ကိုဇာဂနာနဲ ့ ကိုေနဘုန္းလတ္တို ့ကို Cyber- dissident Category မွာ ၂၀၀၈ နွစ္ ရဲ့
The Reporters Without Border Prize ကိုခ်ီးျမွင့္လိုက္ပါတယ္။
http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=29551
International | 4.12.2008
The Reporters Without Borders Prize jury chose Ricardo González Alfonso of Cuba as “2008 Journalist of the Year” for helping an independent press to survive in Cuba. After daring to challenge to the state’s monopoly of news and information, González was arrested on 18 March 2003 along with 26 other dissident journalists during the crackdown known as the “Black Spring.” Accused of being “in the pay of the United States” and “undermining Cuba’s independence and territorial integrity,” he was given a 20-year prison sentence. He has been held in Havana’s Combinado del Este prison since late 2004, despite poor health.
The jury awarded the 2008 Media prize to Radio Free NK’s North Korean journalists in order to pay tribute to their courage and determination. Kim Jong-il’s totalitarian regime has Radio Free NK, North Korea’s first dissident radio station, in its sights. Obsessed by the desire to control news and information, the regime has on several occasions threatened to suspend dialogue with South Korea if this Seoul-based station is not banned. The North Korean journalists who produce Free NK’s programmes are often threatened and the South Korean police have been protecting its manager since a plot to kill him was foiled.
Finally, Zarganar and Nay Phone Latt, two Burmese bloggers, were chosen as joint winners in the “Cyber-dissident” category.
Dubbed the “Burmese Charlie Chaplin,” comedian Zarganar defended human rights and denounced the military government’s abuses in sketches and entries in the blog he had been keeping since August 2007. Until his arrest in June of this year, he had become a reliable source of information in a country strangled by censorship and repression.
A special court in Insein prison sentenced 28-year-old blogger Nay Phone Latt on 10 November 2008 to 20 years and six months in prison on a charge of violating the Electronic Act, which provides for severe penalties for those who use the Internet to criticise the government.
Awarding annual prizes since 1992
By awarding an annual prize to a journalist, a news media and a cyber-dissident, Reporters Without Borders alerts public opinion to the wide range of violations of the right to be kept informed and to inform others, and to the need for a commitment to supporting press freedom. The winner in each category receives 2,500 euros.
Since its creation, the Reporters Without Borders - Fondation de France Prize has been awarded to: Zlatko Dizdarevic (Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1992), Wang Juntao (China - 1993), André Sibomana (Rwanda - 1994), Christina Anyanwu (Nigeria - 1995), Isik Yurtçu (Turkey - 1996), Raúl Rivero (Cuba - 1997), Nizar Nayyouf (Syria - 1998), San San Nweh (Burma - 1999), Carmen Gurruchaga (Spain - 2000), Reza Alijani (Iran - 2001), Grigory Pasko (Russia - 2002), Ali Lmrabet (Morocco - 2003), Hafnaoui Ghoul (Algeria - 2004), Zhao Yan (China - 2005), U Win Tin (Burma - 2006) and Seyoum Tsehaye (Eritrea - 2007).
Several winners were released from prison just weeks or months after being awarded the prize. They include Moroccan journalist Ali Lmrabet, who was awarded the prize on 10 December 2003 and was freed on 7 January 2004, and Russian journalist Grigory Pasko, awarded the prize in December 2002 and freed in January 2003. Massoud Hamid of Syria, winner of the 2005 prize in the “cyber-dissident category,” was released in July 2006. Win Tin, the 2007 laureate, was released in September 2008 after 19 years in prison.
The winners of the Reporters Without Borders Prize are chosen by an international jury.
More information about the winners of the 2008 Reporters Without Borders Prize
JOURNALIST OF THE YEAR, for demonstrating a commitment to press freedom in his or her work, publicly-expressed views or stance. This year’s winner, Ricardo González Alfonso, used to work for the state TV agency, where he was in charge of children’s broadcasting. Born in 1950, he began working for Cuba Press, an independent news agency, in 1995 and became Reporters Without Borders correspondent in 1998. He and his friend Raúl Rivero set up the Manuel Márquez Sterling Association in May 2001 to train Cuba’s independent journalists, who are often self-taught. In December 2002, he and other journalists launched the fortnightly De Cuba, with a first-issue print run of 200 copies. It tackled subjects ignored by the government such as racism in Cuba and the Varela Project campaign, which gathered more than 11,000 signatures to a petition calling for democratic change by constitutional means.
The other 2008 nominees in this category were: Moussa Kaka (Niger), Michel Kilo (Syria), Natalia Morar (Russia), Nguyen Viet Chien (Vietnam) and J.S Tissainayagam (Sri Lanka).
➢A NEWS MEDIA embodying the struggle for the right to be kept informed and to inform others. Radio Free NK. The station broadcasts several hours of programming every day denouncing the North Korean regime’s lies. North Korea’s sealed radio sets can only be tuned to government radio stations, and the political police have never stopped systematically checking radio sets to ensure they are not being tampered with. Nonetheless, more and more radio sets that can be used to listen to Free NK’s shortwave broadcasts are entering North Korea across the Chinese border.
Thanks to a network of clandestine correspondents inside North Korea and in the Chinese border area, Free NK is able to broadcast exclusive news reports about the world’s most closed country. Its manager, Kim Seong-min, a former North Korean government poet, uses a very “North Korean” style in the programmes in order to better reach listeners who have heard nothing but official propaganda for 60 years.
The other 2008 nominees in this category were: Chrono-tm.org (Turkmenistan), Democracy Now! (United States), Contravía (Colombia), Wechange.org (Iran) and Lynx (Guinea Conakry).
➢TWO CYBER-DISSIDENTS prevented from giving us news and information via the Internet. Zarganar: An outspoken critic of poverty, privileges and government corruption in his blog, he was arrested in September 2007 for supporting the peaceful demonstrations being staged by Buddhist monks. Arrested again in June of this year on a charge of “disturbing public order” after talking to the BBC about the situation of the victims of the previous month’s Cyclone Nargis, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison by a special court inside Insein prison in November. He was given an additional 14-year prison sentence a few days later. Two journalists have also received long prison sentences for, like him, gathering information about the post-Nargis situation in the Irrawaddy delta. He is still in Insein prison. Arrested for the first time during a severe crackdown on opposition activity in 1988, he had been forbidden since 2006 to embark on new artistic activities, including theatre and film. Nay Phone Latt: The owner of two Internet cafés in Rangoon, Nay Phone Latt was arrested on 29 January 2008 while in possession of a video banned by the military government. He kept a blog (http://www.nayphonelatt.net/) in which he described the difficulties that Burmese youth have to express themselves. It was also a very important source of information about the street demonstrations by Buddhist monks and young people in the autumn of 2007. The government is still cracking down hard on those who participated in or reported on this so-called Saffron Revolution. Nay Phone Latt suffers from an eye ailment but the authorities in Insein prison are not letting him see a doctor.
The other 2008 nominees in this category were: "Zola" (China), Cedric Kalonji (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Wael Abbas (Egypt).
Reporters Without Borders defends imprisoned journalists and press freedom throughout the world. It has nine national sections (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). It has representatives in Bangkok, London, New York, Tokyo and Washington. And it has more than 120 correspondents worldwide.
© Reporters Without Borders 2008
© Reporters Without Borders - 47, rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris - France
| About us | Contact us | Links | RSS | Rsfblog | Journalists Memorial | '
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Cuban journalist, North Korean radio station and two Burmese bloggers win 17th annual Reporters Without Borders Prize
Thailand’s revolting middle-classes
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/thailands-revolting-middle-classes/
December 2, 2008
I am sure that if you are stuck in Bangkok airport, the theoretical implications of Thailand’s political crisis do not rank very high up your list of concerns. Nonetheless, they are fascinating.
Remember all those theories about how the emergence of an urban middle-classes is a force for democratisation, because the bourgeoise will demand political rights? Well, in Thailand the precise opposite is happening. The urban middle-classes are rising up and demanding that democracy be rescinded.
Do not be fooled by the fact that the group occupying the airport call themselves the “People’s Alliance for Democracy“. Their intent is clearly anti-democratic. They have just brought down an elected government. Their broader demands are for Thailand’s directly-elected parliament to be replaced by a legislative body that is 70% appointed. Sondhi Limthongkul, a Thai tycoon (Thaicoon?), who is the group’s de facto leader says bluntly that - “Representative democracy is not suitable for Thailand.”
The middle-class backers of the PAD hate the fact that under universal suffrage, the votes of the rural poor in the north of Thailand are usually decisive. They see this as a formula for corruption and pork-barrel politics. Hence, their desire to roll back democracy.
The implications for China are fascinating. There too the urban middle-class seem to be emerging as a conservative force, suspicious of democracy and the peasant power that it might unleash.
December 2nd, 2008 in Thailand | Permalink
61 Responses to “Thailand’s revolting middle-classes”
Comments
Calling the urban middle classes in Thailand and China conservative doesn’t fly, they are elitist liberals who want increased freedoms for themselves, ones that the people in the country who are much more traditional aren’t ready for, don’t want or don’t understand.
The countryside usually votes conservative no matter where you go, be it the US, France, UK or Thailand. The contrast between urban and country is simply stronger in Thailand but I have heard urban people the world over remark how the hicks in the country usually squander their right to vote by voting conservative or populist.
Posted by: Felix Drost | December 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this comment
As a Thai, I did not study US history deeply in school. However, I remember hearing once from someone that in the US, (not sure after the revoluation or after the civil war), it has been for several decades that the North states had to live with Presidents who came from the South Sates as the election system that was based on equal voting system. If this was also the case, it shoudl be something the Thai should learn to live and bear with the evoluation of democracy.
Posted by: Eric in the City | December 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Report this comment
Dear Gideon,
Read Fareed Zakaria’s article on the rise of illiberal democracies, and you will see that what is happening in Thailand makes perfect sense.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html#n1
One of the problems is that the bourgeoise class is still too small, and their candidate keeps loosing. Another problem is that the winning candidate keeps trying to reverse “democracy” (by this I don’t talk about the election process, but of separation of powers, checks and balances, human rights, etc).
Posted by: Christoffer Larsson | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this comment
Democracy with universal suffrage is mob rule - it means that your vote will count the same as an ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid person. Remember, 50% of voters have below average intelligence and can be easily manipulated in to voting any which way by astute politicians, who will promise them the Moon before a election, usually at a cost to the small minority of richer voters. We have just seen Obama gain the US presidency promising change and then appoint Geithner to the Treasury and kept Gates at Defence. Plus ca Change?
Posted by: jo10 | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this comment
The Thai situation is not necessarily a challenge to middle-class democratisation theory. The PAD protestors are not the rising middle class which the theory talks about, because such rising middle classes are excluded from power, rather than part of it.
The British experience of the growth of democracy, would suggest that the PAD are the type of people who opposed Chartism - “power for our sort and not for yours”.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Report this comment
jo10: this is a common but misconceived argument because it assumes that voters take all input equally and decide every issue individually without any external philosophy or frame of reference. Are you an economist by any chance?
