On Media Sensationalism, Busting the Hunger Games Bubble, and Perspectives on Oppression

Everyone is talking about Thailand again. It’s a weird thing to get news from outside of the country before you hear about it inside the country. In my last few posts on the takeover by the military Junta I have tried to shed some perspective on the situation, while still maintaining the point that eventually military rule has to end, and the sooner the better. It actually seemed like things were calming down though. From what I’ve saw and heard and read, all the major protests were isolated to Bangkok, I’ve only had one person tell me that there were protests in Chaing Mai, but the military check points increase as you get close to Bangkok, and are almost a non-factor in the North. Added to this, there seem to have been no protests against the Junta, as large as those that occurred before the Junta took power. So what has brought the attention of the west back to Thailand’s, almost traditional at this point, coup? The Huuuuungeeeeer Games! Sorry but I couldn’t help it.

                Articles from Wired, The Global Post, and Amnesty International, have all followed the same trend. Describe a surreal situation in which a salute from a movie has been re-purposed in a mirrored situation. Or at least this is the headline and the first paragraph: a shallow and plastic comparison of the dystopian government from the hit novel turned movie franchise and the actual real life coup. It does make for a good story, too bad it seems to lack any real attempt to educate. The articles largely glide over the small scale of the protests until the third or so paragraph and even then, they are much more interested in the catchy hand signal than a critical look at the issue. I read an article the other day that remarked that Thailand’s coup was systematic of South East Asia’s regression from democracy. It’s not at all. That’s just a good tag line. Thailand is a unique situation. It isn't indicative of anything but Thailand's own particular story. The military says that they took control because the elected government had become incapable of actually governing. This is not an ideal situation, but considers this: people we’re dying in the streets of Bangkok, and there was a non-military organization that was pushing against the government and questioning the validity of the results and the government’s ability to rule. The military did not hand over power to this group. To stop the fighting they took the current leaders from power which silenced the “people’s coup”, that was opposing the government. And everything has been safer now.

Some may causally throw out that Ben Franklin line “those who would sacrifice security for freedom deserve neither”, but think about this. Most people in Chiyaphom don’t care. Most people in Lampong don’t care. Most people in Thailand don’t care. Now if we were talking about the Royal family that would be a different issue. But most people already know that no matter what government is allowed to exist when the military returns the reigns, nothing will change for them. Their lives will continue along, as good or as bad as it was before. So the protests, which mostly interest a higher social class than most of Thailand only brought them the fear that comes with deaths in the street. This is different from Egypt or Burma. In Burma, if you’re Muslim right now, your life could be in danger if you catch the attention of a high ranking monk. So many uncounted atrocities are happening in that country because of the harsh and repressive social order. In Egypt, an equally powerful, but less favorable military has sided with a regressive government that is in many ways worse than the Mubarak regime. But the junta in Thailand is not randomly attacking any one social group, or siding with anyone in particular unfairly. They have taken some unsettling measures, like calling people into camps and making them promise not to speak out against the military, but it isn’t random people. It’s former government officials and others who have enough sway to restart the violence. They are putting peace over freedom (classical liberal freedom), which doesn’t sound good to Americans in particular (I’m not crazy about it myself), but we don’t always get to dictate to another country what is ok and what isn’t. We also shouldn’t sensationalize a real issue in an actual country because its gives us a better news headline. Thailand isn’t one of your thirteen districts. Sorry. 

On a side note, the only time I saw the Three finger salute was when my orientation leader raised it to get us to be quiet so he could give us direction. We laughed. Hopefully no one thought he was making some grand statement.     
Edit: Just want to be clear, my issue is with the sensationalism of media coverage on Thailand, and not any particular group. I hope that doesn't get lost in the post.  

     

Ideal Worlds versus Real Worlds and Giving the Scary Guys the Benefit of the Doubt

OK so this may be a controversial post, but probably not for the reasons you’d expect. I want to talk about the recent arrest of the former cabinet minister of the Thai government, as he denounced the coup. It’s an interesting conversation, because we Americans believe in Democracy to such an extent, that it seems like any breach of that democracy must have been done by malicious forces. I can tell you that I can’t find one piece of evidence to support this. For those not familiar with what happened Tuesday, AFP reported “Bangkok (AFP) - Thai soldiers swooped to detain a fugitive former cabinet minister on Tuesday after he emerged from hiding to become the first member of the ousted government to publicly denounce a military coup.” The former official held a press conference in which he stated his opinions openly about the coup. He knew that he would be arrested, and he still firmly believed that it was the right thing to do.

