Skip to content

Gülen, Secularism and the Gaza-bound aid flotilla

By Guest – June 19, 2010

In 2008, when Prospect Magazine and Foreign Policy ran a poll to discover the world’s top public intellectual, few were familiar with the Turkish Sufi cleric, Fethullah Gülen, who topped the ranks. Since then, the Gülen movement has garnered media attention and attracted public curiosity. Below, Hafsa Rai, graduate of UCLA’s Middle Eastern Studies department and currently working as a public relations specialist at Pacifica Institute, a Turkish-American Institution in LA, explores the impact of Gulen’s surprising remarks criticizing the Gaza aid flotilla.

————–

Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish Islamic preacher, author and thinker. His works have inspired an eponymous international movement, which operates in the form of a close network of schools, TV channels, banks, and not-for-profit organizations across the world. The schools inspired by the Gülen movement offer both spiritual and scientific education. The not-for-profit organizations inspired by his teachings coordinate outreach work with local elected government officials and non-Muslim religious leaders with the intention of opening up channels of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue.

Gülen’s recent remarks criticizing the aid flotilla destined for Gaza came as a surprise to most of the people within the movement. In an interview with a US news organization, Gülen said that the flotilla organizers’ failure to reach an agreement with Israel before attempting to deliver aid was “a sign of defying authority, and will not lead to fruitful matters.” He added, “What I saw was not pretty. It was ugly.”

Initially, many alleged that he must have been misquoted, while others disregarded the remarks completely. Others were quick to point out that Gülen must have made these comments in order to remain on friendly terms with the US government. He does, after all, identify himself as “America’s Guest” (Gulen is in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania). Turkish nationalists and secularists took the same comments and claimed that they illustrated that Gülen was an agent of the CIA. Such non-patriotic, anti-Turkish comments could only be uttered by someone who hates Turkey and “Turkishness,” their argument ran.

Perhaps the biggest shock was reserved for the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been passionately defending the work of the flotilla and vowing vengeance upon Israel. (Erdogan is widely believed to be a Gülen follower, although Gülen himself attests that he has no alliances in the government.) Erdogan’s passionate speeches in defense of the Gaza-bound flotilla come into direct conflict with Gulen’s remarks, indicating that there is a deepening rift within the religious establishment in Turkey.

In the light of recent accusations against Erdogan, Gülen’s decision to remain on the sidelines of the affair appears politically wise. If the Israeli Haaretz is to be believed, “Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan knew in advance that activists aboard a Gaza-bound aid flotilla planned to attack Israeli troops, Israeli intelligence officials have said.” The article goes on to say, “Files found on laptops owned by IHH [the Turkish aid group behind the flotilla] members pointed at strong ties between the movement and Turkey’s prime minister. Some of the activists even said that Erdogan was personally involved in the flotilla’s preparations.” Even though evidence linking the two is yet to be found, Gülen’s strategy to distance himself from this affair appears reasonable.

Activities that so brazenly defy authority go against Gülen’s basic teaching of peace and dialogue. Muslims under the Gülen movement are considered ambassadors of the broader Muslim community who are required to be friendly and non-combative. For instance, the not-for-profit organizations under the Gülen movement are not allowed to take political stances. Insiders say that is because these organizations are not reactionary; their aim is to promote dialogue and open up the channels of communication. These aims would be unfulfilled if these same organizations started political posturing.

The Gülen movement could be viewed as a contemporary version of Naqshbandi Sufi tradition which has strong roots in Turkish history and society. It is their influence on political power that matters. Banks, schools, insurance companies, broadcasting ventures etc. allow them to survive without state patronage, thus becoming a self-sustaining capitalist venture. Their non-political character leaves them without access to means of coercion available to state and government, hence non-violence and peaceful co-existence becomes both a compulsion and a policy option.

Detractors of the Gülen movement will say that this non-combative posture is only exercised because Gülen wants his followers to appear non-threatening so that they can gain the trust of the communities in which they operate and can then easily, eventually, open up the gates of Islamic proselytizin. These kinds of accusations against the movement find their support because, as the NYT argues in a recent article, “In Turkey, where the movement is strong, Mr. Gülen’s supporters display a kind of cult-like devotion. A veil of secrecy surrounds the workings and leadership hierarchy of the movement.”