It’s also not true that 50% of voters have below average intelligence. 50% of voters have below *median* intelligence, but that’s true for a population of Einsteins as well as for a population of dunces. Mean intelligence is something different, and there’s no way of knowing what proportion is below and what proportion above the mean, even if you believe unreliable measures like IQ tests.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Report this comment
Many educated people assume those without that advantage are plain stupid. But you don’t need to read and write to make rational choices. My mother-in-law, an illiterate Chinese peasant, was a highly astute woman who had a very clear grasp of Chinese politics amongst other things.
I am sure the Thai peasantry voted for Thaksin et al in main because he delivered genuine benefit to people like them. I’m not sure I would vote the same way in other circumstances, but I’m happy to respect their motivation.
Posted by: FFScotland | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Report this comment
I am a middle class citizen living in Bangkok and I find Sondhi’s 70/30 ‘new’ politics incredibly ridiculous. If you ever get the chance to listen to him talk on his ASTV cable channel, you wonder, is this person supposed to represent the ‘educated’ middle class? His chosen words induce separation and hate and yet people listen to him. PAD blames the grassroots for being too stupid to be able to elect the government, but when the grassroots’ chosen government is in power, the economy flourishes. Whereas when PAD’s preferred party; the Democrats is in power it’s status quo at best.
The media is intolerably biased- a PAD protestor dies and she/he gets a hero’s funeral. A pro-government dies from a clash against PAD? Noone cares. At least the grassroots are working and are contributing to the GDP, while the middle class ‘intellectuals’ are so free they can seize the Government House for months and can come up with great ideas like taking control of the airport and effectively damaging Thailand’s image and economy.
Posted by: Jade | December 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this comment
The revolt of Thailand’s middle class is an interesting topic and GR’s titles usually catch the eye, particularly the present one.
As far as democracy is concerned, the Swiss have a monopoly. Unfortunately, so far we can’t cash in on that.
However,I pass on the following info (gratis):
Any country which genuinely wishes to be a real democracy should get in touch with Professor Leonhard Neidhart, Professor Emeritus for Politics at the University of Konstanz (Germany).
Posted by: J.J. | December 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this comment
I don’t know if the Thai middle classes are the ones who are being conservative.
Can’t the supporters of Thaksin and the newly deposed government be termed lumpenproletarian in the sense that Karl Marx was referring to (see below) and hence aren’t they the true conservatives?
“According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no real motive for participating in revolution, and might in fact have an interest in preserving the current class structure, because the members of the lumpenproletariat usually depend on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.”
(from Wikipedia)
Best,
P
Posted by: P :-( | December 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment
I have lived in Bangkok for 9 years, speak Thai and have many Thai friends who are of the sort that would be described as the ‘middle class elite’.
I find the level of understanding of the press in the west to be shallow at best,
the government of Thaksin did everything it could to undermine democracy. The latest government has just been found guilty of what amounts to electoral fraud, Thaksins last government was similarly guilty, yet they are always described as ‘democratically elected’. If current Thai democracy is the party that can pay people most for their votes wins, whats so good about it? The difference between elections in Bangkok and in the provinces is that in Bangkok they are free and fair and in the provinces they aren’t. That is a fact and is the reason that people in Bangkok want to overthrow the government. They WANT democracy, but not the sort that we have here now.
Posted by: Andy | December 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Report this comment
A ready solution to this impasse exists. Let Thailand split into two independent units: the Thai heartlands centered on Bangkok (perhaps renamed Siam) and Isan (the Northeast) — plus most likely Lanna (the North — Thaksin’s home base). The combined population of pro-Thaksin Isan alone is well in excess of 30 million. If minute Montenegro or Estonia can make a go of independence, why not Isan? All it needs is an international airport — but then so does Bangkok! Urban Thais have nothing but deep scorn for the Isan labor force that cleans their houses, drives their taxis, and powers their factories. The two groups are joined by an accident of history, and barely speak the same language. Let each go its separate way. It worked fro the Czech and Slovak Republics. Why not in (soon to be former) Thailand?
Posted by: Paul | December 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Report this comment
I have never been in Thailand, having canceled a trip to that fascinating country exactly two years ago when I saw pictures of tanks in the streets. I was assured by friends who had recently lived in Thailand that nothing was wrong and the tanks were only there for decoration, in effect.
They may have been right for the following two years. Perhaps political crises move at a very slow place in Thailand, but, at any rate, I am glad I am not there now.
Moreover, I only know half a dozen words of Thai and have only read half a dozen books about the country, as well as about the same number of FT articles. I am clearly no expert.
But how much of an authority does one have to be to recognize that Thaksin’s corrupt, one man rule was a travesty of democracy, not the real thing? Therefore I have to conclude that the post by Andy, who, unlike most of the other above commentators, including, I strongly suspect, GR himself, seems to know what is really going on in Thailand, is the only one so far worth paying any attention to.
Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this comment
I think that you have to buy voters to win the election, no matter where you are. In US for example, all politicians promised to cut taxes during the election…Nobody wins an election by telling people that they would suffer.
The only difference is that in the developed countries, the pie is so big that you can buy votes without hurting others’ interests too much. Thus everyone can afford a piece of pie. Not so in Thailand for example, if the rural poors want a bigger part of pie, then the existing middle calss people will suffer for sure…
Posted by: Fatbrick, analyst, 30 | December 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this comment
[…] simplistic both in its account of the situation and in its interpretation of democracy (see article here). According to Mr. Rachman (who by the way likes clichés): “The urban middle-classes are […]
Posted by: Democracy in Thailand : Global Dashboard | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment
On the whole I’m sympathetic to the Thailand’s middle classes. There is a strong tendency, in developing countries, for uneducated masses to vote in demagogues, irrespective of their ability or criminality, this is equally bad for democracy. Examples include Mugabe (in days gone by), Chavez, Evo Morales, Zuma and Bhutto.
The ousted PM Thaksin Shinawatra is no poster boy for democracy, being extremely corrupt.
It was suggested (in a comment on previous posting on Pakistan by a liberal) that third world countries should limit suffrage to the educated (in effect the middle classes). I think there is a strong case for this approach. Look at Africa, for most states short bouts of democracy interrupt the norm of dictatorship. By restricting suffrage to the smaller educated community would reduce major political swings and conflict, this would also strengthen other institutions, such as the courts.
However, a 70% appointed legislature seems a step too far.
I’m surprised Gideon didn’t make the link to Bolivia….a similar situation there.
Posted by: Cleisthenes | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this comment
I am sure Andy accurately reflects the views of many middle class Thais. But the fact is, the country is in a mess. This mess, I believe, is substantially due to precisely those views. They personalise everything down to Thaksin, his cronies and corruption. They fail to see the PPP and mutations have a genuine constituency, however much they disagree with them. They support or tolerate any means to attack anything connected with Thaksin, no matter how undemocratic, corrupt or destructive. They don’t WANT democracy unless it furthers the anti-Thaksin agenda. The Thai middle classes are indeed revolting
This is not to exonerate Thaksin and the PPP, except to point out that they really did win elections on a popular mandate, despite hurdles being placed in their way and a degree of corruption which all parties joined in.
Posted by: FFScotland | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm | Report this comment
While the PAD claimed to represent the middle class many of the people actually at the sites were far from being representative of it. Many looked suspiciously like cooks, maids and drivers of well to do Thais who in the great tradition of the country paid them to do their dirty work. The fact that 240,000 tourists were taken hostage in this situation has opened a dangerous new chapter in the country’s politics. Traveller beware!
Posted by: Suzi | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this comment
[…] candid take on an FT Blog: Remember all those theories about how the emergence of an urban middle-classes is a force for […]
Posted by: So many ways of looking at it all… at The FARANG Speaks 2 Much | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this comment
I will say it bluntly: I am revolted by Thailand’s revolting middle classes.
Posted by: RCS | December 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm | Report this comment
[…] more: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Thailand’s revolting middle-classes This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 am and is filed under Uncategorized. […]
Posted by: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Thailand’s revolting middle-classes | Rick Alberto Homepage | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Report this comment
RSC, are we to suppose that Thaksin was a sirring example of liberal democracy in action? Comparisons between Asian and western countries are always suspect, but if one had to draw a comparison between Thaksin and anything in US history, Huey Long of Louisiana might be a good example. An even better one, as I believe the FT has pointed out, is between Thailand and Italy, another country controlled by a billionaire media mogul.
As for one of the above comments to the effect that poor people in third world counties should not be allowed to vote, there is much international support for that. Robert Mugabe would no doubt agree. So would the Burmese Junta and the rulers of Uzbekistan and dozens of other dictatorships around the world.
As for the proposal to split off Thailand’s rural areas into a separate country, would anyone suggest the same for Italy? Or is this suggestion only meant to apply to Asian counties, not the white nations of the west?
Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this comment
Sorry, RCS. I keep repeating the same algasema in the spelling of your initials. My apologies.
Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this comment
I also misspelled “Asian countries”. Two algasemas in a row.
Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm | Report this comment
algasema,
I could not believe my eyes when I read your comment. You, who were stirred to outrage by the tactics you claimed the Republican Party was planning to use to disenfranchise poor black and Latino voters, are now willing to lend your pen in support of the most specious arguments favoured by authoritarian regimes the world over?!
Do you also favour removing from power the democratically-elected government of Italy for failing to conform to your refined tastes? If this is what we get from a fervent Obama supporter, I am beginning to perceive the truth in some of the claims made against the New York left. The Socratean elitocrats.
Posted by: RCS | December 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Report this comment
RCS, with all due respect, might I suggest that you re-read my comment? My point was to oppose all attempts to disenfranchise poor or less educated voters, as first the Southern Dixiecrats and later the Republicans tried to do with Southern blacks for so long, for example. I never, for one, suggested that any US voter should have been disenfranchised merely for believing obvious lies such as the ones that Barack Obama was a Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer.
But there is good reason to believe that Thaksin was elected only because of illegal or corrupt practices such as vote buying among rural voters. Even if he was elected fairly, he hid not govern according to the rule of law, but tried to turn his country into a one man dictatorship.
I have cautioned against making comparisons with the west, but there is one 20th century Central European leader who comes to mind who was elected democratically but who then promptly turned his country into one of the worst dictatorships known in the history of the human race.
Certainly, Thaksin was nowhere near as evil, but to call him a democrat would be about as realistic as saying that the leaders of Hamas have been working for a lasting peace and amicable co-existence with Israel. And, by the way, were they not also elected democratically in an election that was, in all likelihood, fairer than the one which brought Thaksin to power?
Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Report this comment
Pedants’ corner : It’s “the bourgeoisie” (noun).
The “bourgeoise” is married to a bourgeois, or is the adjective in the feminine form.
Meanwhile, the Thai middle-class is, I hope, revolting in transitive form and not as an adjective …
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | December 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm | Report this comment
.
On democracy : its freshness flavor and use
Reading some of the above comments has been a delightful experience with the anti-people rhetoric coming from probable middle-class contributors .
There always has been a strong conservative element in rural and lower classes ,
Urban “liberals” sneer at such stuborness ,grumbling that Democracy is wasted on the people
A basic point on Democracy is
It’s not a procedure or a process .
it’s a basic belief than the majority will not force unaceptable outcomes on the minority , in exchange the majority can choose the agents of government.
not liking the outcome of an election is not a valid reason .
.
Posted by: jeannick | December 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm | Report this comment
algasema,
My apologies for misunderstanding your comment before last. I take back my words.
