“Making Sense” of Thai-Style Democracy

A Jotman reader from Thailand writes in response to a previous JOTMAN.COM posting entitled Beware of Thai-style democracy.

I think you were rather unfair to Pattana Kitiarsa or did not take a look at his paper in full. The paper can be found online here.

The second quote on your post should be attributed to Sulak Sivaraksa, not Pattana. I think Pattana quotes such 'drivel' to make a point on the stance of some of the more conservative Thais. Ditto for the first quote.

Thank you for pointing this out. I have edited the posting to credit Sulak Sivaraksa with the drivel.

The Jotman reader continues:

The point of the paper was not to champion 'Thai Style Democracy.' Rather it was more of an anthropological study of seeking to understand what cultural factors have led some Thais to react to the coup in a positive way.

Pattana is sold on the idea that most Thais supported the coup (“The public overwhelmingly welcomed the military’s move…” he wrote). This view -- prevalent in the Thai media -- is based on tenuous, unreliable evidence (for example: a poll conducted two days after martial law took effect). Also, the paper isn't anthropological in the way that I would have liked it to be: where is the fieldwork? I see no evidence that Pattana had recently been out in the hinterlands of Thailand talking to Thais about their interpretations of the coup. His purported aim is to help us see how Thais make sense of the coup, but methodology would seem to preclude achieving this aim, and his sources stem from the Thai elite -- any number of whom may well enjoy official patronage.

The Jotman reader quotes from Pattana:

I do not mean to defend the coup, but how it is politically and morally justified in Thailand amid the international concerns needs to be understood properly. I argue that the protagonists of Thai-style democracy have built their rationality based on the Thai Buddhist-based cultural paradigms, which emphasize improvisational, compromised, and flexible adjustments to their social world.

"... the protagonists of Thai-style democracy have built their rationality based on Thai-Buddhist cultural paradigms..." Does the good Buddhist construct truth or discover truth? The outstanding problem I had with the paper could be summed up this way: The paper asked how the Thai population “made sense of the coup,” yet managed overlook the cruel absurdity of the question itself.

The following passage points to this absurdity. Pattana Kitiarsa refers to Thongchai Winichakul’s critique – long extracts of which I previously posted on JOTMAN.COM (here and here):

Thongchai Winichakul argues that the 19/9 coup is not a military coup, but a “royalist coup with purposes” including “toppling Thaksin” and creating desirable transitions from the present to the next reign (e.g., a popular choice of heir, a submissive government, and a strong Privy Council). “Thaksin threatened the royalist plan. To royalists, he seemingly sought to adopt for himself the role of kingmaker. The royalist coup consolidates power to General Prem and the royalists, putting their plan on track.” Of course, engaging in this type of interpretation is prohibited by law and almost unthinkable for the protagonists of Thai-style democracy and most, if not all, Thai subjects.

“Engaging in this type of interpretation is… almost unthinkable for… most, if not all, Thai subjects.” Here may lie the key point with respect to making sense of the coup: Wherever entertaining such interpretations is “unthinkable,” truly “making sense” of the coup is impossible (if by “making sense” of something you mean to include an understanding of how and why it happened).

Once -- for whatever reason – you throw out a potentially fruitful line of inquiry (in this case, potential coup instigators and their motives), you throw away hope of “making sense” of something. Restrictions on political speech are fundamentally incompatible with a flourishing democracy.

Pattana writes:

I argue that the protagonists of Thai-style democracy try to make sense of the coup based on (1) their Buddhist-oriented frames of reference ... (2) the cultural construction of power... and (3) the particularly impatient character of the Thai elitist leadership and the public... historically shaped by.. the hero-oriented national historiographies. (my italics)

I think to suggest coup protagonists are helping the people to "make sense of the coup” or seeking to "make sense" of it for themselves is pure euphemism. The apologists for the coup are not concerned with improving peoples understanding of events; they are interested in justifying the coup. This paper is replete with variations of this kind of euphemism.