The Gülen establishment, for its part, has its own set of allegations against the secularists. Enter Ergenekon, an allegedly clandestine organization with ultra-nationalistic and Kemalist views. Its members in the military are accused of having plans to organize a military coup in order to overthrow the AKP government, led by Erdogan.

As Al Jazeera reports:

“The suspected plot, codenamed “Cage,” allegedly involved plans to carry out bomb attacks in minority-populated neighborhoods, notably Armenian, in the cities of Istanbul and Izmir, and to kidnap and assassinate prominent community members there. The accused reportedly intended to blame the violence on Islamic fundamentalists and create the impression that the AKP encouraged religious extremism, hoping to pave the way for the party’s overthrow.”

Like any government looking to cement its hold on power, the AKP government took full advantage of the Ergenekon plot and started “targeting academics, journalists and writers known as AKP critics.” Some Kemalists claim that the Ergenekon affair was fabricated to enable the government to weaken the military establishment, the last bastion of secularism in Turkey.

The silver lining here is that Turkey is slowly but surely emerging as a dominant Middle Eastern power, thanks to its newfound Muslim bent and the Gülen Movement. The Daily Star’s Rami Khoury puts it best:

“The development of a stronger regional diplomatic role for Turkey, allowing it to operate with credibility and integrity among Israelis, Arabs, Iranians and Western powers, has reflected a brand of self-confident national assertion that in turn is anchored in that combination of attributes that Turkey alone enjoys in the entire Middle East: genuine nationalism, stable and strong statehood, economic and military power, democratic and constitutional governance, public secularism and private Islamism.”

Posted in Uncategorized.

No comments

No Blood for Lithium…?

By Brian Jungwiwattanaporn – June 15, 2010

As I consider the karmic implications of engaging in a war for oil in Iraq while later confronting the BP disaster in the Gulf Of Mexico, this week’s news on a possible one trillion dollar treasure hoard of resources in Afghanistan brings my internal idealist and realist head to head. While No War for Lithium lacks a certain cache (although the alternative No Blood for Lithium may work), various commentaries question both the timing of the announcement as well as the implications for Afghanistan’s development. I especially liked Amity Shlaes article on Bloomberg and Blake Hounshell’s blog post on Foreign Policy on the issue.

While the resources are a potential boon to Afghanistan, I can hear extraction companies salivating over the potential profits. The articles listed above explain the resource course and reasons why Afghanistan may not benefit, and indeed may stand to lose over the discovery. The prospect of “conflict lithium” much like blood diamonds may mark our digital era with various armed groups in Afghanistan open to new sources of income. While many US based articles seem to think that all of these potential profits (based on guesses…) will flow to American companies with their biggest concern being competition from China, the benefits for the average citizen of Afghanistan seemed to be left out of the debate. While I am sure the corporate social responsibility wing of any of the extraction companies will build the feel good requisite schools (along with sizable infrastructure investments to and from mining sites…and hey roads are a good thing), the lack of strong accountability structures in Afghanistan along with rule of law mean the potential capital investments will be offset by environmental degradation (if extraction companies do not have their act together in the US, how will they act in countries with even less oversight?). Further looking at how other extractive industries have acted with impunity (such as in the conflict of the Nigerian delta), the average citizen looks to see new forces scrabbling over their land with themselves caught in between.

What does the discovery mean for the US commitment? The sense, much like in Iraq, is that resources can be extracted by American countries offsetting the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction. However, again, where will profits go? Not to Afghanistan’s people, but to whomever we outsource to in order to protect whichever extractive industry is in operation. Or if further security (aren’t we supposed to withdraw..eventually?) is not provided by unaccountable contractors, I can’t help to think of our history in Central America, but instead of running down to Guatemala to protect the Dole company’s bananas we will be forced to protect the investments of extractive corporations.

