In conclusion..

.. (for now):



Think I'm going to miss Tony Cheng.

Anyway.. BBC has an extraordinary summation, that also explains a lot of the background better than I ever did. If you're confused and curious, read the whole thing:

Three years of intractable political conflict are taking a debilitating toll on Thailand. Emotions are now very raw.

Some of the ugliest scenes in recent days did not involve the army; they occurred when local residents came out to confront the rampaging red-shirts. Shots were fired, two people died, and some were savagely beaten.

It is difficult to explain why Thailand, a country once seen as a paragon of stability and social harmony, has become so polarised.

The division between Red and Yellow cuts across many lines; it is not simply just rural-versus-urban, or poor-versus-rich. Spend long enough with either group and you meet people from very varied backgrounds.

....

[But...]

Go to a red-shirt rally and you will hear the same mantra; "We are grass-roots people, fighting for democracy, against the ruling class".

Go to a yellow-shirt rally and you will almost inevitably hear a different mantra; "We are educated people, fighting against corrupt politicians who abuse democracy".

There appear to be no towering, Obama-like figures in Thailand, who can win the respect of both camps. Certainly not [Prime Minister] Abhisit, who often looks uncomfortably out of place in the rural, red heartlands of the north and north-east.

How he deals with the leaders of the "red uprising" now - and how that compares with the treatment given to last year's "yellow uprising" - will be an important test of his promise to uphold the rule of law impartially.

So the conflict which erupted so spectacularly in Bangkok and Pattaya over the past week will probably rumble on, steadily eroding the confidence of investors, tourists and the Thai people, in a stable future for their country.

Redshirts jump the shark?

ny times: people fight back (click for slideshow).

(update: This blog, which I like, says pretty much the same thing, except with a twist — "But, as Abhisit knows better than anyone else, the royal yellow lesson from 2008 is that thuggery, violence and provocation can reap rich political rewards." — and has a bunch of thoughtful comments that disagree.)

I wonder about how much hearts and minds matter here.

Back in October, during the PAD protests, I was skeptical of what the yellow shirts were demanding, but supported their right to protest. Then they became increasingly radicalized, culminating in the airport sieges that crippled the Thai economy, shutting down the tourism industry during the high season and hurting regular people. I heard from several people who quit supporting the PAD (although I don't really know — they could still be wildly popular).

This seemed to put the red shirts in position to take the high road, and — except for a couple minor instances — they did, putting on massive, peaceful protests and then going home after a day or three. Massive changes are coming in Thailand, and eventually there will be elections again, and the red shirts seemed primed to benefit. I think most democracy-minded Americans would at least tepidly agree with the reds' demands.

But then they started crippling Bangkok by abandoning their taxis at traffic choke points, attacking politicians, (literally) crashing the ASEAN summit, hijacking and threatening to blow up gas trucks in residential areas, and then — last night — allegedly attacking a mosque and opening fire on a group of angry citizens at a market, killing two.

So today the headlines have switched from stuff like "Government fires on protesters" to things like "U.S. condemns red shirt mob violence." A shift in popular opinion? A couple of red shirt leaders turned themselves in this morning, after encouraging protesters to disperse. Prime Minister Abhisit seems to be staging a remarkable (didn't think he'd last until the end of the month two days ago) comeback, and the government might just emerge from all this in tact.

The red shirts don't have the backing of the military and other elite, entrenched power centers like the yellows. So it seems like the only way they'll ever regain power is through popular support — and, as such, should be doing everything they can to hold on to it. It's unfair (and the source of their anger/frustration), but reality. Ghandi and MLK knew what they were doing.

Anyway.. I ask the question because I'm very much on the outside of all this, and am curious how this kind of thing looks for regular, unaffiliated Thais. (I'm not Thai and I'll prolly be gone in two years, but—on some level—someone unaffiliated and limited in understanding, albeit curious like me can be a decent gauge for how well a group's PR efforts are working).