For the apologist of the coup, myth, legend, and religious morality are means of undermining sense and reason. I might add that underlying this project seems to be an unspoken assumption that the masses are not capable of critical thought. One may detect a self-fulfilling circular kind of logic at work here.

Pattana Kitiarsa wrote: “I do not mean to defend the coup, but how it is politically and morally justified in Thailand amid the international concerns needs to be understood properly." The public effort of the Thai elite to propagate pro-coup propaganda and the private struggle of the average Thai person to "make sense of" events are two different processes. Pattani fails to clearly distinguish between the two. It is not as if such aims are compatible.

The Jotman reader continues:

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to understand the root of how societies react differently to events, whether it's the Thailand of today or WWII Japan or Nazi Germany. As for the idea of 'Thai Style Democracy' itself, I'm one Thai person who doesn't buy it. But I'm glad that Pattana has written the paper and gave me understanding of the perspective of the other side.

In my opinion, elaborations of cultural uniqueness applied to the political sphere may be positively harmful when they fail to acknowledge the possibility of conflicting class interests; also when they ignore obstacles to the advancement of those interests. Why? Because the appeals to cultural uniqueness – “Thai style democracy” etc. – is part and parcel of the agenda of those groups who stand to gain power (or prestige, money, and status) when universal rights and freedoms are undermined.

The scholar who seeks to interpret and convey the national mythology enters the political dynamic not as a spectator, but as a participant. What kind of participant will the scholar be? Pattana seems to be saying that whereas "radicals" like Thongchai have sought to interpret what actually happened, others “make sense of the coup” on behalf of Thais, for the greater good of Thailand by employing "conventional frames of reference" (i.e. the national mythology). Pattana writes:

Thongchai’s radical interpretation of this coup may or may not be valid, but I think the people, by whom Thongchai and his colleagues were heavily criticized, are not politically naïve or short-sighted. Rather, they are more practical and realistic, focusing on the nation’s integration, security, and spirituality. They have sought for some conventional frames of reference and produced explanations… (my italics)

Pattana apparently views the coup apologists as high-minded folk concerned mainly with the greater good. Yet, the issue at stake today for Thailand is the restoration of durable mechanisms of government. To function as a democracy, Thailand requires first and foremost an informed populace capable of holding rulers accountable. Within a democratic framework, the good ruler is secondary concern -- under a functioning democracy the bad ruler will be fired anyway. With regards to this most urgent need, the fanciful ideas propogated by coup appologists (designed to help Thais "make sense of the coup") deserve to be viewed as part of the problem.

Nevertheless, I agree with the sentiment of the Jotman reader: "I'm glad that Pattana has written the paper and gave me understanding of the perspective of the other side."

Newsweek Poll: Majority Favors Impeachment

I wrote that impeachment would be good for America, good for America's standing in world affairs, and especially, good for cleaning out the Republican Party. Now I see it not only as a good thing, but as something that becomes increasingly likely to happen. I just came across -- hat-tip After Downing Street -- a carefully disguised Newsweek Poll of October 23, 2006 that showed a majority of Americans favored impeaching President Bush:

Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.) (my italics)

Today, Iraq appears in a state of total meltdown. The terror and suffering Bush's mangled and unplanned war has unleased is difficult to fathom. Things are not likely to improve for the US administration as the international situation is almost certain to deteriorate even further, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would surmise that things are not likely to improve with regards to Iran and North Korea either. (A losing horse is a losing horse). The public will increasingly turn against this administration as the unraveling state of the Middle East situation displaces terrorism as the primary fear of the American electorate.

This is the frightening backdrop against which the investigations into a host of US administration misdeeds will commence under the new US Congress. Congress will be asking: What did the president know, and when did he know it? TPM came across this statement by CIA expert Ron Suskind published in Germany last month that seems relevant to this line of questioning.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the average interrogator at a Black Site understands more about the mistakes made than the president?

Suskind: The president understands more about the mistakes than he lets on. He knows what the most-skilled interrogators know too. He gets briefed, and he was deeply involved in this process from the beginning. The president loves to talk to operators.