While Afghanistan lacks the capacity to develop the resources themselves, they also lack the capacity to oversee the development of resources given official corruption. How can the US and Afghanistan “do right” by the citizens there? Furthermore, how has this news reinforced perceptions about America’s role in the region? The potential for job creation for ordinary people remains a hope, but the current track record of fragile nations finding resources is rather poor. Considering that peace and stability have yet to be achieved, we can dream in the interim that Afghanistan’s people can have a choice in how their resources are used along with how to develop their country.

Posted in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

US TIP Report 2010 released…

By Brian Jungwiwattanaporn – June 15, 2010

With the release of the 2010 US State Department Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report yesterday, it’s an apt time to focus on one of the transnational issues that does not garner the same attention as climate change, oil spills, war, trade, and so on. Skimming the report, reading about the countries I visit and work on during my travels, it provides a sense of the scale of trafficking along with actions taken by different countries as well as recommendations for action. While it is informative it also stirs up a round of criticism every year; no country likes to be known as a haven for trafficking. What makes this year special though is that the United States reported on itself. Placing itself under the microscope is laudable, but transnational problems require cross – border solutions.

People will migrate. They will also engage in risky migration practices in order to escape poverty (of income, or opportunity) to seek better lives elsewhere. This of course leaves many people exposed to the dangers of trafficking and later exploitation, including slavery in its various forms. While many countries have subscribed to UN protocols to address trafficking, stronger action (and thus, commitment of resources) needs to be taken on the issue. According to the report, 12.3 million people are in forced labour around the world. Although many international organizations and NGOs work to address these issues, further commitment by the U.S. will provide the issue with the weight and resources necessary to address it effectively.

The report will stir up criticism, and while it may be perceived as an instrument for chastising nations, the U.S. can use it to build partnerships with several countries where our relationships are flagging.

Posted in Obama Administration.

No comments

Breaking News: There are links between the ISI and Taliban

By Niloufer Siddiqui – June 15, 2010

To say that the Pakistani military and intelligence service have been engaged in “double-dealings” with the Afghan Taliban is hardly a controversial or contested statement today. Even Pakistani officials would grudgingly admit to some level of contact by “rogue elements.” Disagreement arises, of course, in determining the extent of the illicit relationship as it exists today (in the post-9/11 scenario).

Matt Waldman’s recent report for the London School of Economics’ Crisis States Research Center, “The Sun in the Sky: The Relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan insurgents,” provides one account. He alleges, in no uncertain terms, that the ISI, Pakistan’s premier spy agency, “orchestrates, sustains and strongly influences” the Taliban movement and “provides huge support in terms of training, funding, munitions, and supplies.”

Most striking of the allegations is that the policy of supporting the Taliban has been approved by the highest levels of the civilian government, ie. by President Zardari. Waldman writes:

According to a Talib who has regular contact with members of the Quetta Shura, in late March or early April this year President Zadari and a senior ISI official visited some 50 high-ranking Talibs who were held in a prison in a secret location in Pakistan. Some 30-35 had been arrested in recent months, and 10-15 were longer-term prisoners. Reportedly, he told them they were arrested because he was under a lot of pressure from the Americans and that, ‘you are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations.’

Despite the Pakistani penchant for a good conspiracy theory, Waldman’s report, and this account in particular, has come under scalding criticism from many local analysts and journalists. Even Ahmed Rashid, whose work Waldman relied on in his report, contested the findings, saying, “”It doesn’t make any sense to me. The last person the Taliban would want to see is Asif Zardari.”

An American official was quoted in same article as saying, “The ISI makes life difficult for us in many ways. But this would be a step too far.” My views exactly.

Ultimately, the report regurgitates mostly pre-existing and well-known claims, and fails to provide substantial evidence for the new allegations which it does put forward (and uses the word “apparently” an annoying number of times. It also doesn’t help that Waldman misspells Zardari throughout the report, referring to “Zadari” instead.)

Still, while I remain skeptical of the veracity of some of Waldman’s claims, I do agree with one of his central policy prescriptions:

“The only sure way to secure such cooperation is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India.”