You are mostly right, I think — a difficult issue, hard to decide. However the Thai middle classes certainly have chutzpah. I cannot accept their behaviour. If we took a similar tact in Israel, there would be no Likud, no settlements, no corruption probes against a sitting PM (formerly Likud), no religious coercion, no awful ‘Eastern’-style music… in fact it would be nice to keep some of the people out of shopping centres, hotels, flights, camping grounds, national parks and especially the trains.
Posted by: RCS | December 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm | Report this comment
I understand, RCS. Some Israelis, at least, may need to take lessons in chutzpah from the Thai. Talk about power shifting to the east.
Posted by: algasema | December 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 am | Report this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski was clearly not educated in Russia where they had a good educational system for mathematicians. In a group with no negative values the mean is always greater than the median. However some of his other comments are valid.
Good to see algasema venturing outside domestic elections; however Andy’s comment does not justify a tiny minority (the chattering classes in Bangkok) usurping the government - even if you ignored the “bought” votes, Thaksin and his supporters would still have a clear majority. Try counting: Eric and Jade outnumber Andy as commentators with genuine local knowledge. Also anyone who suggests that Thaksin hoped to turn his country into a one-man dictatorship is merely reinforcing my prejudices about the quality of American education (in theory it is possible for a non-US person to say this, in practice…). Virtually every Thai trusts the King to prevent this - fifty years ago they probably expected him to take out any would-be tyrant physically, now they assume he will ask the nation to do so.
I have not got a copy of Webster’s American dictionary, but I assume that ft.com uses English English so “democratic” IS a realistic description of the election that brought Thaksin to power and the one electing PPP.
P should do some homework - Thailand is the world’s leading exporter of rice (on a $/head basis if not always absolutely) so any egalitarian solution would see massive enrichment of the farmers who grow the rice. PAD wants to preserve the political (and, by implication, economic) advantages of the urban middle class. Unless by “conservative” he means Disraeli rather than his fellow-countrymen who have misappropriated the name and the new edition of Webster has somehow changed the definition of proletariat he is talking nonsense.
jeannick is mostly talking propaganda - democracy is rule by the people, categorised as mob rule by the local intellectuals more than two millennia ago; her claim that her personal view is a “basic belief” is arrogant; however her last remark is a key point.
As for Andy: “Licence they mean when they cry liberty”
Posted by: John | December 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 am | Report this comment
PAD declared their winning and is moving out of the airports today after the Thai constitution court’s order to dissolve PPP, ChatThai and Matchima parties on yesterday which automatically force the current PM and his government to step down.
I do not get it. As early as last week, their condition was still based on “Representative Democracy”. Their protest, at the extreme cost to the country, ends in accordance with the existing judge system. In other words, if we trust in the system, it may be seen as even without such protest, the judges would stil decide this way. Otherwise, ones may see the protests as creating the pressure to the court to decide the other way.
I just hope to see more news coverage on individual joining the PAD to see whether a majority of them understand what they are protesting for other than just follow the order of PAD leaders.
For those following this situation, I suggest you watch the news on King’s birthday speech to be given on 4 December.
Posted by: Eric in the City | December 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 am | Report this comment
Middle class only is not enough. It goes for freedoms as long as it feels stability and no threat to property or social status.
Having state-dependent or tycoon-dependent media and short term (i.e. populistic) political landscape you may easily create an illusion of approaching threat. In Thai case you have middle class considering that rural voters are actually being fooled and manipulated. The question here is who pulls the strings on both sides?
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | December 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 am | Report this comment
Andre, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Thai politics is like a prism the links are murky at best and convenient lumping of categories does not always hold water. Family, social class, regional loyalties, school ties all interweave to complicate the siutation. In fact don’t be surprised if it turns out that some people are backing both sides to make sure that they are on the winning side, another time honored tradition in the country.
Posted by: Suzi | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 am | Report this comment
I don’t call “one man, one vote” democracy.
During the lifetime of a government there are definitely occasions when the voters should have the right to a referendum. Last Sunday there were 5 separate referendums for the voters to
accept or reject in Switzerland. Four got a “No” and one got a “Yes”.
In Switzerland, by rotation, each of the 7 cabinet ministers gets to be president for one year only. So maybe it is not surprising that I reject the idea of a president being elected for four years in office. The wrong man in office for too many years can bring even a country like the USA to its knees.
Posted by: J.J. | December 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am | Report this comment
Normally, I tend to agree with your views. Unfortunately, you have missed some key reasons why Thais are facing this mess. It is his unique charisma, combined with his seemingly limitless personal (and liquid) wealth, that makes Thaksin such a polarizing figure in politics. He is unusually well positioned to usurp traditional sources of power and authority in a tradition bound society, all wrapped up in a pseudo democratic package delivered periodically in parliamentary elections through dominance of a pivotal rural vote.
His announcement that he will re-enter Thai politics (after his visa window defenestration by the British government several weeks ago) raised the temperature on this already combustible mix of tradition bumping up against popular politics. No surprise that we and they are where we are.
Posted by: Karl | December 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am | Report this comment
I’m surprised that no-one is discussing the similarities between the Thai situation and those in Bolivia & Venezuela.
In all these countries, largely uneducated electorates have voted in populist demagogues who are corrupt and unafraid to use illegal means to get their policies through.
Could “middle class revolt” be the start of a trend?
Is it safe to use only the winning of an election, irrespective of how fraudulent, the only measure of democratic credentials?
Should not other factors count?
An honest electoral procedures?
A functioning free press?
Rule of law?
Independent courts?
Independent civil service?
No corruption?
Be honest, Thaskin and the PPP are exceptionally corrupt. Thaskin, who lives a playboy life buying football clubs, using stolen money, is apparently still controlling the PPP.
This is complex story and I really think its simplistic to merely write off the PAD as a bunch of “undemocratic rich folk trying to oppress the poor”.
Posted by: Cleisthenes | December 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this comment
It is very funny to read that a British journalist calls vote buying a democracy and even called a government who comes into power by vote buying a democratically elected government.
I do not think that the British would have done it differently had Mrs. Thatcher privatised BT by valuing it at a tiny fraction of its real value and sold the bulk of shares to her entourages and nominees and her husband asked for 20% commission on each government project.
That kind of politicians by your standard could be statemen, but to the educated middle class people in Bangkok, we call them traitors.
Posted by: somsak | December 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this comment
I have lived in Thailand for ten years and have over time watched the country seeemingly self destruct on the alter of democracy. The West generally sees democracy as the answer to many insidious systems but when I look around the neighbouring countries, democracy does not appear to have played the most significant part in the development of Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong and is very much work in progress in Indonesia and the Philippines. Japan has had a single party ruling since the war and Korea is split in two.
The successful countries in Asia seem to have benefited from a strong benvolent leadership which punishes corruption and rewards hard work and education.
For this reason the form of democracy practiced by the Thai Rak Thai and PPP is probably not the best solution for Thailand and the PAD suggestion that a portion of the leadership is appointed has merit.
Posted by: Mark Hamill-Stewart | December 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm | Report this comment
Mark HAmill-Stewart: “Japan has had a single party ruling since the war and Korea is split in two.”
This is wrong. Even where their exists no competition, there is a material difference between a system which allows for potential competition and one which shuts the doors altogether.
This is like some anti-trust cases: even where there exists a monopoly, the mere potential that new entrants might be tempted to join the market puts a cap on prices.
Posted by: RCS | December 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this comment
The US constitution and bill of rights mitigate the effects of “mob rule” in voting.
It’s not the democratic voting that presents a problem it is with the way the government is set up. America is the role model. I believe that if every country had our constitution and bill of rights, peace and prosperity could break out all over the world.
Posted by: lilybart | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this comment
What is so difficult about this? Thaksin’s power was (and in some respects still is) based on 1) Control of media outlets, 2) Political patronage, and 3) Infrastructure and social support programs that disproportionally aid rural areas.
In large part, these protests, and the opposition to Thaksin in general, is an attempt by the city dwellers, who have always controlled the government and society of Thailand through monarchies, juntas, and short-lived Republics, to retain that control.
Are the city dwellers then undemocratic? No, but they do want to hold on to their influence. Thus their support for the Junta, thus their calls to Monarchical authority. The problem here, I think, lies not so much in the people involved as in the generally loose political traditions of Thailand and a constitution which does not provide adequate legal protection to minority views, or adequate levels of local and regional autonomy. The elites oppose Thaksin partly because they fear and resent him, but also because they deeply fear what will happen to them when they don’t hold the reins of power, and the reason they fear this is because they know, from their own experience of governing, how those reins can be used to harm and control. This, in my view, is largely the result of political professionals’ love-affair with Parliamentary systems. A federal democracy, with clearly delineated authorities and zealously enforced rights and protections is much more stable, responsive to the population, and easier to live with as a citizen, than the centralized, almighty oligarchies created in emulation of Britain.
Posted by: Julian | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this comment
As a Fleming I would never suggest Thailand to adopt the Belgian system but it has kept things peaceful in Belgium so I suppose it has its merits.
To my mind, Swiss direct democracy would be the best solution, also a federalised Thailand could possibly help to ease its tensions with its muslim minority which seem be forgotten during these troublesome times…
Posted by: Johan Van Loon | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Report this comment
I have cautioned against making comparisons with the west, but there is one 20th century Central European leader who comes to mind who was elected democratically but who then promptly turned his country into one of the worst dictatorships known in the history of the human race.
Hitler wasn’t democratically elected, at least not in the sense you seem to mean.
Posted by: Scott de B. | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this comment
Mark, what people need is an effective democracy: ie a government that functions well and represents the voters at large. Currently, Thailand is becoming less democratic and more screwed up. Is there a link? I believe so.
Your ten years included a period of self appointed “leadership” by the military. This was a period of sharp relative decline for Thailand. Even the generals thought their own government was incompetent: “The way things turned out did not live up to our expectations. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves” - Council for National Security chairman, Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pukbhasuk
Posted by: FFScotland | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Report this comment
All this discussion about who represents the middle class, who is uneducated, etc. misses the point. Nations need the following factors in addition to democracy in order to produce stability and prosperity:
1) Secularism in government.
2) An independent judiciary.
3) A system of checks and balances limiting individual or party power.
4) An unchangable legal guarantee of the rights of minority groups and dissentors.
5) A free press.
6) An educated population that is aware of the successes and failures of world history.
7) Federalism, to give local people control of local issues.
Zero tolerance for corruption, and an independent investigative force to enforce it.
9) Police and military forces that are more loyal to democracy than to politicians.
10) A process that makes changing the constitution nearly impossible.
Posted by: Chris B | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this comment
John wrote:
“Anthony Zacharzewski was clearly not educated in Russia where they had a good educational system for mathematicians. In a group with no negative values the mean is always greater than the median.”
1,10,11,12,13
median = 11
mean = 9.4
5,6,15,16
median = 10.5 =((6+15)/2)
mean = 10.5
I won’t mention where I was educated because making broad generalizations about the education of individuals from various countries is apparently invalid.
Posted by: Chris B | December 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this comment
It’s extremely tricky comparing democratic systems in different parts of the world. Come to think of it, it’s extremely tricky even comparing democratic systems in the West. The Electoral College in the US, and the Parliamentary system in the UK are two complicated issues that come to mind.