The president probably knows a lot, and he probably knew it from the beginning: The president loves to talk to operators.

To learn more about impeachment under the US Constitution, I found a website that explains the 25th Amendment which was passed in 1967.

Indonesia to buy Russian Nuclear Reactor

In two previous posts (here and here) I expressed my consternation with Australia's support for Indonesia's desire to acquire nuclear reactors. A Russian reader of Jotman writes:

Russians are going to offer assistance in Indonesia's first nuclear power station. They are also going to offer a newly designed Floating Nuclear Power Station – the first experimental specimen is now in production (commissioning scheduled in 2010) on "Sevmashpredpriatie" plant in Severodvinsk. The very idea of FNPS has been heavily criticized by environmentalists, particularly because it appears to be an easy target for a terrorist attack.

The Jotman reader tells me this information is based on a report in The Vedomosti (Russian). He also noted in his email that Bambang Judhoyono is planning a trip to Indonesia to discuss this matter, and the of purchase helecopters, jetfighters, and two 2 diesel-electric submarines (type Project 636, or type "Kilo" by NATO specs) -- the world's quietest submarine, ideal for antiship and antisub reconaissance (according to Naval Technology).

Incident at Exxon Mobil's chemical plant in Singapore

UPDATE (MAY 3): Click here for details on the fire.

UPDATE: This posting received a remarkably high number of search-engine hits on Dec 19, 2006. If you have questions or information about flaring at Exxon Mobil in Singapore, please email me (address posted on the left side). I'll try to pursue this further.

SINGAPORE - There was a giant plume of smoke over the Western side of Singapore this week, but the local media did its best to avoid the story. An incident the at a the ExxonMobil Jurong Island Petrochemical complex in Singapore was not deemed worthy of serious news coverage; a giant plume of smoke was merely deemed a fascinating spectacle -- an event unworthy of anything more than a front page photo. And also there was a report at Stomp-- a fairly obscure website owned by Media Corp -- where Singaporeans sent reports about "big ball of smoke in the Western Sky." An absence of investigative reporting characterized the media coverage of the event. One Singaporean wrote into Stomp:

Who says this is nothing. It sounds like a serious mishap at the refinery. The flame could be seen all over Singapore. It was -- and still is - BIG. Many thought it could be a terrorist attack. So, it is the responsibility of Exxon and the media -- like MediaCorpse (sic) -- to come out with early announcements to tell Singapore that nothing untoward has occurred. But nothing was done until so bloody late.

This readers comments are understandable to me. Why, I wondered myself, did the city-state's main newspaper take two days to report this incident? I first learned about the plume of smoke from the photo published in the Thursday edition of the New Straights Times. Here's what the photo caption said about the cause of the smoke:

The fire was caused by the burning of excess gases resulting from the petrol distillation process.

These gasses are usually broken down by hydrocarbon process units. But the units had to be shut down after the compressor tripped, so the gases had to be burnt off via the flare stacks for safety reason, the company said. ExxonMobil said their was no risk to the public.

When journalists consider they are doing their duty to the community by serving as a conduit for corporation's reassurances (remember the Exxon Valdez?), I can't help but wonder -- like the reader who wrote in to Stomp -- what's really going on here?

The ExxonMobil website provides some background on the recently constructed petrochemical plant:

The grassroots US$2 billion petrochemical facility, the company's single largest investment in the Asia Pacific region, has four plants designed to deliver a wide range of petrochemical products to customers. Its centerpiece is an 800,000-ton-per-year steam cracker, which produces ethylene, propylene and other products for several downstream chemical plants in and around Singapore. The facility also features a 480,000-ton-per-year polyethylene plant, the largest single reactor plant of its type in the world, a 315,000-ton-per-year polypropylene plant, a 150,000-ton-per-year oxo alcohol plant and a 155-megawatt cogeneration unit that provides power to both the refinery and the chemical plant.

