’t engage with debate in an honest and open manner.

No matter. It certainly wasn’t my intention to get into a slanging match with anyone when I wrote my last piece but it was certainly an attempt to critique some of the rather weak and unsubstantiated strategic arguments - those being that the Succession Crisis defines Thailand’s present political crisis.

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971).

To add to my previous post what I wanted to look at briefly was the rise of democracy in Thailand and how that has presented an epoch-shifting threat to the dominant, authoritarian hegemony that has coalesced itself around the military and the “network” rather than the historical footnote of the royal succession.  

This authoritarian hegemony, which has relied on myths of nation, a militarisation of certain key components of Thai civil society - particularly the academy - a virulently censorious culture that seeks to impose, through use of force, cultural and social homogeneity, and which ultimately relies on Army violence and a politicised judiciary to coerce this onto an increasingly unwilling population, can easily be defined as a political form of Thai fascism. 

Those who seek to maintain this fascistic status quo have historically centred themselves, and sought to dominate and control, the armed forces, the Democrat Party, the majority of the Thai media (and, in particular, the English language Thai media), significant elements in the academy and other educational institutes, the aristocracy, the civil service, the so-called “independent institutions”, cultural and religious bodies and the judiciary & legal professions. Thai fascism has also historically been supported internationally by US governments and the US military in exactly the same manner the US aided and abetted violent, anti-democratic and fascistic regimes in Central and South America.  

I’ve often been criticised for using the term “fascism” too loosely in the Thai context. I would counter that my use of the term is based on an analysis of the evidence as presented by Thailand’s body politic and that, in fact, I’ve only used the term as a factual descriptor not as a throw-away term of abuse. It is my view that Thai politics and culture is so deeply rooted in a virulent form of fascism that it has become naturalised and unconscious. Stepping out and stating “this is fascism” is far more of a “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment than actually stating that the Emperor, himself, is naked, so to speak.

So, in my view, the word “fascism” has been consciously underused to describe the politics of Thailand - hence my need to balance this up by its repeat use. This deliberate avoidance of the term is particularly so with much of the Western media in Bangkok, many of whom end up becoming subsumed into the unconscious ideology of Thai fascism and then personally invest in maintaining this social and economic status quo that they too benefit from individually. They collude with it - Thai-style Lord Haw Haws.

What is being challenged at the moment in Thailand, the real hegemonic crisis if you like and the precise moment where “a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”, is the threat posed to Thai fascism by the emergence of Thai democracy. In a sense a “new” Thailand is being born, a new political and social consciousness is slowly developing (albeit unevenly), and there’s literally nothing that Thai fascism can do to prevent that - unless, of course, it enacts a genocidal-scale massacre upon the Thai population.

The Succession Crisis in this scenario is a mere detail. One could even argue that without a Succession looming that the situation could be more tense and ready to fracture. The possibility of Succession at least gives the illusion of potential for some room for movement in the over-arching crisis. Without that possibility of change attitudes may be even more entrenched and extreme violence and civil war more likely.

The Succession Crisis as definer of the present political crisis is a nice easy hook. It looks perfect on book covers, as a conference title and also provides a nice, neat, easily identifiable backdrop for the lazy Western media corps in Bangkok. It also means that the Western media corps don’t have to explain their connivance with and refusal to report on the spectre of Thai fascism that has cast such a shadow over the “Land of Smiles.” But it needs to be challenged and it needs to attract the right kind of intellectual rigour before it can ever come close to being considered "determinative". Accepting it as a "received" wisdom should not be the position of progressive thinkers on Thai politics however attractive it may look as an oversimplified marketing device.

Debunking the Flawed Thai Succession Crisis Thesis: Part 1

Part 2 of this article can be found here.

Today the BBC's Bangkok correspondent, Jonathan Head, raised the issue of the Succession that will follow the death of Thailand's elderly king as being the determining factor in the present political crisis that is gripping the country. 

I've long thought the idea that the "Succession" issue is determinative of the present Thai political crisis as being based on the kind of lazy analysis which seeks to avoid the tougher questions required by a more complete historical and political investigation.

The main agent in pushing this theory is quite well-known for attacking anyone who dares challenge him on the Succession theory - something he has sought to claim ownership of - and given that most challenges come from the fascistic end of the political spectrum that might be an appropriate response.

However, it is my view that by purely focusing on Succession to such an over-determinative level the debate on the Thai political crisis is being skewed away from a more in-depth analysis and, in fact, actually plays into the hands of the very fascistic/ultra-royalist forces that Succession Crisis-platform claims to oppose.

For a start claiming that the "Succession" is THE determining factor in the present Thai crisis doesn't explain 80years of attacks on Thai democracy, 18 coups, several massacres and many constitutions. Where was the present Succession crisis when Pridi was ran out of Bangkok, when Sarit took power, when the guns were turned on the pro-democracy activists in 1973 and 1976? 

Furthermore does anyone seriously believe once the Succession issue has been resolved - and I mean in either direction - the Army and the billionaires backing the PDRC are just going to allow democracy to flourish unchallenged? Does anyone seriously believe that the USA are going to stop using Thailand as the SE Asian pivot from which to play their  vicious strategic power games? Will the CIA torturers, the arms dealers, the criminals, the gold hoarders just decamp? Will the Thai generals, the Democrat Party fascists and the monarchy network all suddenly embrace democracy and allow accountable civilian rule to take root?