Countries like Lebanon struggle with the same kind of mindframe that is currently plaguing Thai politics. The problem there is, of course, religion rather than socio-economic standing. A truly democratic system, rather than the quota-based system which is in place, would tip the delicate sectarian balance.
These issues are difficult to fully comprehend for a Western audience (of which I’m probably part).
Posted by: Nasri Atallah | December 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm | Report this comment
We in the West (particularly the media) have made a fetish of the ballot. Voting is of course a fundamental part of a true democracy, but only one part. Holding a free and fair election doesn’t make a country ipso facto a democracy, as we all should have learned by now. Transparency and the rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, a free press, the right to assemble, etc. are equally fundamental, sine-qua-non elements of a real democracy. For a country transitioning from one-party rule or dicatorship, I would advocate getting some of those other parts in place before holding elections; long-term results may end up being much better - look at Hong Kong and Singapore.
Posted by: JH | December 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Report this comment
[…] Interesting discussion on the recent government crisis in Thailand here. […]
Posted by: Memnison Journal » Thailand and whose idea of democracy: | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm | Report this comment
The middle-class Thais are onto something. Here in the US, the elderly, red states, and the lower class unduly influence elections, even though they are net recipients of federal tax money.
They insist that they are the “core” of America, and not the cancer that’s eating it alive. They’re angry, too, rather than grateful that those of us who actually pay taxes haven’t yet deported them to the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Posted by: Blue's Clues | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Report this comment
The challenge is to the idea that democracy is inherently good. It is not, and honest advocates for democracy (including yours truly) have to to acknowledge that. Sometimes the will of the people is to elect fundamentalists (Hamas), corrupt oligarchs (Thaksin), or authoritarians in democratic clothing (Putin).
The situation in Thailand is a bit more complicated than the press lets on, although I can’t say that the self-titled PAD is justified in their actions.
Posted by: Joel | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this comment
This is one of GR’s favourite themes. He had a similar post on Thailand a while back, and I won’t repeat the comments I made then.
Many interesting comments. I agree with the following points in those comments:
Many educated people assume those without [education] are plain stupid. But you don’t need to read and write to make rational choices. FFScotland
I am a middle class citizen living in Bangkok and I find Sondhi’s 70/30 ‘new’ politics incredibly ridiculous. If you ever get the chance to listen to him talk on his ASTV cable channel, you wonder, is this person supposed to represent the ‘educated’ middle class? Jade
I haven’t had the chance to hear Sondhi, but I suspect Jade is right. The PAD have no viable alternative to democracy.
But I also agree that a functioning democracy entails more than voting. It also requires the rule of law. So I take note of the following comments:
The latest government has just been found guilty of what amounts to electoral fraud, Thaksins last government was similarly guilty, yet they are always described as ‘democratically elected’. If current Thai democracy is the party that can pay people most for their votes wins, whats so good about it? Andy
A cynic might say that votes are “bought” in advanced democracies too, though indirectly through advertising, etc.
I also note the comments on the corruption connected with the Thaksin government, and find them plausible. Allegations have been upheld in a court of law.
John makes two key points: even if you ignored the “bought” votes, Thaksin and his supporters would still have a clear majority. PAD wants to preserve the political (and, by implication, economic) advantages of the urban middle class.
From that I draw three tentative conclusions. One, there is no sustainable alternative to democracy. And efforts to try to imitate Western history by introducing democracy by steps don’t work. They result in either dictatorship or periods of fitful democracy.
Two, democratic systems that have been stable in developing countries are ones where, at least in an initial phase, there has been a clearly predominant mass party that is strong in rural as well as urban areas: Congress in India, Labour in Israel, the ANC in South Africa, PRI in Mexico, etc. It should be added that that they do not offer the rotation of government that democracy needs in the long term. (An extreme case was the PRI’s rule in Mexico. People said that Mexico was a democracy except on election days.)
Three, many developing countries would be wise to opt for decentralised, federal democracies rather than centralised, unitary democracies. They would also be wise to think in terms of proportional, coalition government rather than majority, winner-takes-all government. Federalism has been found to be a good base for stability in developed and developing countries alike. And at least periods of coalition government help to build attitudes of compromise and mutual respect that are so important for the survival of democracy.
In Thailand, the urban elite is going to have to come to terms with the interests of the rural poor, and seek to organise them in mass parties rather than trying to exclude them from the political process. In the medium, the urban elite can gain economically from the growing domestic demand that a richer countryside would generate.
Lastly, the idea that either the US [lilybart] or Switzerland [J.J.] has a monopoly on democracy is rubbish. But both have interesting features for developing countries to consider. Federalism in both countries, direct democracy (referendums, etc) in both countries, although not at national level in the US. Switzerland also shows how a preference for coalition government can help democracy survive in a multi-lingual country.
Posted by: Edward S | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this comment
As always, these discussions inevitably lead back to Churchill’s famous adage: democracy is indeed the worst form of governance — except all others.
The Thai middle classes are on to — nothing. A Hundreds years hence they will reach the one conclusion they could have reached now. But they just had to reinvent the wheel to show what an ingenious people they are.
Posted by: RCS | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this comment
‘Thaicoon’ made me smile. Your journalism always works so well because you keep both humour and appropriate deportment, the former being so often sacrificed as a foolish and half-baked nod to the latter…
Posted by: Justin | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm | Report this comment
I note the post’s reference to “theory.” The academic political science literature moved on from the bourgeoisie-democracy connection a while back. In fact Thailand is fairly predictable according to Eva Bellin’s 2000 paper “Contingent Democrats,” in the journal World Politics. The gist: the bourgeoisie will be pro-democracy if they don’t depend too much on state largesse and aren’t terribly threatened by poorer classes.
Posted by: Theo | December 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Report this comment
Purba Negoro: “As an Indonesian who has travelled extensiveley as a bureaucrat within ASEAN and one who is intimately aquainted with both the ruling class and poor- I can inform you all the poor majority DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY.”
Mr Purba, shall we have a vote on that?
Posted by: RCS | December 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm | Report this comment
John: even if you ignored the “bought” votes, Thaksin and his supporters would still have a clear majority.
How can you measure how many votes were bought?
Thai people have tolerated corruption for a long time. However, when Thaksin came in, he set a new standard for corruption. It was obvious, out in the open, daring and in the scope Thais have never seen. The “middle-class” were the ones suffered most. They saw their hard-earned money funneling into the wealth of this one man. The ultra wealthy generally have a strong tie to the government in some ways and were benefiting. The very poor were the voting machines, having not much else to contribute to Thaksin’s wealth. The anger is deep because a lot of “middle-class” in Thailand are really just the 2nd or 3rd generation of wealth. They had seen their parents/grandparents, and in some cases themselves, working days/nights and weekends. To be robbed outright like this is infuriating to say the least.
Was Thaksin the most evil man? That, I don’t know. Was he exploiting the country with no shame? Absolutely.
To those who would like to argue on the definition of “democracy”, if you would like to make a point worth reading in this issue, I suggest you learn more about Thailand. If not, it’s like claiming you can judge a married couple’s argument without ever knowing them at all.
Thailand is a unique country with complex history. RCS, have you ever known a poor Thai person from the rural area who actually died as a result of the poorly-planned, poorly managed “30-baht cures all” program from Thaksin? Reading the Western press might not give you a well-rounded knowledge on all issues. That should not be surprising, I hope.
Posted by: LaLana | December 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm | Report this comment
Isn’t it heart of democracy to run a country according to the majority.Is it that ridiculous if the poors want better life for themselves. To say the rural people are stupid and cant think for themselves is ignorant at best and to say all the rural votes were brought is as ridiculous as to say Barrack Obama is a terrorist.
The Thai elites should realize that no matter how much money and power they have, they are just a minority group after all.(they surely have the power to spread the wealth but would they?)
The main issue right now is not about Thaksin anymore, but it is about class struggling.
The poors saw hope and change and they are holding on to it. The elites saw the poors have some sort of hope and trying to change so they are destroying it. It’s that simple.
Posted by: Mod, Korat | December 4th, 2008 at 6:02 am | Report this comment
The problem is that Westerner used to reify the concept of democracy and taught that if developing countries adopt democratic system, it was because of an acknowledgment of liberty, human rights and so on.
The deconstructed reality is different, they embraced democracy because it allow the urban elite to stay in power and to give them the legitimacy to stay there. The majority of elected people come from the urban elites. Nowadays, the extension of universal suffrage toward the poor is changing that. Morales election was a turning point. Thailand is not different.
Posted by: JC, HEID, Geneva | December 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am | Report this comment
Purba Negoro says:
“As an Indonesian who has travelled extensiveley as a bureaucrat within ASEAN and one who is intimately aquainted with both the ruling class and poor- I can inform you all the poor majority DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY.”
“All the poor majority do not want democracy.” Ok, then let’s say 99% of the poor majority want democracy. More seriously, one of the striking features of many elections in developing countries is how the poor turn out in large numbers to vote, and are willing to wait many hours to cast their vote. And their votes make a difference. In the latest elections in India, most pundits expected the BJP to win easily. But primarily the rural poor turned the election in favour of the Congress-led coalition. The poor know that the vote is one of the few chances they have to countervail the inequities of the economic and social system.
But thanks for this insight into ASEAN’s thinking on democracy. It confirms my suspicions.
Purba Negoro says:
I quote Sukarno, “democracy is NOT the end. It is not the means to an end. No! The end is a just and prosperous society.”
We indigenous ruling class know precisely what is best for our own peasantry.
The Sukarno experience highlights the disadvantage of authoritarian regimes: their inflexibility and vulnerability to crises. That’s because a change of government requires a change of regime. The more democratic Asian regimes survived the economic crisis of the late nineties. The most autocratic one, Sukarno’s, collapsed. On that occasion, the peasantry did not seem to be convinced that the ruling class knew what was best for them.
Purba Negoro also says:
Singapore- not a democracy- and one of the world’s most prosperous nations.
I would not call Singapore a dictatorship, but rather a preponderant party democracy (the PAP), which, within the present regime, could evolve into an effective two- or multi-party system. (Though it is sometimes said that Singapore is the world’s only Social Democratic dictatorship).
Perhaps the best way out of the current political deadlock in Thailand would be for the two sides to form a joint, coalition government, at least until fresh elections can be held. If a grand coalition government is good enough for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (permanently), it is good enough for Thailand too. The king of Thailand could help bring about such a solution. Actively bringing parties together to form a government is a service that a king is supposed to provide in a constitutional monarchy.
While in Thailand, I have noticed that there are few women in Thai politics, certainly not in leading positions. That contrasts with the strong position of women in Thai economic and social life, in comparison with many other Asian countries. A stronger female presence could temper macho attitudes, though the example of the Philippines is not too encouraging in that respect.
Posted by: Edward S | December 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Report this comment
Democracy in Thailand
http://www.globaldashboard.org/news/democracy-in-thailand/
December 2, 2008 | Leo Horn | More on Asia, Conflict and security, Development, News |
With my wedding in Bangkok fast approaching, I have been watching the events unfolding there closely and with trepidation. I am dismayed at the blinkered and naïve reporting and commentary in the mainstream Western press about the situation in Thailand (I refer in particular to The FT, The Economist, The Washington Post etc). The political impasse is described in clichés, as a battle of virtuous rural masses versus power-possessive urban elites, of progressives and democrats versus royalists, militarists and other hideous elements of the ‘ancien regime’. I’ve no doubt that the current events signify a failure of democracy in Thailand. It is indeed that very failure that the protesters are decrying, with resort to ever more desperate tactics.