This is the webpage where Exxon Mobil posts press releases related to its operations in Singapore. Here is some more information about the facility from a chemicals industry website. Finally, here is a website that explores ExxonMobil Corporation's appalling safety record.

In attempting to investigate the situation further, I discovered there is no Greenpeace office in either Singapore or Malaysia (these being the least democratic countries in the region). The leading industry in Singapore's robust economy is petrochemicals. Giant factories on the smaller offshore islands produce the stuff -- with little oversight by environmental NGOs it would seem. On the plus side Singapore's civil service is well paid and has a reputation for competence, but on the other hand, this does not strike me as a culture that rewards whistle-blowing.

Singapore could well be the future of Asia: the corporation-state. Some might go so far as to claim Singapore "proves" that democracy is unnecessary for economic prosperity and social stability in a multi-ethnic society. To me, Singapore demonstrates what happens when a country gets really lucky and finds itself blessed with a brilliant, fairly benevolent, and exceptionally long-lived philosopher-king. But what happens to this little wonder of Southeast Asia after Lee Kuan Yew passes on is any one's guess.

However we account for its economic success, Singapore remains small and vulnerable. It would only take only one environmental mishap to ruin the miracle. To ensure that day never arrives, Singapore should welcome environmental groups and encourage serious journalism. In the long run, more citizen oversight today will be good for business tomorrow.

If you have questions, concerns, or new information relating to Exxon Mobil operations in Singapore, please email me (address posted on the left side).

Jotman Reader from Siberia: Flood of Chinese into Eastern Russia

A Jotman reader offers rare insights into one of the most interesting geopolitical developments in Asia -- one most Westerners are in the dark about: the migration of Chinese into Eastern Russia. Could this pose a threat to Russian sovereignty? Could it eventually lead to conflict between Russia and China? The flow of Chinese peasants and merchants into Siberia gains momentum amidst the rush to exploit Siberia's rich natural resources. The three superpowers of Asia -- China, Japan, and Russia -- each have a keen interest in what happens to the region.

In a recent posting I mentioned an Asian WSJ cover story which examined the issue. The Jotman reader from Siberia acknowledges that this is "the growing trend" and provides some historical context:

Private Chinese trade started as early as the borders opened after perestroika, in the late 80s – early 90s. Ordinary people started shuttling across the border virtually on a daily basis. A typical "kommersant" (entrepreneur) of the mid 90s would be a Russian or Chinese woman of middle age, with a couple of huge duffle bags, called "shuttle bags", stuffed with cheap clothes etc. These small person's efforts would supply everything from tape-recorders to fur coats across the entire country. That's how Chinese people learned there was a giant country, with lots of land and very little population. Soon they would start settling their open markets, farms and light industry factories in the deepest parts of Russia. As for the Russian Far East, in the mid 90s they already made a visible portion of the population.

The WSJ article showed that Russia’s trade with Europe far outweighs its trade with China. Russia’s total trade with China was less, overall, even than its trade with the Netherlands. The disparity is attributable to Russia’s oil and gas sales to Europe. The Jotman reader writes that by contrast:

Asian oil and gas transport infrastructure is still in its infancy. The great confrontation of the early 2000s – whether the pipeline would go to China or Japan, has apparently been solved for the China's benefit (not 100% sure, though). Russian-Japanese relations are still very poor. After a very enthusiastic period in the 90s, when Japanese corporations would spend huge $$$ on their cultural programs, we end up in a situation where Mitsui and other foreign companies might lose their stakes in the Sakhalin-2 oil project.

The Jotman reader says that although Japan and China both seek Russia’s natural resources, the Chinese appear to have the upper hand.

Generally, Chinese companies feel a lot more comfortable operating in Russia, than Japanese or Korean competitors. They may lack experience and resources, but Russian business and official circles usually find Chinese a lot easier to deal with. Unlike their Japanese competitors, Chinese entrepreneurs are usually very eager to learn Russian and usually take Russian names, like Vanya, Petya, Kolya etc. This is especially common in Siberia and the Far East and has a long history too. Russian belletrists Nikolay Zadornov describes peaceful coexistence of Russian and Chinese settlers and Siberian natives in the late XIX c. in his monumental novel "The Amur Saga".