A regional solution to Afghanistan is key, particularly with the looming American retreat from the country. The manner in which Pakistan views its own strategic concerns vis-à-vis India, whether or not the international community believes that this is merely an unhealthy obsession, is significant. Thus, India-Pak relations, including the intractable Kashmir conflict – both the discontent they have caused among Muslims in South Asia and their impact on Pakistan’s geo-strategic designs, undercutting the progress that needs to be made on the Afghan border – is intricately intertwined with peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is pertinent to recall that many of the insurgent groups in Pakistan now lumped as Taliban or Al Qaeda-supporting once consisted of smaller, more locally-based organizations, many of which had been historically concerned with Kashmir. Aryn Baker wrote in Time Magazine in November 2008, “Until Pakistan is secure in its relationship with India, it will continue to believe that its interests are best advanced through clandestine support of the Taliban and other elements that destabilize Afghanistan.”

Now, how to go about arriving at Indo-Pak peace? I think I’ll let Brian or Sean address that in one of their upcoming posts. . .

Posted in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

1 comment

Human Rights Violations & the FATA Insurgency

By Niloufer Siddiqui – June 13, 2010

As Brian attests to in his post below, the Poets and Policymakers crew are back from their unofficial hiatus. Celebrate, read and comment away!

In a 130-page report issued by Amnesty International last week, the world-renowned organization alleged that nearly 4 million Pakistanis are living under Afghan-style Taliban rule in the tribal belt, and are subject to human rights violations at the hands of both the military and the Taliban.

Evocatively entitled “As if Hell Fell on Me: The Human Rights Crisis in NorthWest Pakistan,” the report condemns the Pakistan Taliban for systematically targeting civilians and civilian property and using disproportionate force against the military. At the same time, it takes both the Pakistani and US governments to task for treating FATA and NWFP as “geostrategic assets only, without due consideration for the welfare of the people.” More than 1,300 civilians were killed in the region in 2009 as a result of this conflict.

Not surprisingly, following a tried and true pattern, the Pakistan government has responded with a strong denial and rebuttal of the “unfortunate and incorrect” report. Minister for Information Qaira questioned the evidence presented against the government forces and claimed that civilian casualty figures had never been concealed. Interestingly, liberal Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Times, also questioned the report’s findings, arguing that while a humanitarian crisis may be underway in the tribal belt, this was merely “an indicator of an ongoing struggle in the tribal areas” and that the military offensives in the region have finally gotten things back “on the right track.”

The Amnesty report, based on interviews conducted with 300 people, is significant in bringing global attention to the humanitarian and human rights angle of a crisis usually viewed merely from a strategic lens. The quote with which the report begins is particularly telling, because it reminds a divided populace of the murky and messy nature of loyalties in the region: “If we stand with the government the Taleban will hit us. If we stand with the Taleban the government will target us.” As easy as it is to vilify an ill-defined category from a distance, what determines who is a “militant” is hardly a straightforward endeavor.

The report makes two distinct criticisms of the Pakistan government. First, it condemns the government and military for human rights violations during the operations, including extrajudicial killings and violations of the rights of detainees, as well as failure to meet the needs of IDPs. Second, it argues that the Pakistan government has failed to ensure adequate socio-economic development in the region. Social indicators in FATA are dismally low, with even the most generous statistics of female literacy reaching only 8%.

Exploring possible answers to the situation in the tribal areas raises the principle dichotomy of bringing into line both short-term and long-term goals and solutions. For instance, Amnesty’s suggestion to repeal the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) of 1901 (the barbaric legal regime which still governs the FATA) is of course necessary, but even if the Government of Pakistan were to do so tomorrow, what real impact would it have on daily life in the tribal areas? On the insurgency? The Political Parties Act does need to be extended to FATA, to help bring this belt into the mainstream of the country, but even if were to be extended, the tense security situation ensures that political party activity is still decades away.

Nonetheless, what the report makes clear is that no semblance of international law is being adhered to in this lawless region. Amnesty International’s report has been released at a significant juncture, if only to remind all those vehemently and blindly in favor of the military operations in the FATA that such operations must be conducted with a long-term strategy in mind for consolidating government control and rule-of-law and with the best interests of the civilians at the forefront. Because isn’t that who we are there to protect in the first place?