A recent blog by the FT’s Gideon Rachman – whose pieces I frequently enjoy reading – typifies the mainstream view, which is shallow and simplistic both in its account of the situation and in its interpretation of democracy (see article here). According to Mr. Rachman (who by the way likes clichés):
“The urban middle-classes are rising up and demanding that democracy be rescinded.
Do not be fooled by the fact that the group occupying the airport call themselves the “People’s Alliance for Democracy“. Their intent is clearly anti-democratic. They have just brought down an elected government.”
In this vein, the anti-government movement (known as the People’s Alliance for Democracy, or PAD) has been widely condemned on the basis that it unlawfully rejects a government that was voted in through the ballot and thus has prima facie democratic legitimacy. It seems to be a straightforward case of foul play on the part of the urban elites, who directly challenge the people’s choice. Or is it?
The premise that elections in themselves constitute democracy is deeply flawed for a start. Many countries have the vote, yet not many are truly democratic. And ballots have on occasion delivered despots. A narrow procedural interpretation of democracy misses out on what the real substance of democracy is. The essence of democracy resides in the institutions that uphold and protect human rights and the principles of freedom, fairness and order. As my brother Joe puts it, voting makes you only 20% democratic, the other four prerequisites for democracy being: a credible opposition; checks and balances; a free press; and the rule of law free from intimidation. When democracy is abused, it is often these four aspects that are attacked, not the people’s right to vote (see his article ‘What Democracy is Not’).
Thailand’s educated middle classes have good reason to protest. The problem with the current government is that it remains firmly in the grip of the brazenly corrupt and patently undemocratic – indeed tyrannical – Mr. Thaksin. Mr. Thaksin’s net worth tripled during his years in office. He used his fortune – which was ill-gotten from the outset – to concentrate political power in his hands until he became a distorting, destructive force unto Thailand’s democracy. Even from exile he continues to hold the strings, directing money to allies and supporters in Thailand, and putting in place proxy Prime Ministers. Earlier in the year, when the army, and later the police, refused to act on his orders to disperse the PAD rallies, he allegedly brought in paid thugs by the lorry-load to do the ugly work instead.
Democracy calls for checks and balances to hold power to account, and these are needed most where power is most concentrated. Yet Mr. Thaksin nakedly abused his tremendous power by annihilating all checks and balances. Journalists who dared criticise Mr. Thaksin were persecuted. By withdrawing advertising money – which he controlled – or threatening lawsuits, newspapers were effectively coerced into taking approved editorial lines. And when the law inconvenienced him, he simply changed it (doing so was easy as parliament was filled with his cronies and sold-out MPs). He supported a law that protected his monopoly in the telecoms sector by baring foreign ownership, but when a good time came to sell, he changed the law to enable the deal. He further tinkered with the law to avoid paying taxes on the $1.9 bn he made from the sale of his telecoms empire to Singapore’s Temasek. This was the final straw, in the eyes of PAD.
Democracies are not perfect political systems, as Churchill once famously observed. Civil disobedience has often been a progressive force for democratic evolution. It paved the way for Indian independence and democracy, and brought the European empires to their knees. Even in the most mature of democracies it has played a role. It forced through the Civil Rights Bill in America and set in motion political changes that opened the way for America’s election of its first black president. As displeasing and alarming as the PAD protests are, they are holding power to account.
To his credit, Mr. Thaksin does deserve some praise for creating a political platform for the poor farmers of Thailand’s populous North-Eastern Provinces, something his predecessors had failed to do. But most of his rural policies (e.g. cash handouts, easy credit, debt relief) were populist, short-sighted and unsustainable. In a relatively poor and young democracy as Thailand, vote-buying is often par-for-the-course. But where there used to be a near competitive market for votes, Mr. Thaksin created a monopoly with his vastly superior spending power. However, it is in the market for ideas that the PAD should do more to compete with Mr. Thaksin for the ‘hearts and minds’ of these hitherto voiceless farmers, by proposing policies that convincingly address their needs and concerns.
While disapproving of the PAD’s tactics (not least because of the disruption to my wedding!) I can nevertheless understand their impatience. When the highest courts found Mr. Thaksin guilty on corruption charges on the basis of strong evidence, he fled, but he didn’t give up. The proxy government led by his brother-in-law Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat has been attempting to amend the constitution to protect Mr. Thaksin from facing charges. The PAD’s request to whoever next gets appointed as caretaker PM is simple and clear: ‘drop Mr. Thaksin’s self-serving constitutional amendments, or else face us in the streets again’.
In and out of office, Mr. Thaksin has systematically emasculated the foundations of democracy in Thailand, by compromising all its key institutions – the press, the courts, parliament, law enforcement etc. Against this background the rebellion of the educated Thai middle classes may be seen as a stand for democracy: rather than a backsliding on the democratic scales, I’d like to surmise that perhaps we are witnessing the teething pains of a slowly maturing democracy?
December 2, 2008 | Leo Horn | More on Asia, Conflict and security, Development, News |
With my wedding in Bangkok fast approaching, I have been watching the events unfolding there closely and with trepidation. I am dismayed at the blinkered and naïve reporting and commentary in the mainstream Western press about the situation in Thailand (I refer in particular to The FT, The Economist, The Washington Post etc). The political impasse is described in clichés, as a battle of virtuous rural masses versus power-possessive urban elites, of progressives and democrats versus royalists, militarists and other hideous elements of the ‘ancien regime’. I’ve no doubt that the current events signify a failure of democracy in Thailand. It is indeed that very failure that the protesters are decrying, with resort to ever more desperate tactics.
A recent blog by the FT’s Gideon Rachman – whose pieces I frequently enjoy reading – typifies the mainstream view, which is shallow and simplistic both in its account of the situation and in its interpretation of democracy (see article here). According to Mr. Rachman (who by the way likes clichés):
“The urban middle-classes are rising up and demanding that democracy be rescinded.
Do not be fooled by the fact that the group occupying the airport call themselves the “People’s Alliance for Democracy“. Their intent is clearly anti-democratic. They have just brought down an elected government.”
In this vein, the anti-government movement (known as the People’s Alliance for Democracy, or PAD) has been widely condemned on the basis that it unlawfully rejects a government that was voted in through the ballot and thus has prima facie democratic legitimacy. It seems to be a straightforward case of foul play on the part of the urban elites, who directly challenge the people’s choice. Or is it?
The premise that elections in themselves constitute democracy is deeply flawed for a start. Many countries have the vote, yet not many are truly democratic. And ballots have on occasion delivered despots. A narrow procedural interpretation of democracy misses out on what the real substance of democracy is. The essence of democracy resides in the institutions that uphold and protect human rights and the principles of freedom, fairness and order. As my brother Joe puts it, voting makes you only 20% democratic, the other four prerequisites for democracy being: a credible opposition; checks and balances; a free press; and the rule of law free from intimidation. When democracy is abused, it is often these four aspects that are attacked, not the people’s right to vote (see his article ‘What Democracy is Not’).
Thailand’s educated middle classes have good reason to protest. The problem with the current government is that it remains firmly in the grip of the brazenly corrupt and patently undemocratic – indeed tyrannical – Mr. Thaksin. Mr. Thaksin’s net worth tripled during his years in office. He used his fortune – which was ill-gotten from the outset – to concentrate political power in his hands until he became a distorting, destructive force unto Thailand’s democracy. Even from exile he continues to hold the strings, directing money to allies and supporters in Thailand, and putting in place proxy Prime Ministers. Earlier in the year, when the army, and later the police, refused to act on his orders to disperse the PAD rallies, he allegedly brought in paid thugs by the lorry-load to do the ugly work instead.
Democracy calls for checks and balances to hold power to account, and these are needed most where power is most concentrated. Yet Mr. Thaksin nakedly abused his tremendous power by annihilating all checks and balances. Journalists who dared criticise Mr. Thaksin were persecuted. By withdrawing advertising money – which he controlled – or threatening lawsuits, newspapers were effectively coerced into taking approved editorial lines. And when the law inconvenienced him, he simply changed it (doing so was easy as parliament was filled with his cronies and sold-out MPs). He supported a law that protected his monopoly in the telecoms sector by baring foreign ownership, but when a good time came to sell, he changed the law to enable the deal. He further tinkered with the law to avoid paying taxes on the $1.9 bn he made from the sale of his telecoms empire to Singapore’s Temasek. This was the final straw, in the eyes of PAD.
Democracies are not perfect political systems, as Churchill once famously observed. Civil disobedience has often been a progressive force for democratic evolution. It paved the way for Indian independence and democracy, and brought the European empires to their knees. Even in the most mature of democracies it has played a role. It forced through the Civil Rights Bill in America and set in motion political changes that opened the way for America’s election of its first black president. As displeasing and alarming as the PAD protests are, they are holding power to account.
To his credit, Mr. Thaksin does deserve some praise for creating a political platform for the poor farmers of Thailand’s populous North-Eastern Provinces, something his predecessors had failed to do. But most of his rural policies (e.g. cash handouts, easy credit, debt relief) were populist, short-sighted and unsustainable. In a relatively poor and young democracy as Thailand, vote-buying is often par-for-the-course. But where there used to be a near competitive market for votes, Mr. Thaksin created a monopoly with his vastly superior spending power. However, it is in the market for ideas that the PAD should do more to compete with Mr. Thaksin for the ‘hearts and minds’ of these hitherto voiceless farmers, by proposing policies that convincingly address their needs and concerns.
While disapproving of the PAD’s tactics (not least because of the disruption to my wedding!) I can nevertheless understand their impatience. When the highest courts found Mr. Thaksin guilty on corruption charges on the basis of strong evidence, he fled, but he didn’t give up. The proxy government led by his brother-in-law Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat has been attempting to amend the constitution to protect Mr. Thaksin from facing charges. The PAD’s request to whoever next gets appointed as caretaker PM is simple and clear: ‘drop Mr. Thaksin’s self-serving constitutional amendments, or else face us in the streets again’.
In and out of office, Mr. Thaksin has systematically emasculated the foundations of democracy in Thailand, by compromising all its key institutions – the press, the courts, parliament, law enforcement etc. Against this background the rebellion of the educated Thai middle classes may be seen as a stand for democracy: rather than a backsliding on the democratic scales, I’d like to surmise that perhaps we are witnessing the teething pains of a slowly maturing democracy?
Japanese car makers off 30% in U.S.
Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008
Japanese makers off 30% in U.S.
Bloomberg
Japan's three biggest automakers said their November U.S. sales tumbled more than 30 percent as incentives failed to lure buyers to showrooms in the deepening recession.
Toyota Motor Corp.'s 34 percent plunge was its most since at least 1980, while Honda Motor Co. fell 32 percent and Nissan Motor Co. 42 percent. Combined sales for Asia-based brands, including Hyundai Motor Co. of South Korea, slid 35 percent.
"We've probably reached a point where no vehicle is immune from the ravages of the market," said Mike Robinet, an analyst at CSM Worldwide Inc. of the U.S. "The consumer is not in a very jovial mood when it comes to opening their pocketbooks."
