In Thailand, an elected, “populist” leader with peasant support was deposed on Sept. 19 in a military coup tied to the monarchy. This was followed by international condemnation of the restriction on basic democratic rights, and widespread media coverage of protestors defying a ban on political assembly.
The recent headlines on this story surely caught the eye of every progressive person. And on the surface, the above
|
While Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in New York City at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, the Thai military took control of Bangkok.
Led by a recently fired Thai military commander, Lieutenant General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, they immediately announced loyalty to the king, suspended the constitution and elected government, declared martial law, shut down television and phone service, and effectively outlawed political assembly by imposing a ban of gatherings of more than five people.
Touted as a “bloodless coup,” no shots were fired, but the accession to power did include a massive military presence of tanks and soldiers in the city that still remains.
With headlines following the coup like “SingTel’s strategy not affected by Thai coup: new CEO,” “Business as usual in Bangkok’s red light district,” “‘Coup, what coup?’ ask Thailand’s sun-seekers,” and “Bangkok’s new airport opens after coup,” the events have clearly had little impact on business in Thailand. The banks closed for one day, but then they reopened and business proceeded.
Organized opposition to the coup has been limited to gatherings of about 100 people or less, mainly university students who oppose both the coup and Thaksin—their slogan is “No to Thaksin, No to the Coup.” Though some sentiment favoring Thaksin’s policies and disapproving of the coup can be found in media interviews in the rural parts of the country, these comments have been muted and disconnected from active protest.
What class does Thaksin represent?
Elected in 2001 and then reelected in 2005, Prime Minister Thaksin was widely considered to be the most popular individual political figure in Thailand’s history. Imperialists viewed him as a good friend and the potential “face” of capitalist growth in Asia under neo-colonial domination.
He simultaneously carried through on pre-election promises to improve the situation of the country’s long exploited
|
In January 2006, Thaksin sold his family’s controlling stake in Shinawatra Company, or Shin Corp, to Singapore’s state investment company, Temasek Holdings, for $1.9 billion without paying any taxes on the sale.
Protests, including street demonstrations reportedly drawing more than 100,000 people, began among the urban petty bourgeoisie and students over the tax issue. People were also upset that the company was sold to a foreign government.
Yet, Thaksin’s popularity among his poor urban and rural base remained high. When in court over the tax issue, he would speak over the head of the judge, directly appealing to his supporters, who also held demonstrations, though they received scant media coverage.
While a member of the Thai national bourgeoisie himself—his founding of Shin Corp in the late 1980s made him a billionaire—his overthrow has been welcomed by economic elites. To the extent that support for Thaksin has been expressed since the coup, it has come from rural and urban poor.
The Sept. 24 Washington Post noted his “unparalleled popularity among the nation’s largest block of voters—the poor.” The Post quoted a street vendor from Bangkok who described the impact that Thaksin’s health care and social service policies had for her family, saying “he was the first one who ever cared about us.” The BBC on Oct. 2 featured an interview with a farmer who similarly described the impact on his life and his village, saying that his “policies helped us so much.”
These policies included a health care program requiring the payment of only U.S. $0.75 per visit, debt cancellation, and a development fund of $25,000 per village. Reportedly, since the coup, patients seeking treatment under Thaksin’s health care system have been turned down by doctors, and thus, have not been able to afford medical treatment.
At the same time as he was implementing these policies that improved the lives of workers and farmers, in June 2004, Thaksin began negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with the U.S. government. The agreement would sacrifice poor people’s access to health care and would harm Thai farmers in the same way that NAFTA hurt Mexican farmers.
Protests against the U.S.-Thailand FTA drew over 10,000 people at the last negotiations in January. They forced a change in the negotiations site after the meetings were disrupted.
This FTA is part and parcel of the close economic and military relationship that Thailand has had with the United States dating back to World War II, a relationship that had continued under Thaksin’s government. Situated in the heart of the Indochina peninsula, Thailand is strategically located from a military point of view.
The country is considered a key ally for the United States and Europe in Asia. Direct military cooperation dates to the use of the Royal Thai Navy Air Base by the U.S. military from 1961-1975 during the Vietnam War. Subsequently, Thailand has hosted joint military exercises between the United States and its allies in Asia.
While Thaksin was prime minister, Thailand became integral to the “forward positioning” strategy of the Pentagon. This has included allowing the U.S. military to use its bases for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly also for interrogations in the “war on terror.”
The side of the working class
The U.S. government’s first response to the coup was to make statements about “upholding” democracy. It soon went further by suspending $24 million in military assistance.
While U.S. government talk of “democracy” is understood as nothing more than lip service by those familiar with its
|
So, why is the U.S. government interested in the events of the past two weeks?
An article in Investor’s Business Daily on Sept. 19, entitled “Thailand: An Ally We Can’t Lose,” made the government’s case very clearly: From an economic and military point of view, Thaksin was a friend to U.S. political and economic interests. The leaders of the coup, in contrast, are considered unknowns.
The U.S. government prefers to be the engineer of coups that overthrow democratically elected governments and impose military rule—as it was in Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973, to name just two examples. But in this case, the uncertainty about its relationship with a longtime ally handed it an opponent, at least for now.
The U.S. capitalist class has no desire to lose or even risk their relationship with the eighth largest economy in Asia. In 2004, there was $24 billion in two-way commerce between the countries. This relationship is now in question and the FTA negotiations are on hold. Also uncertain is the fate of a deadline for transnational companies to bid on a part of a $43.8 billion contract earmarked for public works, an opportunity Thaksin set up for the imperialists.
On balance, even though some of his domestic policies did provide concrete improvement in the lives of Thailand’s working class and peasantry—improvements jeopardized by the coup, along with basic bourgeois civil liberties—Thaksin fundamentally represented capitalist interests in Thailand and internationally. The coup most likely means a move to the right, but it is a move within the confines of the Thai bourgeoisie’s rule.
Alteration to the form of government will have some affect on the lives of the majority of Thailand’s people. But what they ultimately need is a change to the economic system, something this coup does not affect. They need true representation of their class interests, not simply a bourgeois politician who is willing to give them a little more for a period of time.
“Thai” literally means “free” or “independent,” an appropriate name for a people with a long history of opposing foreign intervention. The Thai people take pride in the fact that Thailand is the only country in east Asia to have retained its formal independence and have never to come under direct colonial or imperialist rule.
That history and spirit of struggle continues to run deeply through the veins of the working class and peasantry. Although disengaged from the bourgeois political turmoil of the past weeks and months, inevitably they will take center stage and determine their own destiny.