Posted in Afghanistan & Pakistan, human rights.

Tagged with , .

No comments

Killing in the Name of…

By Brian Jungwiwattanaporn – June 11, 2010

It’s been awhile since I’ve sat down to write, a confluence of work, travel, and family has left our beloved blog to wither…but hope springs eternal and a quick trip to the BBC has left me outraged and ready to comment on U.S. foregin policy again.

Yet another article on US drone attacks in Pakistan. Once again, the language mystifies me. President Obama made few quibbles about the spill over of the war in Afghanistan into neighboring Pakistan, nor did he trouble himself to criticize drone attacks during his presidential campaign. While tough talk at the time, what of the outcome? A BBC headline reading “US Drone ‘kills 10 suspected militants’ in Pakistan,” captures much of the problem with our policy towards Pakistan today.

The United States’ undeclared war in Pakistan isn’t helping. It destabilizes the country (a nuclear one at that…), punishes the countryside, and provides moderate politicians who may be favorable to the United States with a whole lot of nothing. While the war against Afghanistan’s people (isn’t that what it is?) looks to continue, preventing spill over into Pakistan remains our greatest challenge.

While the U.S. military establishment seems intent on replaying the Vietnam War’s Phoenix Program (criticized as an assassination project), drone attacks killing “suspected militants” could easily read drone attacks killed innocent civilians. Death from afar, while politically viable for U.S. citizens, has no accountability. While civilian deaths due to drones can be shifted to faulty intelligence, who is responsible, who is to blame when civilians are killed? Killing people suspected of anything isn’t reason enough to kill someone. Sending explosives at high velocities to kill individual targets tend to indiscriminately kill others as well. Any perceived tactical gains are being unravelled by the very real anger and disappointment of the U.S. in Pakistan. How can we succeed in supporting and helping to stabilize the region if we are killing with impunity?

It is apparent that the U.S. can not contain the conflict to Afghanistan (the military refers to the area as AfPak for a reason – we seem content to view two different countries with different sets of challenges as a similar problem, although yes the ease of combatants crossing over porous borders is an issue). While applying military force is a solution, it isn’t the only solution. After the 2009 election in Afghanistan, it should be readily apparent the President Karzai’s grasp on power is tenuous at best. Investing more in political solutions on both sides of the border needs to take greater priority. While the U.S. has been keen to back individual personalities (the word puppets isn’t polite and disregards a leader’s own motivations and ambitions), the big picture, is that one day we will leave (unless we outsource our occupations to Blackwater, oops…XE, and the rest for the next (several?) decades), and what will be our legacy?

Navigating the byzantine layers of politics in Pakistan and Afghanistan will not be easy, nor will negotiating with people who identify with and subscribe to violence while using religion for legitimacy. However, finding political solutions with long term sustainability is more likely to pay off than killing people in Pakistan’s countryside suspected of being militants.

Posted in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

Thailand Crisis – End of the Chapter, Not the Story

By Brian Jungwiwattanaporn – May 23, 2010

Picking up the pieces after the two month rally in the center of Bangkok, the focus is largely on material destruction. People weep over the burning of a mall, while the protestors are herded onto buses and trains to return to their provincial homes. The human cost in terms of lives lost, injured, and jobs has been calculated while the trauma and impact of the event has yet to settle into our psyche. While Bangkok remains dynamic and the physical scars of the protest and resulting government attack will no doubt be glossed over within a few months, the underlying issues surrounding the protest have yet to be resolved.

As protestors climbed onto their buses to return home, the overwhelming sense is one of “we will be back, this isn’t over.” A political solution remains elusive, and the sense of anger and disappointment have grown. While a compromise may have been reached, the use of military force by the government, while celebrated by people in the city, will further alienate the government from the countryside where government buildings have been torched. The murder of red leader “Seh Daeng,” also raises questions about the government’s policy of assassinating its own citizens (although truth be told, it is inconclusive who pulled the trigger or who gave the orders). While there was certainly a hard core wing of the red shirt movement that advocated violence, the failure to address red shirt moderates or give them adequate time to shape the movement was a failure of leadership on both sides. While Bangkok is quiet this weekend due to the curfew, it is only a matter of time, before the red shirt movement reconfigures itself.