Chinese have historic ties to this part of Russia, and in the past they assimilated into Soviet society:

From the sociocultural point of view, Chinese, especially the older generation, are very close to any Soviet-background group. Same Communist stuff and beliefs. Cheap Chinese labor was widely used in road construction and gold mines of Yakutia in the late XIX c. until early 1920c. In many parts of Siberia there were so many Chinese that the Red Army recruited whole Chinese regiments to fight against the White Guard in the Civil War, – a fact recognized even by the Soviet history and literature (a short story by Mikhail Bulgakov describes the life of a Chinese soldier in the Red Army). Chinese regiments were extremely fierce and violent in battle even by the measures of the Civil War. In many cases, on important missions, such as assault or bodyguard assignments) when Bolshevik leaders like Leon Trotsky could not entirely trust their Russian forces, they would deploy Chinese mercenaries.

In Yakutia (as it may be case in other Far Eastern regions), Chinese and Korean immigrants have long history. Second and third generations of Chinese immigrants became completely "yakutized" to the extent they speak Yakutian better than Russian. Yakuts and other northern indigenous people usually are quite positive towards Chinese and Korean, perhaps opposing them to Russians. Not sure if it can last if the Chinese population starts to dominate.

Recent months have seen the rise of an ugly and fervent tide of animosty on the part of Russians toward non-ethnic Russians. Some observers, such as the author of a RAND study look at whether Russian mistreatment of Chinese migrants could lead to armed conflict between the two regional powers. Does recent explosions of ethnic hostility have a bearing on the fate of Chinese migrants streaming into Russia?

The violent cities against non-Russian ethnics are Moscow, St Petersburg, and Voronezh. Less statistics is available on smaller towns in central Russia. Siberia and the Far East region are somewhat more tolerant to non-Russians, attributable to the history of relatively peaceful coexistence of the Russian settlers and the local indigenous population. These regions might also find comfort in being not like the rest of Russia, as people often like to feel being different, and more independent in their attitudes. However, tensions exist even in the safest of neighborhoods.

The author of the WSJ article quoted someone fervently opposed to Chinese immigration, but the Jotman reader indicates that he was misleadingly identified in the article:

The "Movement Against Illegal Immigration" (DPNI, or "Dvizheniye Protiv Nelegalnoy Immigratsiyi"), the WSJ refers to, has nothing to do with illegal immigration, - it is basically a radical nationalist party. Its leader Andrey Belov and other activists are largely accountable for the race provocation in Kondopoga.... DPNI has emerged as one of the most influential political movements in the last few years, fueled mostly by ordinary Russian's dislike of Caucasians (Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Chechens and Georgians) and Central Asians (Tajiks, Turkmens). Its anti-Chinese line is less significant. DPNI is not present in the Duma (Russian Parliament), but is closely affiliated with other nationalist MPs.

For analysis of how the migration of Chinese into Russia is likely to impact Russia's security interests, check out this Carnegie Moscow Centre report by Galina Vitkovskaya.

Recent developments in Russia have, for the most part, been off the Radar of the Western media. Jotman thanks this reader from Siberia for sharing his unique perspective on these developments.

Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be the Next US President?

When the new US Congress takes over in January, and it starts holding hearings on the Bush Administration's conduct of the Iraq war, how it got the country into the war in the first place, the hunt for Osama, Katrina, secret meetings with energy firms, etc., eventually something pretty nasty could well turn up that has Bush and Cheney's fingerprints all over it. Who knows, maybe Rumsfeld will turn them in?

