The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

19 May
2010

The Economist has an article up on its website on 19 May 2010. Key excerpt:

The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has failed to make any headway towards reconciliation. He had already created a terrific obstacle to peace on April 10th, when he hastily sent in troops to clear another protest site; 25 people died but the red shirts remained. But Mr Abhisit may deserve credit for offering a plausible compromise to the red shirts. That the leaders of their United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) failed to grasp this olive branch is tragic. They must bear some responsibility for the lives lost, as do the soldiers who marched into downtown Bangkok.

[...]

As the bullets flew, Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and billionaire telecoms tycoon who encouraged the red shirts after he lost power in 2006 to a military coup, tweeted his sorrow to his followers. From his exile, Mr Thaksin denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirts leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin held sway over the splintered, squabbling leadership of the UDD. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets and political network. Though the red-shirt cause outgrew him, his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks.

Share this post:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
  2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
  3. The UN Speaks
  4. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region
  5. Banyan on the Latest Situation

1 Response to The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

Avatar

David Brown

May 20th, 2010 at 4:28 am

The UDD did want to accept the governments offer but their lack of trust led them to demand some immediate tangible action as proof of intent.

The offer of an election by the government in November, even though they were demanding immediate elections, was welcomed by the UDD.

The governments offer was conditional so, based on past history of non-delivery of promises by the government, the UDD demanded some tangible proof of real intent.

Some of the UDD basis for protesting is the perceived “double standards” in application of the legal process for cases against the yellow shirts compared to treatment of UDD related individuals. Therefore the UDD proposed that the government make a gesture of good faith and submit themselves to legal cases brought by the UDD relating to the military actions in attacking the UDD protesters on April 9. In return the UDD offered their own leaders to submit themselves to similar cases and to disband their rally.

The government tried a trick when the next morning the Deputy PM visited the DSI, an agency under his control, to discuss the cases and claimed this as “submitting to the legal process. This was rejected by the UDD as it did not meet their demand that the Deputy PM submit to the police in the normal way.

The government rejected further talks and intensified its military action. The government announced there were 500 terrorists amongst the protesters and deployed snipers on the high buildings across a big area surrounding the rally site

When the military attack was increasing, more than 30 had been killed and several hundred injured a group of Senators offered to mediate talks. The UDD abd senators agreed and jointly approached the government. At 3pm May 17 the government issued a rejection of further talks. The UDD and the senators contined discussion and only at 9pm May 17 did the UDD announce that it seemed talks were not acceptable to the government.

From early on the morning of May 18 the military attack intensified further with further loss of life. Overall the snipers were responsible for most of the deaths and many of the injuries.

All casualties during the action, except one air force officer, were civilians, including foreign and local journalists, paramedical officers trying to assist the injured, innocent bystanders and shoppers and protesters. It was determined that the air force officer was also killed by a “friendly fire” sniper bullet.

In the evening of May 19 the UDD leaders at te main rally site surrendered to police to try to stop further killings.

During the action a large number of people from Bangkok and surrounding areas had tried to join the rally and formed groups in regional cities. In Bandkok many were unable to cross the army cordon so 6 satellite rally sites were built and the larger groups built stages. When the UDD leaders surrendered most of the people at the main rally remonstrated and tried to stop them as they did not want to give up their protest against the government and military. Those at other sites became angry and a rampage of destruction has led to more deaths at the hands of soldiers (still snipers?) and properties burnt.

I expect that when the leaders gave up the protesters had very low expectations of the treatment they would receive from those they see as their oppressors and because of this felt they had little to lose by causing additional damage and issues for the military.

As of 6pm the TV and media instead of just being under government control is now under direct order of the military (CRES) so it is difficult to discover the situation in the country now.

Comment Form