I remember after the 2006 coup in Thailand, a Vietnamese government official remarked to me along the lines of “What? You want us to be like that?!” For the region and U.S. efforts at democracy promotion, the red shirt protest is a setback. While the demonstration showed how robust Thai civil society is, it is also an example of how messy democracy and relatively free societies can become. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar can (and do) point to the Thai example as a risky way to govern. Democracy advocates in those countries will have greater difficulty in finding a strong functioning democracy in mainland Southeast Asia with which to advocate their governments. If Thailand can navigate its political crisis while pushing economic growth, then it remains an example to its neighbors. However, at this moment, the regimes of various countries in the region can continue to look and promote their own repressive governments as successful.

Posted in Southeast Asia, Thailand.

No comments

More trouble in Burma on the horizon…

By Brian Jungwiwattanaporn – April 23, 2010

The potential for conflict in Burma/Myanmar is looking to rise again. With this year’s election looming, attention has focused on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party the NLD. Ethnic conflict, ever present in Myanmar, looks to start again over between the Tatmadaw (the Burmese military) and armed ethnic forces, particularly the United Wa State Army (USWA). The Burmese military junta desires the inclusion of the Wa army into its structure by becoming part of Myanmar’s Border Guard Force (BGF) which would mean Burmese military officers are placed in the lower end of the Wa army’s command structure. With the deadline to the agreement passing this week, the justification for an attack on the Wa may gain favor with the junta. The uneasy peace between the two groups has been mutually profitable with the Wa pursuing the drug trade, and the Burmese army able to focus on less pliant groups. Last year’s Kokang incident saw refugees stream across the border to China as the Burmese military attacked a small ethnic army. With a reported 20,000 troops, the Wa are not likely to go as quickly or quietly, especially with linkages to other armed ethnic groups in the area such as the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO).

An overriding goal of the Burmese military since the country’s inception is national unity within its borders. The army has shown no hesitation to attack those deemed enemies. Although the Kokang incident made international headlines, almost daily violence is chronicled by organizations such as the Karen Human Rights Group. If the Wa decide to thumb their nose at the junta, violence looks likely. China remains the unknown, with close links the Wa they may act as a deterrent, but with the junta’s disdain of foreign influence, they may assert their forces regardless of what China may say.

An article in the Irrawaddy caught my eye today. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is appealing for moderate members of the military to join with the people and ethnic groups to dispose of the current regime. While appealing to moderate members is a workable policy, trying to cement unity in Burma by calling for it externally is fruitless. Although I’m glad to see Burma still on the U.S. agenda, saying we stand by the people provides little succor, while using words like patriotism shows little understanding of the divides and nuances that exist in Burma. It remains to be seen whether the various armed ethnic groups can or want to come together or that a Burmese state would exist outside of the army forcing it together. If Congressman Rohrabacher is serious about the issues in Burma, he should look to the concrete steps he can take to support its many people living in refugee camps across Thailand and Bangladesh. What remains to be seen is whether the congressman’s statement heralds the ending to the U.S. policy of engagement.

Posted in Southeast Asia.

Tagged with .

No comments

Red Shirt Protest in Thailand

By Brian Jungwiwattanaporn – April 22, 2010

I can constantly hear the thrum of megaphones in my office – 100 meters away from the main protest site of the red shirts in Bangkok, Thailand. Over the past weeks I’ve been able to see their tent city grow. While red shirt leaders provide hyperbolic commentary on the Thai government, poles, awnings, and sleeping areas have been established. The skywalk area has also been fenced off by the reds and protestors drying their laundry along the area’s railings is a common sight. As I jump next door for lunch in a cavernous shopping center, almost all stores are shut. I eat at the food court while office workers continue to patronize Starbucks and the red shirts can be see milling about in McDonald’s McAirConditioning. Despite the tension in the air, there is a certain cling to normalcy to be found.

