International reaction to Thailand’s recent bloodless coup d’etat has been overwhelmingly negative. This is unsurprising – being deposed in such a way is hardly an appealing thought to any politician. However, I think the coup, while undemocratic, is probably a genuinely good thing for Thailand’s democracy. It may not have been an inspiring display of people power like the “colour revolutions,” but it appears to have been motivated by concern about ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra posing a threat to the rule of law, and it has some popular legitimacy due to the support of the King. Shinawatra was a billionaire populist who profited enormously from regulations that his own government pushed through. His corrupt actions threatened the stability and legitimacy of Thailand’s government. I think Prime Ministerial corruption is inexcusable.

The Council on Foreign Relations put out an excellent short analysis, “Like Old Times in Bangkok”. It links to a prescient piece about the southern insurgency:

A paper published last year by the Center for Contemporary Conflict traces the history of Muslim rebellion in southern Thailand, predicting that if Thaksin’s government could not end the most recent insurgency, violence would “provoke an authoritarian backlash in the political system.”

Populist Shinawatra had a counterproductive, heavy-handed approach to fighting the insurgency, while the new military rulers – led by a Muslim general – advocate a more moderate approach, which had been successful in quelling insurgency in the decades before Shinawatra’s election. Under Shinawatra, shadowy insurgent groups looted hundreds of weapons from state armouries before beginning a campaign which left over 1700 dead. The advanced construction of their bombs, with prepaid cellphones acting as remote detonators, has fuelled speculation of links to Jemaah Islamiyah, the South-East Asian group responsible for the Bali bombings. If the Bali attacks were to be repeated in Phuket, for example, the Thai tourism industry would be devastated.

Fighting a shadowy insurgent group poses particular challenges to any government. The pressure of fighting a non-state group leads to a paradox of weakness, as Martin van Creveld pointed out:

In other words, he who fights against the weak — and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed — and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish.

While fighting against a strong state enemy encourages political unity, war against a non-state group, even a small, weak one, causes political tensions far worse than those currently afflicting New Zealand politics. Israel’s war against Hezbollah caused political crisis. The Vietnam war resulted in riots and bombings in American cities. Algeria’s war came close to causing civil war in France. In Thailand, the insurgency sparked a bloodless coup. It could have been far worse.

On a lighter note, Coming Anarchy has a great photo of schoolgirls posing with Bangkok’s latest tourist attraction – armed soldiers. Can’t wait to see Cactus Kate’s photos (“You’re Next, Helen…) when she returns from her conference in Bangkok!

Posted by Phil on Monday, September 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pm.