The loss of 1.2 million jobs in the United States so far this year helped drive down November industrywide sales to the lowest annual rate in 26 years. The slump forced General Motors Corp., the largest U.S. carmaker, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC to seek up to $38 billion in loans from Congress Tuesday.
November's totals pushed the U.S. industry to a 13th straight monthly drop, the longest slide in 17 years. Toyota expects 2008 industrywide sales to be 13.2 million, down from 16.1 million in 2007, said Bob Carter, vice president of U.S. Toyota division sales.
Models including the Honda Fit and Toyota Prius succumbed to the slump after selling for months at or above list prices without incentives. Sales of the Fit subcompact fell 8.4 percent, and the hybrid Prius was off 48 percent.
"This is the worst month for the combined Japanese brands" since 1991, said Jesse Toprak, director of industry analysis for automotive-research firm Edmunds.com of the U.S.
No-interest loan offers will continue on most Toyota models through December, a program that started in October, the company said Tuesday.
That helped boost Toyota's incentives to an average of $1,908 per vehicle, a level Toprak said was the "highest ever" for the automaker.
"At this point, in terms of incentive programs, we've reached a point of diminishing returns," Toprak said. "Consumers are not responding to them right now."
Toyota's U.S. market share was 17.4 percent last month, up from 16.7 percent a year earlier, according to Autodata Corp. of the U.S.
Honda said sales fell 32 percent to 76,233 vehicles, the company's lowest monthly tally since 2000 and biggest percentage drop since 1981.
While Toyota and Nissan have added no-interest loans to spur sales, Honda, which typically spends the least on incentives to maintain resale values, is offering interest rates as low as 1.9 percent. Sage Marie, a spokesman for Honda's U.S. unit, declined to say whether the company planned any additional initiatives to spur sales.
"We're doing what we can to generate interest and traffic in a very challenging market," Marie said. "Showroom traffic is a critical element for sales, and obviously fewer people are coming in right now."
Honda's market share was 10.2 percent, up 0.8 point from a year ago.
Nissan sold 46,605 new vehicles, down 42 percent.
"We initially thought the light at the end of the tunnel would be getting closer as we neared the end of the year, but every sale continues to be a struggle," Jim O'Sullivan, Mazda Motor Corp.'s North American chief executive officer, said in a statement. Sales for the Ford affiliate fell 31 percent.
Failed states rule conversation at debate launch
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1019060
Munk Debates
Craig Offman, National Post
Published: Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Story tools presented by
TORONTO - On the day that the Obama administration signalled a new, muscular approach to failed nations, some of the issue's visible detractors and defenders gathered to debate the merits of intervention.
The Toronto debating series brought together actress and activist Mia Farrow and former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans to square off against Canadian General Rick Hiller and John Bolton, the former U. S. ambassador to the United Nations.
The resolution was, "If countries like Sudan, Somalia and Burma will not end their man-made humanitarian crises, the international community should."
First debated briefly at a captains-of-industry kind of luncheon, the topic was expanded on later at a public event.
At the launch event, Gareth Evans gave the precis of his argument, insisting that whatever mistakes the world community makes, it must stop mass-scale atrocities such as those that have ravaged Darfur or Rwanda.
"Let's do something to ensure that we don't have to look back to yet another catastrophic failure with anger and shame and say, 'How could we have let this happen?' "
But John Bolton, known for his pugnacious conservative politics, provided the most provocative opening statement at the lunch.
After issuing strict preconditions for intervention, citing historical mistakes such as the Clinton administration's mishandling of Somalia, and finally dismissing the effectiveness of the United Nations, Mr. Bolton issued a stark challenge to supporters of human intervention. "If you decide to act on it, use your own sons and daughters, not mine."
A one-time employee of the Bush administration, Mr. Bolton has insisted that the United States invaded Iraq to defend its security interest, a notion that baffled Mia Farrow.
When she was asked how she reconciled her opposition to the Iraq War with her advocacy for intervention, she said the two had nothing to do with each other.
"I cannot find any justifiable explanation for the invasion of Iraq," she told the National Post.
"Now Iraq ironically is on the list of countries threatened with possible protection. It wasn't when the invasion began."
A recent poll found that most Canadians support using the military to combat scourges such as ethnic cleansing, mass starvation and other human rights abuses.
Conducted by the Innovative Research Group on behalf of the Munk Debates -- the host of the yesterday's events -- it found 68% of Canadians support military intervention by the international community, while 61% backed using military force against states that permit widespread human rights abuses such as rape.
The incoming Obama administration demonstrated its own support for a more muscular UN policy yesterday by nominating Susan Rice as its ambassador to the UN. A senior foreign-policy advisor to president-elect Obama, Ms. Rice is a muscular multilateralist.
Mr. Bolton said that barring any ethical issues, Ms. Rice should be nominated, while Ms. Farrow called her nomination "enlightened."
Sponsored by the Aurea Foundation, a charity founded in 2006 by Canadian mining magnate Peter Munk and his wife, Melanie, the semi-annual event was kicked off last May.
coffman@nationalpost.com
Close
Presented by
Children as Weapons of War
http://www.mediaforfreedom.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=13007
By Jo Becker
Over the last five years, the global campaign to stop the use of child soldiers has garnered an impressive series of successes, including new international legal standards, action by the UN Security Council and regional bodies, and pledges from various armed groups and governments to end the use of child soldiers. Despite gains in awareness and better understanding of practical policies that can help reduce the use of children in war, the practice persists in at least twenty countries, and globally, the number of child soldiers預bout 300,000擁s believed to have remained fairly constant.
As the end of wars in Sierra Leone, Angola, and elsewhere freed thousands of former child soldiers from active armed conflict, new conflicts in Liberia and Ce d棚voire drew in thousands of new child recruits, including former child soldiers from neighboring countries. In some continuing armed conflicts, child recruitment increased alarmingly. In Northern Uganda, abduction rates reached record levels in late 2002 and 2003 as over 8,000 boys and girls were forced by the Lord痴 Resistance Army to become soldiers, laborers, and sexual slaves. In the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where all parties to the armed conflict recruit and use children, some as young as seven, the forced recruitment of children increased so dramatically in late 2002 and early 2003 that observers described the fighting forces as 殿rmies of children.・/p>
In many conflicts, commanders see children as cheap, compliant, and effective fighters. They may be unlikely to stop recruiting child soldiers or demobilize their young fighters unless they perceive that the benefits of doing so outweigh the military advantage the children provide, or that the costs of continuing to use child soldiers are unacceptably high.
In theory, the benefits of ending child soldier use can include an enhanced reputation and legitimacy within the international community, and practical support for rehabilitation of former child soldiers, including educational and vocational opportunities. Possible negative consequences of continued child soldier use can include 都haming・in international fora and the media, restrictions on military and other assistance, exclusion from governance structures or amnesty agreements, and prosecution by the International Criminal Court or other justice mechanisms.
In practice, however, the use of child soldiers all too often fails to elicit action by the international community at all, apart from general statements of condemnation. Human Rights Watch is aware of no examples of military aid being cut off or other sanctions imposed on a government or armed group for its use of child soldiers. Conversely, when armed forces or groups do improve their practices, benefits also frequently fail to materialize. Although governments and armed groups receive public attention for commitments to end use of child soldiers, concrete support for demobilization and rehabilitation efforts often does not follow.
If the international community is serious about ending the use of child soldiers, it needs to build on the successes of the past five years, but with a sober eye for the obstacles that have stymied further progress. This essay gives an overview of developments over that period, both positive and negative, and offers suggestions on the way forward.
Renewed progress will depend on clearly and publicly identifying the responsible parties; providing financial and other assistance for demobilization and rehabilitation; and, most importantly, ensuring that violators pay a price should they continue to recruit and deploy child soldiers. Some concrete suggestions on how these remedies should be pursued, including the critical role that the U.N. Security Council is poised to play, are described in the concluding section of the essay.
New Visibility and the Emergence of New Legal Norms
In a span of just two years, but following years of campaigning, three important new treaties were adopted that significantly strengthened legal norms regarding the use of child soldiers. In July 1998, 120 governments adopted the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, defining the conscription, enlistment, or use in hostilities of children under the age of fifteen as a war crime. Less than a year later, in June of 1999, the member states of the International Labor Organization (ILO) acted to prohibit the forced recruitment of children under age eighteen for use in armed conflict as part of the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (Convention 182). And in May 2000, the U.N. adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, establishing eighteen as the minimum age for participation in armed conflict, for compulsory or forced recruitment, and for any recruitment by nongovernmental armed groups.
The treaties were embraced rapidly. The Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention quickly became the most rapidly ratified labor convention in history, with 147 states parties by November 2003. In April 2002, the Rome Statute reached the threshold of sixty ratifications needed to bring the International Criminal Court into being, and by November 2003, sixty-six nations had ratified the Optional Protocol.
Intensive lobbying by nongovernmental organizations, (NGOs) notably the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers and the coalition痴 national partners, helped build a global consensus against the use of child soldiers, and brought new attention to the issue. The coalition spearheaded the campaign for the adoption, ratification, and implementation of the Optional Protocol, holding a series of high-profile regional conferences, documenting child recruitment policies and practices worldwide, lobbying the Security Council and other international actors, and supporting regional networks working to end the use of child soldiers. The coalition痴 national partners launched public awareness campaigns, lobbied for changes in national policy and practice, and in many countries, helped drive forward the ratification and implementation of the optional protocol.
Attention to child soldiers has emerged in numerous other fora, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Parliament, the Organization of American States, the European Union-African, Caribbean and Pacific group (E.U.-ACP), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), resulting in resolutions, joint strategies to address children and armed conflict, and the establishment of regional child protection mechanisms.
Government Forces and Child Soldiers
While some governments have taken concrete steps to end child soldier use, others flout the new norms by continuing to use children in conflict. Between 1999 and 2001, South Africa, Portugal, Denmark, and Finland each adopted new national legislation, raising the minimum age for voluntary recruitment to eighteen. In early 2003, the National Security Council of Afghanistan established a new minimum recruitment age of twenty-two.
Some governments raised their recruitment age even in the midst of conflict. In May of 2000, the government of Sierra Leone announced government policy setting eighteen as the minimum age for bearing arms. Previously, military law had set the age at seventeen. The government of Colombia, engaged in a thirty-year civil war, adopted legislation in December 1999 prohibiting all recruitment of children under the age of eighteen, and discharged over 600 children from the army and more than 200 from other government forces.
The ratification of the optional protocol has brought additional changes by other governments. Until 2002, the United States routinely recruited seventeen-year-olds on a volunteer basis, and deployed them into conflict situations. Seventeen-year-old U.S. soldiers served in U.S. operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and the 1991 Gulf War. Once the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol in December 2002, it changed its deployment practices to exclude seventeen-year-old troops from combat positions.
The United Kingdom recruits at age sixteen熔ne of the lowest official voluntary recruitment ages of any country預nd has been the only European country to send under-eighteens routinely into battle. When ratifying the optional protocol in early 2003, the U.K. made a declaration stating that it would continue to deploy under-eighteens in situations of 堵enuine military need・when withdrawing them is deemed 妬mpractical.・The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers and other human rights advocates sharply criticized the declaration, stating that it was contrary to the object and purpose of the protocol, and that the U.K.痴 declaration should be considered null and void. A change in practice became evident when the U.K. government announced that it would not deploy under-eighteens in the U.S.-led military operation against Saddam Hussein痴 forces in Iraq, and removed under-age soldiers from ships being sent to the region. In contrast, over 200 British under-eighteens participated in the 1991 Gulf War, two of whom died during the war.