The protest has demonstrated it’s staying power and the protest site has become a village with everyday routines. Tensions have been increasing daily. With the army now occupying the Silom business district and Bangkok citizens starting to express their anger and frustration, a peaceful, non – violent solution continues to slip through the fingers of Thailand’s leaders. Caught in a “who will blink first situation,” it seems the willingness to use force has become the only viable option as each side has upped their rhetoric. Prime Minister Abhisit has done no favors by labeling some protestors ‘terrorists’ (although yes, there are paid thugs in the group), and the red shirts continue to spew invectives against the government. Although there are pleas for Thai unity (a laughable one being screened before movies in some cinema chains), more often than not each site prefers to dehumanise each other and criticize viewpoints through satire and dismissal. The two sides are no longer able to listen to each other due to personal biases and poor leadership which has painted both sides into a corner. The politics of compromise have succumbed to a zero sum game, and the people on the streets are likely to suffer as a result.

There are a few lessons to learn from this whole episode.

First, is that Thai politicians never die. The last week has seen a host of former prime ministers and politicos come out of the woodwork offering their help and looking for opportunities (or notoriety). Chavalit, Somchai, Chamlong, Chuan, et al. offering mediation, solutions, threats make me reflect that regardless of the outcome, 5 years from now, the same politicians and leaders that have caused the current mess will be well available to create future messes as well.

Thai unity is a pipe dream. I don’t want to be overly academic, but Benedict Anderson’s idea of imagined communities is spot on in the case of Thailand. The carefully crafted notion of one Thai has never stood scrutiny. Nation, religion, and king still play a major role in Thai identity, but as people express their individuality (or at least regional identity within Thailand both in the Southern conflict and the current protests), the government needs to find new ways of being inclusive. The non red shirts of Bangkok have successfully co opted the symbols of flag and king, but at the expense of the ideas of unity and compromise. The current impasse requires a political solution, but even the short term solution of House dissolution fails to address the cultural divide between forces in Thai society. Although the red shirts are continued to be regarded as an aberrant force paid for by ex – prime minster Thaksin, many have legitimate grievances about the current state of power in Thailand.

Every night as I go to sleep I find myself hoping that nothing will happen at night to either the protestors or soldiers currently calling Bangkok’s streets home. I find it troubling that the leadership on both sides of the divide lack the courage and imagination to find a peaceful resolution. As a school teacher in a past life we used to give time outs to angry students in the hope that their senses would prove the better of them. Unfortunately, real violence looks likely. It’s sad to see that the transfer of power in Thailand is becoming rooted in street protest and civil unrest. However, judging by the heated conversations, protests, counter protests, twitter feeds, and facebook, civic engagement is at an all time high.

Posted in Thailand.

No comments

The Day the Music Died in Mogadishu

By Sean Brooks – April 14, 2010

(Crossposted at Brains Like a Shoe)

The New York Times reports that at least 14 radio stations in Mogadishu stopped broadcasting music on Tuesday, “heeding an ultimatum by an Islamist insurgent group to stop playing songs or face ’serious consequences.’”

Because of these threats from Hizb Islam, the director of one of the radio stations said:

We have replaced the music of the early morning program with the sound of the rooster, replaced the news music with the sound of the firing bullet and the music of the night program with the sound of running horses…It was really a crush. We haven’t had time to replace all the programs at one time; instead, we have chosen these sounds.

In solidarity with the people of Somalia and music lovers there especially, I thought it would be an appropriate time to highlight Somali rap phenomenon, K’naan.  The powerful lyrics from his song entitled “Somalia” help paint the painful, oftentimes grotesque, and heroic stories of his people:

This is where the streets have no name and the drain of sewage

You can see it in the boy how the hate is brewin’

‘Cause when his tummy tucks in, fuck, the pain is fluid

So what difference does it make entertaining, threw it

Some getting high mixing coke and gun powder, sniffin’

She got a gun, but could have been a model or physician

Have a listen…

Posted in Somalia.

Tagged with , , .

1 comment