Of course not. And it would only be the most delusional naif who would think that is the case. 

Thailand's present crisis is rooted in a long-term political and historical struggle and can only be analysed via that prism not via the social media marketing strategies of those who want to sell their latest book however well-intentioned they might be.

Arguing that "Succession" is the ultimate crisis in Thailand would be like a bunch of chickens debating the importance of which kind of predator is coming to devour them. Ultimately, the "Succession" crisis is meaningless when the wider context of power is considered. In effect, the real crisis is not a "Succession Crisis" but a "Democracy Crisis".

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers and do believe the Succession is a genuine crisis for certain groups in Thailand but, in my view, believe that pushing the debate into this one determining direction will ultimately deny the opportunity for a wider analysis to take place and for the answers to Thailand's crisis to be found.

Wikileaks Reveals Human Rights Watch As Supporters of Illegal Thai Army Coup

 With the strong smell of a coup or other Thai military engagement wafting through the air in Bangkok it seems apt to remind readers of Human Rights Watch's position on the last coup in Thailand in 2006.

In October 2006 Sunai Phasuk, HRW's Thai researcher, visited the US Embassy and made a number of astonishing comments to the assembled embassy staff which they recorded for posterity and which were then later released by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and Wikileaks.

HRW's secret support for an illegal military coup

In the cable dated October 17th 2006 Phasuk makes clear his support for an illegal military coup which overthrew not only a democratically elected government but also abrogated Thailand's 1997 Constitution (consider the most democratic in Thailand's history) by saying 

As a staunch anti-Thaksin activist [Phasuk] was initially relieved to see the Thaksin administration forced out. 

Reading further into the cable Phasuk also engages in an astonishing and shameless piece of Thai Political Doublespeak by claiming that a military coup designed to terminate democracy was actually an attempt to "restore democracy". 

In addition Phasuk also expresses his loyalty and admiration for the Thai Army - which is extraordinary give the 17 previous coups and massacres they'd been directly involved in, and never mind the massacre at Tak Bai the Thai Army had played a huge part in and which had occurred only two years earlier.

The cable states that Phasuk

emphasized that he was close to many officers and, in fact, taught many of them in his capacity as a guest lecturer at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy and the Royal Thai Air Force Academy.  He said that he had always held the military in high regard for their sense of honor and dedication to the country.

Of course none of Phasuk's secret fawning admiration for the Thai military, his obvious politicisation, his abandonment of the rule of law, his support for those attacking democracy and his bogus claims to being "neutral" have ever been questioned by one single member of Bangkok's international media. 

Yet that same media are more than happy to continue quoting Phasuk as though he is some credible, impartial source rather than the pro-coup phoney that he appears to be.

I guess Bangkok's international media corps prefer an easy life to actually pursuing the truth. Penthouse flats, maids and swimming pools to maintain.

We can only speculate on the latter.

Asia Provocateur on the Keiser Report

I was invited onto RT's Keiser Report this week to talk about the protests in Thailand.

Watch the following video from about 12mins 45secs to see me. 

Why did Human Rights Watch in Thailand pass my details to the US authorities?

Back in 2011 I had preview access to an as yet unreleased Wikileaks cable that included reference to a Human Rights Watch staff member making possible lese majeste comments.

At that time I had been critical of a number of things HRW had done, including Brad Adams' appalling claims at a meeting at the UK Parliament, but felt I was still sympathetic to their work in Thailand. I therefore privately warned Human Rights Watch about this matter as I felt it may leave their staff member open to possible legal threat.

What I also discovered in that cable was that Human Rights Watch made a statement that indicated they had refused to defend Thai trade unionist, Jittra Kotchadet, against lese majeste charges.

Screen grab of email from HRW admitting they passed my details to US Embassy

Whilst making it very clear that I would not be making any of the contents of the cable public - something that I never did with Wikileaks themselves putting all the cables in the public domain later in 2011 - I asked HRW to explain why they were adopting a public stance of condemning lese majeste but then taking another position in secret.

Despite several emails and phone calls to HRW staff members they never responded and never clarified the discrepancy between their public and private positions.

I was then astonished to find, several months later, that my questions to HRW regarding lese majeste were being circulated by a Bangkok Post journalist after they had received information from a US Embassy staffer that basically amounted to a smear campaign against me.

I contacted HRW's head office in the USA and asked them to explain. In response I received an accusatory, aggressive and threatening phone call from HRW's rather unpleasant legal advisor, Dinah Pokempnor.

Yet even Ms Pokempnor knew I had caught HRW and she sent me a mealy-mouthed and quite pathetic excuse as to why HRW breached all the rules of confidentiality and passed my details to the US Embassy.

Upon being notified by you that unredacted US Embassy cables leaked to Wikileaks mentioned one of our researchers, we contacted the  embassy to ask if we could ascertain the contents of these cables. The embassy asked us how we knew that there were such cables, and we told them you had alerted us.  

 Anyone coming into contact with HRW people in Bangkok, staff members such as Sunai Phasuk, Brad Adams or Phil Robertson,  should be warned - they cannot be trusted and may pass on your details to state agencies and other authorities with links to the Thai military without your knowledge or your permission.