Other governments have continued to recruit and use children in armed conflict, including Burma, Burundi, the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, and Uganda. Burma痴 national army alone includes an estimated 70,000 child soldiers (nearly one-quarter of the world痴 total) and routinely sends children as young as twelve into battle against armed ethnic opposition groups. Both Uganda and the DRC have ratified the optional protocol, but flout their obligations by using child soldiers. The Ugandan People痴 Defense Force has recruited children who escaped or were captured from the rebel Lord痴 Resistance Army, and has trained and deployed children recruited into local defense units. The government of DRC maintains children in its ranks despite a 2000 presidential decree calling for the demobilization of child soldiers.
Paramilitaries or civil defense forces that are linked to the government frequently recruit children as well. As many as 20,000 children may serve in militias supported by the government of Sudan. In Colombia, the paramilitary United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC) receive support from some army units, and often work in close collaboration with the Colombian military, which prohibits the recruitment of children. The AUC includes over 2,000 children, including many girls and children as young as age seven. In other countries, including the DRC and Rwanda, child recruitment by government-linked militias is also common.
Child Soldiers and Opposition Forces
Child soldier use is endemic among non-state armed groups. In nearly every conflict where government forces use child soldiers, opposition forces do as well. But even when governments do not recruit children, as in Nepal, the Philippines, or Sri Lanka, use of child soldiers by opposition forces may be routine. The use of child soldiers by nongovernmental armed groups is perceived as a more intractable problem than such use by states, due to the more limited range of pressure points available to the international community when dealing with non-state actors.
Many armed groups are sensitive to world opinion, however, and heightened attention to the issue of child soldiers has prompted a growing number of non-governmental armed groups to make public commitments to end the use of child soldiers. Among these are the Rassemblement Congolais pour la D駑ocratie-Goma (RCD-Goma) in the DRC, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People痴 Army (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ej駻cito del Pueblo, FARC-EP) in Colombia, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) in Liberia, the Sudan People痴 Liberation Army (SPLA) in Sudan, and several ethnic armed opposition groups in Burma (Myanmar).
One of the most recent commitments by non-state actors was contained in a statement by the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) on June 30, 2003. The LURD statement instructed all military commanders to refrain from the 砥nwholesome・act of recruiting children under the age of eighteen for active combat, and to release all children under the age of eighteen to LURD headquarters for demobilization and social reintegration. Several factors may have precipitated the announcement. Human rights advocates had raised the child soldiers issue with LURD痴 political leadership, suggesting that the LURD demobilize child soldiers not only for principled reasons, but also pointing out the indictment of then-president of Liberia Charles Taylor by the Sierra Leone special court for crimes including the use of child soldiers. The advocates suggested that the LURD would not want similar charges hanging over their heads should they eventually take power. Members of the U.N. Security Council delegation led by Sir Jeremy Greenstock of the U.K. also urged an end to the use of child soldiers during meetings with parties to the Liberian peace talks in Accra in late June 2003. Like many other parties to armed conflict that have made similar pledges, however, the LURD has not implemented its commitment, and has continued its use of child soldiers
The U.N. secretary-general痴 special representative on children and armed conflict, Olara Otunnu, has secured a number of high-profile commitments from non-state armed groups. Although highly touted, few of these commitments have been kept in practice. During a June 1999 visit to Colombia by the special representative, the FARC agreed not to recruit children under the age of fifteen. However, the FARC痴 recruitment practices remained unchanged, and Human Rights Watch estimates that over 7,400 children (including those in urban-based militias) serve in its ranks, including many under the age of fifteen. Of seventy-two former child soldiers from the FARC interviewed by Human Rights Watch in 2002, fifty-seven (nearly 80 percent) were recruited before the age of fifteen.
In May of 1998, Otunnu traveled to Sri Lanka and received a commitment from the LTTE to end its use of children under eighteen in combat, and not to recruit children below the age of seventeen. In 2001, UNICEF reported that child recruitment had actually increased in the interim. The LTTE reaffirmed its commitment during a February 2001 visit by UNICEF痴 deputy director, but child recruitment by the LTTE continued unabated, including the kidnapping of school children traveling home from school. In June 2003, the government and LTTE agreed on an action plan for children affected by war, including mechanisms for the release and reintegration of former child soldiers, primarily the establishment of transit centers co-managed by the Tamils Rehabilitation Organization and UNICEF. At this writing, child recruitment by the LTTE was continuing, and it was unclear whether the agreement would prompt significant progress.
The continuing pressure by the U.N. to induce the LTTE to fulfill its commitment is more the exception than the rule. The special representative has not made follow-up visits to either Sri Lanka or Colombia, and a UNICEF representative told Human Rights Watch that the commitments are 渡ot systematically monitored.・The representative cited a general lack of coordination between the special representative and UNICEF in following up the commitments.
Another underlying problem is that armed groups perceive a public relations benefit from making public commitments not to recruit child soldiers, but often lack the political will or resources to actually demobilize children from their ranks. Commanders who are concerned with maintaining military strength may be reluctant to release young soldiers, particularly when alternatives for the children, including school or vocational training, are not available.
In many cases, assistance in creating educational and vocational alternatives for child soldiers is critical in ensuring compliance by armed groups with their commitments. Top-ranking commanders in the Karenni Army, one of Burma痴 armed ethnic opposition groups, admit that 20 percent of the group痴 ranks are children despite policies prohibiting the recruitment of children under the age of eighteen. A Karenni Army general told Human Rights Watch that he was aware of international standards and would prefer to exclude children from his forces, but that many of the children who seek to join are displaced or refugee children with no access to school. He said that if viable educational or vocational alternatives were available to young volunteers, it would be easier to comply with international standards:
展e have some ideas for projects for some of our young boys in the army, but we can稚 get any support from outside organizations. . . . No resources means no skills. . . . The only option for child soldiers is if we can have a special school for them, not only for reading and writing but also for vocational skills like carpentry or auto mechanics. We can稚 send fourteen and fifteen-year-olds to ordinary kindergarten. The most important thing for these young people is education.・/p>
In eastern DRC, complementary efforts by the U.N. and NGOs resulted in the demobilization of more than 1,200 children from RCD-Goma and other armed groups in North and South Kivu from 1999 to early 2003. Following a massive recruitment drive by the RCD-Goma in 2000, Save the Children U.K. sought the agreement of RCD-Goma commanders to hold a series of workshops for military personnel on international law related to child soldiers, and the demobilization and rehabilitation programs operated by Save the Children. Seven workshops were held in 2001, prompting a noticeable increase in the number of children demobilized. During the same period, UNICEF held a series of meetings with the RCD-Goma political leadership, culminating in a formal plan of action for the demobilization of child soldiers that was agreed in December of 2001. In April of 2002, RCD-Goma formally demobilized 104 children from a military training camp near Goma. However, thousands of additional child soldiers remain in RCD-Goma痴 ranks.
Transitioning Children Out of War
By late 2003, demobilization and rehabilitation programs for former child soldiers were operating in a half-dozen countries, including Colombia, the DRC, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, and new programs were beginning in Afghanistan, Burundi, Liberia, and Sri Lanka. However, with few exceptions, these programs were available to only a small percentage of the children who needed them, and in some countries, including Myanmar, Nepal, and the Philippines, such programs were practically nonexistent.
Rehabilitation assistance for child soldiers is often delayed. In Afghanistan, parties to conflict regularly used child soldiers during more than two decades of civil war, and one survey of over 3000 Afghans found that up to 30 percent had participated in military activities as children. However, it was nearly two years after the Afghan conflict had officially ended before a UNICEF program for the rehabilitation and reintegration of former child soldiers was established. In Angola, a peace agreement was reached in April of 2002, but child soldiers were excluded from formal demobilization programs and, at this writing, no special rehabilitation services had been set up for an estimated 7,000-11,000 children who served with UNITA or government forces. In the DRC, the government issued a decree in June of 2000 to demobilize child soldiers from government forces. It subsequently developed a plan for demobilization, rehabilitation, and reintegration, but complained that it was unable to implement the plan because donors had not provided sufficient resources. Between July 2001 and November 2002, only 280 child soldiers were reportedly released from the government痴 forces.
Not surprisingly, the most significant reductions in child soldier use have accompanied the end of conflicts themselves. From May 2001 through January 2002, the U.N. mission in Sierra Leone disarmed and demobilized close to 48,000 combatants from rebel forces and government-allied militias, including 6,845 child soldiers. Most former child soldiers were reunited with their families, and about half were either enrolled in educational support or skills training programs
A significant weakness of the Sierra Leone program and many others is the exclusion of girls from demobilization, rehabilitation, and reintegration processes. In Sierra Leone, hundreds of girls were left out of the demobilization program and remained with their rebel captors. In the DRC, thousands of girls are thought to be involved in armed groups, but the demobilization of over 1000 children in North and South Kivu by Save the Children and other partners since 1999 included only nine girls. The exclusion of girls is due to multiple factors. Girls who do not serve in visible combatant roles are often overlooked. Some may be reluctant to participate in demobilization programs because of the stigma of being associated with military forces, particularly when sexual abuse is common. In other cases, programs are not designed with girls or their particular needs in mind, despite the significant numbers of girls involved in many armed conflicts.
Demobilization of children during an active armed conflict is particularly challenging. Southern Sudan is one of the few examples of such efforts. In 2000, the SPLA made a commitment to UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy to end its use of child soldiers. The following year, the SPLA cooperated with UNICEF and other organizations in the demobilization of over 3,500 children from its forces and their reunification with their families. By 2003, however, the process of demobilization had stagnated. UNICEF estimates that 7,000-8,000 children remain with the SPLA, and that some recruitment continues, including re-recruitment of children who had been previously demobilized.
Re-recruitment of some former child soldiers occurs in nearly all cases where demobilization of children is attempted during a continuing armed conflict. In Northern Uganda, where the Lord痴 Resistance Army has abducted an estimated 20,000 children for use as slaves and soldiers, programs operated by World Vision and Gulu Save Our Children Organization (GUSCO) provide rehabilitation support for many former child soldiers who manage to escape or are released. However, the World Vision center reports that since 2000, at least eighteen children who had passed through the center were reabducted and escaped for a second time. GUSCO reported that ten children from their program were reabducted between September and December 2002. For many former child soldiers, fear of reabduction prevents them from returning to their homes, making social reintegration and the resumption of civilian life very difficult.
Re-recruitment of previously demobilized children has also been reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, and Sudan. In early 2001, 163 Congolese children were demobilized and returned to Eastern DRC by UNICEF after being discovered in a military training camp in Uganda. However, by mid-2003, local NGOs reported that the majority had been recruited again by an opposition group, the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), and that some had been killed during fighting.
The risk of re-recruitment underlines the need for adequate security in areas where forced recruitment takes place, support mechanisms in the child痴 community to facilitate their reintegration, and advocacy networks to follow up any cases of re-recruitment.