Here’s the thing, maybe he’s not wrong, but I also don’t think that the military is wrong. At least in Lampiog, there doesn't seem to be a negative view on the military. Even university students here, a demographic notorious for political angst, seem to see the military in a less negative light than many in the western media has portrayed them. As I walked next to a train station/ pop up market yesterday I saw military men in full uniform carrying automatic weapons. This, of course, can be disheartening or generally scary for American tourists. The two young Thai university girls with me, they took the opportunity to take selfies. They asked if I wanted to try and get one with a solider. I declined, though when I tell this story later in life I’ll fudge that part. That’s a humorous slant on a very serious issue but it is a reaction indicative of a general feeling. Thailand is not a violent place. There are low crime rates, and the popular sport Maui Thai (A mix of kick boxing and other fighting styles native to Thailand) is general disliked by Thais because of their feelings towards aggression. Overwhelmingly, it is foreigners who really enjoy and support the sport. But, during the protests people were actually dying here. From everything that I have seen of Thailand that doesn’t make sense.

So the military stepped in and seized power, not granting it to one side over the other through political-gainsmanship, rather they stepped in and removed both sides of the conflict. Now perhaps this move doesn’t make sense to Americans. But let’s give this some serious and critical thought. Both sides of the conflict seemed completely entrenched in the idea that their side was the legitimate voice in Thailand. In my last post, I talked about the necessity for someone to be willing to lose for a democracy to properly operate. In a situation in which both sides showed less than superb leadership to end the conflict peacefully for the sake of saving lives, there was a force whose whole mission is to protect a nation, that stood there with enough power to act, and what they say, was a legitimate reason to—to ensure peace only. This reminds me particularly of the Egyptian army.

 The Thai military didn’t really seize power, so to speak. They always had power. During the revolts in Egypt some questioned the role of the military really without thinking about a possible motive. Militaries are often painted as power hungry factions within foreign countries but neither the Thai nor Egyptian army are power hungry. I’m not saying that they are benevolent, but rather that they already held the largest share of power within their respective countries. The Egyptian army corners basically most of the major economic markets within Egypt and is the most stable organization within that country by far. This is similar to Thailand. In Thailand the military has not had to face the political drawbacks of democracy (unhappy citizenry entitled to a voice). The royal family enjoys a large amount of popularity as I have noted but though everyone seems to love the king and his daughter, there are those who worry about who will take over if the aging king passes. (Let me be clear to any possible Thai readers, this is not a criticism. This is simply a restatement of some of the things I have heard from the Thai people.) The military however, does not have to operate in such a strong feedback loop. In both Thailand and Egypt, the military has had really one motive: ensure stability regardless of the leader because that is their job, and to their advantage.

Often we good liberals can paint a reactionary and negative picture of military forces without really thinking about it critically (note I include myself in those that make this mistake). In truth, militaries were devised to organize a citizenry against a physical threat that looms too large for individuals to combat or police forces to police. Perhaps, one could object that these have to be external threats, but I think only the most radical of thinkers would object to the military in America, attacking credible threats of domestic terrorism or mass violence committed by citizens. If twenty people died in an American protest tomorrow, we would be clamoring for the National Guard to swoop in and restore order. What I’m saying is that, in an ideal world. Democracy and the agency it affords individuals should be cherished and held in the highest of regards. However, in a world in which two opposing political parties start killing each other, someone has to consider the right of impartial parties to ensure their security and life. I’m not taking a side here. I love democracy, but I’m just saying, it’s also nice to know that I won’t be caught in the cross-hairs of an unreasonable political actor.                  

Lastly I want to make two notes. First, everyone was asked by the military to turn themselves in for questioning, and some who complied have even been already released. He was already wanted, not because of his denouncements, in which he said “from now on there will be more and more resistance”, which was a poor choice of phrasing. Secondly, the curfew, that was already lax in enforcement, was eased today from 12(midnight) to 4(in the morning). Thanks for reading.