Regardless, it's clear that violence breeds violence, and absolutist mob behavior (whether red, yellow or American partisan) is simply a part of human nature.

Thoughts?

--------------

Here are videos from yesterday. Watch the molotov cocktails, and then the taxi crash through the army line in this one:



And two from Al Jazeera — my new favorite news station:

backstory

Backstory (way way oversimplified, leaving the reasons for each side's protests somewhat out of it):

The reds (more democratically numerous) were in power. The yellows (more powerful) launched a non-violent military coup in 2006 to remove them. The reds (with hints of corruption) democratically regained power at the end of the year-long coup. The yellows started mass protests shortly before we arrived here in September, taking over the government house — essentially the White House without the a residence for the PM. Protests escalated (including the big one where Con got hit), and eventually the (increasingly fanatical and cultish) yellows shut down both Bangkok airports, crippling the Thai economy but making their point. The courts responded by booting out the (almost visibly relieved) red PM (who visited us in the hospital) on corruption charges ushering in a new yellow PM (who seems competent, but obviously gained power under dubious circumstances).

The reds regrouped and started mass protests around New Years. Then, following events I don't really understand, the protests escalated this past week, demanding the removal of the current PM.

There's been like 23 coups since 1900, or something. So this is just the latest in a long complicated history of sorta-instability (would rather have this than what's happening in Burma).

If anyone who knows wants to fill in holes or tell me I'm wrong.. feel free.

Crackdown

(note: for updates as this all escalates, I'm following this site — support his analysis by visiting his sponsors. And a twitter feed here. And another blog here and here.).

It's sort of amazing. I'm in Chiang Mai, where the Songkran (see second video in previous post) festivities are in full swing. I've never seen so many people smiling at once outside of a sporting event (even if some are red shirts riding around with propoganda on loudspeakers). Everyone gets to be kids for a few days.

Yet...

The police and military finally started pushing back against the Red Shirts late last night in Bangkok, using tear gas and the threat of live rounds shot (only—according to the government) into the air (yeesh...) to disperse protesters from one traffic choke point in Bangkok. The protesters have done their share to incite the violence, driving a bus into a riot line, hurling molotov cocktails and (according to the government) shooting a few of soldiers. They've also started hijacking/parking/threatening to blow up gas trucks (wtf!). Protesters quickly regrouped nearby, proving that this is going to be a long, drawn out mess.



This round of protests is different than the ones in October — more widespread, strategic and unruly. Seems like they are already approaching the height of the PAD's (October yellow shirts) mob mentality. There are groups blocking intersections in several parts of the city, and — now, in response to the crackdown — major highways all over the country.

And the introduction of violence will only cement the zealotry on all sides. I hate group think/mob mentality. People have full rights to protest. And the government needs to be able to control things (see their ridiculous inability to secure the Asean summit). But it seems like there are tipping points...

Also.. Stewart, our BangkokPastor who lives in central-ish Bangkok somewhat close to the action, has a post up showing how a state of emergency in Thailand almost always means life as usual for most people (although they forced the closure of our favorite mall — shame!).

Protesters Quash Asean Summit

I can just picture the prime ministers/crowd control gurus of China and Burma sitting there snickering, feeling validated.

About half of the leaders at the meeting were evacuated by helicopter, including those of Vietnam, Myanmar and the Philippines, Thai officials said. Some officials fled by boat.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the embattled Thai prime minister who has faced a week of large-scale street demonstrations, declared a state of emergency to secure the departure of leaders from Southeast Asia, China, South Korea and Japan. The emergency decree was lifted once the leaders had safely left Pattaya, a resort town about 90 miles east of Bangkok, officials said.

The cancelation of the meeting, involving leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Asean, was deeply embarrassing for Thailand and a missed opportunity for Asian leaders to discuss the severe economic downturn that is causing some of the region’s export-dependent economies to contract.

The link.