The Role of the U.N. Security Council
Beginning in 1998, the U.N. Security Council began a series of annual debates and resolutions on children and armed conflict, and more broadly on the protection of civilians and human security. On the issue of child soldiers in particular, the Council has taken progressively stronger measures. The Council痴 first resolutions on the issue (in 1999 and 2000) simply urged U.N. member states and parties to armed conflict to abide by international standards on the issue and support rehabilitation efforts for former child soldiers. However, in November 2001, the Council took the unusual step of asking the secretary-general to compile and publish a list of specific parties to armed conflict that were recruiting or using child soldiers in violation of their international obligations. This 渡ame and shame・initiative was the first time that the Council had specifically named abusive parties, and was intended to hold violators accountable for their actions. In addressing the Council, the secretary-general said of the list, 釘y exposing those who violate standards for the protection of children to the light of public scrutiny, we are serving notice that the international community is finally willing to back expressions of concern with action.・/p>
The list of violators produced by the secretary-general in November of 2002 included twenty-three parties in five countries有iberia, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan and Burundi. Because the list was confined to the situations on the Security Council痴 agenda, it excluded some of the countries with the most severe child soldier problems, including Colombia, Burma, and Sri Lanka. However, the text of the secretary-general痴 report raised concerns about child recruitment and use in nine additional countries not on the Security Council痴 agenda, including the three just mentioned.
Following the receipt of the report, the Council took several additional steps. First, it indicated its intention to enter into dialogue with parties using child soldiers in order to develop action plans to end the practice. Secondly, it requested specific information from the parties named on steps taken to end their use of child soldiers. Third, it requested a progress report on the parties named in the secretary-general痴 report (including parties in situations not on the Security Council痴 agenda) by October 31, 2003. Finally, it indicated its intention to consider additional steps (which could include sanctions) against parties that demonstrated 妬nsufficient progress・in ending their use of child soldiers.
In two missions to Africa in 2003, Security Council members raised concerns about the use of child soldiers. In June, members traveled to Central Africa, where the delegation raised the recruitment and use of child soldiers with parties to the conflict in the DRC. Shortly afterwards, in late June and early July, another Security Council delegation raised similar concerns with parties to conflicts in Ce d棚voire and Liberia. On that mission, the Council also urged parties to those conflicts to arrest and prosecute anyone responsible for recruitment of child soldiers.
The Council痴 渡ame and shame・strategy, however, has yet to yield concrete results. From late 2002 to mid-2003, the list of violators actually expanded with the addition of both governmental and opposition forces in Ce d棚voire, and additional parties to the conflicts in Burundi, DRC, and Liberia. In addition, several of the parties included in the secretary-general痴 list or report significantly escalated their use of child soldiers during 2003. These include both government and opposition forces in Liberia, the UPC and other armed groups in the DRC, and the Lord痴 Resistance Army in Northern Uganda.
The limited impact of the list to date is rooted in several factors. According to U.N. workers, the list has not been used extensively as an advocacy tool at the field level, where its potential may not be understood, or it may be seen as irrelevant to the local situation. The limited scope of the 2002 list幼overing only countries on the Security Council痴 agenda, and excluding others with extensive child soldier problems揺as caused some to question its validity (although this concern was largely addressed with the publication of two lists in late 2003, one encompassing situations on the Security Council痴 agenda and the other covering all other situations). Most importantly, at this writing, the Council has not yet demonstrated its willingness to take concrete action against parties on the list that show no improvement.
The Way Forward
Ending the use of child soldiers demands strategic and sustained efforts by national, regional and international actors, utilizing and strengthening the tools and norms that have developed over the past few years.
The U.N. Security Council
The recent initiatives taken by the Security Council hold promise for prompting positive change. However, these initiatives require systematic application and follow-through. To be more effective, the U.N. must ensure that all parties that are 渡amed・by the Security Council for recruiting or using child soldiers in violation of their obligations are promptly and officially notified of the fact, and should pursue systematic dialogue with all such parties regarding the creation of action plans and concrete steps to end child recruitment and demobilize child soldiers.
The Council should commit to systematic monitoring, and annual reviews of progress (or backsliding) by parties named. Most importantly, it must be clear to governments and armed groups that continued recruitment and use of child soldiers will result in decisive and negative consequences.
At a minimum, the Council should impose strict bans on the supply of arms or any military assistance to any party recruiting or using child soldiers in violation of international obligations, for as long as such recruitment and use continues. Other targeted measures should also be employed, including financial restrictions (such as the freezing of assets), travel restrictions on leaders of government or armed groups, and their exclusion from any governance structures or amnesty provisions. Demobilization and rehabilitation assistance should be assured for governments and groups that effectively end new recruitment and demonstrate a clear willingness to demobilize children from their forces.
Third-party Governments
The actions of third party governments are also critical. For example, arms-supplying countries bear a measure of responsibility for the abuses carried out with the weapons they furnish and, as a matter of principle, countries should commit to and stop weapons transfers to parties known to use child soldiers. Countries such as Ukraine, Yugoslavia, the Russian Federation, and China have provided arms or other military equipment to Burma, despite that government痴 widespread recruitment of children. Since 1999, Angola (which used child soldiers against UNITA during the country痴 civil war) received arms from Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Slovakia, Russia, and Ukraine. The U.K. approved licenses for exports of military equipment to Angola during the same period.
Bilateral agreements regarding other military assistance should be conditioned on recruitment practices that exclude children. One positive example of such engagement is that of the U.K. and Sierra Leone. In early 1999, the U.K. reached an agreement with the government of Sierra Leone to provide a ｣10 million package of assistance to promote stability and reconciliation in the country. Among the conditions for the program, the U.K. government sought and secured an assurance from President Kabbah that children would not be used by the Sierra Leone Armed Forces or the Civil Defense Forces. Later in 1999, and again in 2000, Human Rights Watch provided the U.K. government with information regarding child recruitment by civil defense forces. In both instances, the U.K. government raised the issue with Kabbah. There are currently no indications of child soldier use by government armed forces.
Another positive example is the Belgian Parliament, which adopted legislation in March 2003 barring arms transfers to forces that use child soldiers. The new law entered into force in July 2003. Belgium痴 law and the U.K.痴 agreement with the Sierra Leone government, though unfortunately all too rare examples of governments conditioning assistance on performance related to child soldiers, provide a model for future initiatives.
Other tools exist, but are not well-utilized. For example, the U.S. Congress has adopted legislation (the Trade and Development Act of 2000) that conditions trade benefits to developing countries on implementation of their commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, including the forced recruitment of children for use in armed conflict. The U.S. Department of Labor publishes an annual report describing the child labor laws, policies, and practices of nearly 150 beneficiary countries, including the use of child soldiers. To date, however, this has not consistently led to negative consequences for countries found to have used child soldiers. The 2002 report, for example, listed both DRC and Burundi as beneficiaries of U.S. trade benefits, even though both governments had been cited by the U.N. for child soldier use during the same year. To date, only one country猶akistan揺as had its trade benefits partially suspended because of a failure to address child labor issues adequately. No country has had its trade preferences revoked by the U.S. government because of failure to end the use of child soldiers.
National-level Initiatives
At the national level, greater investments must be made in both preventing recruitment of children and rehabilitating former child soldiers. For either to succeed, alternatives to military service are essential. Without access to quality education, or vocational training that can support a viable livelihood, children are much more likely to join armies or armed groups. Keeping families together and reunifying separated children with family members also reduces recruitment risks and facilitates social reintegration of former child soldiers.
Effective prevention also includes sensitizing children, their families, and community leaders to international norms and the negative impact of child soldiering, and engaging local communities in identifying local risk factors for recruitment. At the national level, birth registration, to ensure that children can produce proof of age, and close monitoring of recruitment practices are key. In areas where abduction or forced recruitment of children takes place, increased security at and near schools is needed to ensure that children can pursue their education in safety.
Significant improvements are possible when civil society and national authorities take responsibility for addressing child recruitment. In Paraguay, forced recruitment of children between ages twelve and seventeen was common in the late 1990痴, despite legal prohibitions against any recruitment of children below age eighteen. A local non-governmental organization estimated in 2000 that 80 percent of conscripts (more than 10,000 people) were under age eighteen. Between 1996 and 2000, a total of fifty-six under-age soldiers died during military service, often due to training accidents and ill treatment. Local NGOs organized a national campaign, documenting and publicizing cases of under-age recruitment, and filing cases with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In response, the Senate formed an investigatory commission (including both governmental and nongovernmental representatives) to monitor conditions in military barracks. The commission visited sixty-five military barracks in 2001 and 2002, identifying the presence of nearly 200 children. By 2003, local organizations reported that under-age recruitment had essentially stopped. For the first time, official recruitment documents now clearly stipulate the eighteen-year minimum age.
Justice
Finally, stronger efforts must be made to address impunity. In countries where child soldier use is routine, recruiters are rarely, if ever, held to account for recruiting children under the age prescribed by law or policy. In Burma, government law sets the recruitment age at eighteen and recruiters are subject to imprisonment for up to seven years for recruiting children under age. However, not only are these laws routinely flouted, but recruiters receive incentives in the form of cash and bags of rice for every recruit羊egardless of age葉hat they deliver to recruitment centers. In response to requests, the government could provide Human Rights Watch with no information regarding any individuals who had been sanctioned for child recruitment.
This pattern of impunity fuels the cycle of child recruitment. Without a credible threat of criminal or disciplinary action, many recruiters will continue to seek out children, who are easily intimidated by threats, and easily lured by promises.
Impunity can be challenged through national courts, ad hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and other justice mechanisms. To date, the most active pursuit of child recruitment cases has come through the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which has one investigator預 specialist in child rights issues妖edicated to investigating these crimes. Investigating crimes related to the use of child soldiers was included in the investigative and prosecutorial strategy from the very inception of operations at the court. The use of child soldiers is included in each of the court痴 thirteen indictments against defendants linked to abuses by the Civil Defense Forces or the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council/Revolutionary United Front, including, as noted above, former Liberian President Charles Taylor. If convicted, these defendants will likely face lengthy prison terms.
The ICC has great potential for pursuing high profile cases against those responsible for child recruitment. The ICC prosecutor has identified the DRC as a likely source of first cases for the court. Child recruitment has been a hallmark of the war in the DRC, and the country is probably second only to Burma in numbers of child soldiers. Prosecuting the top leadership of RCD-Goma, the UPC, the MLC, and other armed groups for their recruitment and use of children would send a powerful message to others who seek children for their forces.
National justice mechanisms must also hold recruiters to account. Laws on the books are not enough. Colombian law, for example, punishes the recruitment of children under age eighteen by armed groups with a six to ten-year prison sentence for those responsible. Yet the government has failed to enforce the law energetically.
The persistent recruitment and use of child soldiers presents the international community with a formidable, but not insurmountable challenge. The efforts of the past five years have established strong new norms and developed promising new avenues for addressing the problem. But these efforts are clearly not sufficient. Stronger, more concerted pressure is needed to persuade governments and armed groups to abandon their use of children as weapons of war. Success will depend on continued monitoring and advocacy, practical assistance for demobilization and rehabilitation, effective use of political and military leverage by international actors, and an uncompromising commitment by local, national, and international authorities to hold perpetrators accountable. Published in HRW, 2004. Copyright mediaforfreedom.com, Nepal.
Posts