Imagine evidence of a deed so outrageous that public will demand impeachment. Imagine Republican Congressmen up for re-election in '08 having no choice but to buckle. I suspect the evidence is already almost there with regards to "waterboarding," a.k.a. torture; or pertaining to the manipulation of intelligence data prior to the Iraq war. Lying to get the country into a war is an impeachable offense in my view. So ought be violating the Geneva Conventions. But even if these charges don't inspire impeachment proceedings -- they certainly ought to -- something similarly damming or worse is liable to appear once the US Congress begins snooping around.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- second in line to the presidency according to the constitution -- would presumably be asked to take the oath of office, and become the first female president of the United States. It will be a great day for America and the planet. Nothing would do more to restore the US credibility and influence in the world than impeachment of both the president and the vice president, as it would signal to the world that the American people repudiate everything the administration has stood for.

The most important consequence of impeachment is that it would present an opportunity for more moderate Republicans to take back their party from the die hard Bush loyalists who dominate the GOP. Nowadays being a card-carrying Republican is synonymous with an ethic of blind and unquestioning followership of the Dear Leader. The leading Republicans seem to be unprincipled people who worship power and their proximity to power. Because few leading Republicans uphold any discernible set of principles, the party does not contribute to the democratic way of life. Even the good Republican Senator John McCain seems to have gotten the message that success within the Republican Party today necessitates convincing others that you are not a man of principle.

Impeachment is just the kind of shock therapy the party and country most needs. The public may soon have far more appetite for a democratic purge of this sort than the mainstream media is willing to entertain at present.

Will President Pelosi run for re-election in '08? Would Hillary Clinton try to prevent the impeachment so she herself doesn't lose what could be her last chance to run? You may one day have cause to recall that Jotman was among the first to have asked these questions.

The Chinese Emigration into Eastern Russia

According to an article published in the Asian WSJ (by subscription) published November 14 entitled "In eastern Russia, influx of Chinese breeds tension," Chinese are migrating north into the empty spaces of Siberia. They are starting farms and businesses, and a number of Russians are wondering whether the country will still be theirs if the immigration continues. For the Chinese peasants migrants, plots of empty land are available for cultivation. "Many Russians fear being overwhelmed by their dynamic and more-populous neighbor.... But on the ground, especially in Russia's sparsely populated countryside, Chinese labor is helping to stave off economic ruin" writes Guy Chazan, author of the WSJ piece. Businesses are finding that Chinese workers who are willing to do work that Russians refuse to do.

This migration has been occuring at a time when Moscow has been developing closer relations with China, encouraging Chinese investment in the energy sector. I passed this article along to a Russian Jotman reader who comes from this region. In a couple days, we'll see what he has to say.

Update: A Russian Jotman reader's perspective on the situation in Siberia has now been posted.

US and China Pour Nuclear Fuel onto India-Pakistan Rivalry

Jotman readers might recall that I condemned (here and here) the US-India nuclear pact as I watched Bush announce it live on CNN. It's a fitting irony that on day the US Congress passes this treaty to supply India's "civilian" nuclear reactors, the president of China should offer Pakistan a similar deal to accelerate the building of its nuclear power plants.

The US deal with India will allow companies like GE and Westinghouse to sell reactor equipment to India. It is also touted as consolidating a US-Indian "alliance."

According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US is not supposed to be supporting the nuclear program of country such as India that is not signatory to the treaty. Recall that India built and tested nukes outside of the international protocol. Reuters observed:

Opponents contend the agreement harms U.S. security by allowing New Delhi to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal, by fostering an arms race in Asia among India and nuclear rivals Pakistan and China and by undermining decades of U.S. non-proliferation policy.

Whereas the treaty with India is touted by many in DC as "Bush's greatest foreign policy successes," as I see it as a clear-cut case of the US having abandoned any claim to be abiding by principle in international affairs. The "rationale" for the Indian deal is simply that an alliance with India on nuclear energy serves certain US business and narrowly defined strategic interests. The "excuse" for the deal is that India is also a democracy. How this looks to the rest of the world evidently does not matter in Washington. It's another case of a headstrong America acting to further the commercial and geopolitical interests of US companies, with complete disregard for the wider global ramifications.

