Democracy: Kasit & Prasong’s CIA Ties Hurt Thai Democracy

Does my vote count anymore to Americans?
I thought “Spy Games” was only a movie!

We would like to say thank you to Gallup Poll, Matichon Weekly, and Thai Rath

 

Note Terry/Tavivoot

  • In the Middle East, people there says the American government never was interested in Democracy and that American intervention is bad.
  • In Thailand, Hillary is planning to come out of Phuket, where the ASEAN meet is taking place, to meet the right wing Abisit at the government house-and that will be used as a “Stamp of Approve.”
  • The right wing in Thailand is against representative government and wants MPs and Senators appointed instead of elected-clearly an anti-open democratic process.
  • The ASEAN meet in Phuket, will establish the first ASEAN human rights commission-at the same time-Thais are being jailed, Internet censored, major media twisted for propaganda, a terrorist suspect is in the government cabinet, and Nationalism is taking Thais to the brink of war with Cambodia.
  • Thai politics is polarized into two major fraction and while Obama and Hillary preach non-intervention and dialog-the mear fact that Hillary is heading to Bangkok-is in itself an intervention. And while Hillary will talk to Abisit-there is no plans yet for a dialog with the opposition.
  • Local presee such as Matichon Weekly have said that Kasit, the Thai foreign minister who is being question for terrorist activity, is a very strong advocate of US interest. Other media has pointed to the fact that the Thai military, very much control still by the man at Thevese House, is the power behind the government.
  • The right hand man of the man at the Thevese House, is Prasong. Prasong is trained by the CIA and has a long history of supporting US interest in Thailand.
  • Many crucial question on trade and investment lies between US businessmen in Thailand and the Thai government-such as the question on nominee that limits US ownership on Thai business.
  • In sum, Hillary is intervening and not serious about democracy-and American business interest is on the line.
  • Perhaps the happiest guy in Thailand right now is Abisit, who went against public outcry to axe Kasit, kept him in place-and getting to meet Hillary at the government house in Bangkok and getting to endorse an ASEAN human rights accord.
  • Thai poll says 60% wants Kasit out because of police questioning Kais for terrorist activity, but Abisit kept him in place. That broke Abisit own words that politicians must have a moral character above what the law says.
  • Thaksin, the former PM of Thailand who is now in exile as a result of a coup, was kick out of office mainly because accusation that his moral character was not high enough-even when at that time, he faced no legal challenges.

Majority says U.S. not serious about encouraging democracy in region

by Mohamed Younis

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Obama administration reacted Monday to the final declaration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner of Iran’s disputed election with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton simply saying, “these internal matters are for Iranians themselves to address.” Such a stance may be welcomed by Iranians, 75% of whom in 2008 disagreed with the statement, “The U.S. will allow people in this region to fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct U.S. influence.”

While the Obama administration’s initial remarks to Iran’s post-election protests sparked some criticism from congressional leaders for being too timid in supporting the cause of post-election demonstrators, the president’s press conference on June 23 later condemned the government crackdown on protesters. In expressing its disapproval, the Obama administration has also rescinded invitations previously extended to Iranian diplomats for July 4 celebrations hosted in U.S. embassies in various countries.

In response to Obama’s comments, Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders likened Obama’s remarks to those made by President George W. Bush and his administration. Meanwhile, neither reform candidate Mir Hosseini Mousavi nor Mehdi Karroubi has backed down from his allegations of electoral fraud in last week’s election.

In 2008, even as the Bush administration continued its vocal support of some democratic movements and opposition activists throughout the Middle East, 80% of Iranians disagreed that the U.S. was serious about encouraging democracy in the region.

Other 2008 Gallup Polls in the region also revealed widespread skepticism. For example, when Gallup asked Egyptians, Lebanese, and Saudis about their opinion on the same statement in May 2008, 76%, 74%, and 72%, respectively, disagreed.

In 2008, Gallup also asked Iranians an open-ended question about what the U.S. should do to improve relations with the Muslim world. After “not to mock anything related to religion,” which 20% of respondents mentioned, “stop its pride and arrogance” (15%) and “stop its interference in internal affairs of Muslim countries” (11%) were among the most frequently mentioned actions.

Discussion

The skepticism that exists within Iran and the greater Middle East on U.S. seriousness in encouraging democracy or refraining from prohibiting people in the region from fashioning their own political future is unlikely the result of democracy promotion alone. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the over throw of Saddam Hussein’s government, a former U.S. ally, is no doubt a factor, as are U.S. and European policies of economic and political isolation in reaction to Hamas’ 2005 election victory in the Palestinian Territories.

That said, some analysts have suggested that U.S. leadership should avoid explicit endorsements of a particular political dissident or leader within the region because what is intended as an embrace of support, can often translate into the kiss of death for the domestic legitimacy of such individuals and movements among their local constituencies.

In his Cairo speech, Obama was praised throughout the region for acknowledging CIA intervention during the Cold War, leading to the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran. He implied that the U.S. should not be in the position of dictating to others what they must do in their own countries by saying “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” The current administration seems to recognize that the more U.S. leadership publically embraces opposition activity within the Islamic Republic, the more such movements and activists within them will be characterized as illegitimate to local people as foreign intervention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s