The US Senate passed the treaty with the stipulation that India support US efforts to block Iran's nuclear ambitions. Again, sticking an ammendment onto a treaty at the last minute -- to shore up the far more important policy goal comprimised by the treaty itself -- is an appallingly poor substitute for real vision in addressing the proliferation crisis.

The bottom line is that because the most powerful nation on earth insists on keeping thousands of nukes it does not need -- to no apparent constructive ends -- the US sends the message to the rising powers of Asia that their is something prestigious about owning nukes. Today, hundreds of millions of barely literate Indians and Pakistanis feel tremendous pride in the knowledge that their nations possess nuclear weapons. No doubt one reason chemical or biological weapons do not enjoy a high reputation is that the US, the USSR, and most other nations long ago disavowed them. By continuing to hold largest stockpile, the US legitimates nuclear weapons as a symbol of nations and governments aspiring to appear advanced and powerful.

Australia Wants to Help Indonesia Build Nuclear Reactors

Seriously, I think there's got to be kangaroos loose in heads of certain decision makers Down Under. Thai Business Day reported today that the Russians are slated to build Indonesia's first nuclear reactor. The Indonesian News Agency examines the issue in depth, and it explains why Greenpeace and other environmental groups are opposed. One Indonesian government minister interviewed for the article offers this reassurance: "The process in a nuclear power plant will automatically stop if terrorists attack."

Speranza Nuova published a thoughtful piece at Singapore Angle considering the question as to whether Singapore should build nuclear reactors. Nuova suggests that should Indonesia decide to build reactors, this move might cancel out any reservations that prevent Singapore from going down that road:

...if Indonesia built a reactor first, it would dilute the opprobrium against Singapore building one as well. And one might argue that if the risk of nuclear fallout haze exists (e.g. accident, terrorist strike, earthquake), one might as well have a nuclear plant on domestic soil anyway.

Thailand and Malaysia might well be thinking the same way. And why shouldn't Burma follow their lead?

Good On Ya Australia!

New Straights Times published an article yesterday entitled: "A nuclear Indonesia could be a reality with Australia's help" by Roger Maynard. It seems Australia, which has the world's largest uranium reserves, wants to to help Indonesia build some nuclear reactors.

As we all know, Indonesia is one the most geologically stable place on earth. So there is no chance of an earthquake. And there are no volcanoes that could erupt. And no tsunamis either. But in the extremely unlikely event of an earthquake, volcanic eruption, or tsunami hitting a nuclear reactor, Australia has little to worry about: between March and November (9 months of the year) the radioactivity from Aussie-built Indonesian reactors is more likely to fall on Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore; it is only between December and February (3 months of the year) that a radioactive cloud would be likely to drift over Australia. So Australia has a good 75% chance of avoiding radiation from a meltdown.

Good on ya Australia!

Indonesians have the highest regard for safety issues. No chance corruption will lead to poor reactor design or operations.

Have a burl, mates.

Indonesia is not like Iran or even Pakistan. All Indonesian Muslims are moderate, and there is no history of Islamicist attacks on targets within Indonesia. And in the unlikely event that a radical Islamic regime comes to power in Indonesia one day, there is absolutely no possibility that the fuel will be used for anything other than peaceful purposes.

Bonzer!

You can trust neighboring Indonesia will carefully dispose of its nuclear waste, after all, Indonesia an outstanding track record with regards to environmental protection. As demonstrated by its perfect track record of enforcing all existing environmental laws. Indonesia's future nuclear waste will be treated with at least the same care given to toxic mine tailings. There is no chance the waste will end up being illegally dumped somewhere at sea (perhaps off the north coast of Australia?).

The Problem isn't the New Suvanabhumi Airport, it's Bangkok

Did you read my review of Bangkok's new Suvanabhumi airport (it includes a photos of the departures area -- the world's largest terminal under one roof)?

Well, I went back there. I took a taxi out to Bangkok's new Suvanabhumi Airport the other day, and as my taxi passed under kilometers of new freeway -- much of it elevated, past the graceful curves of the new elevated passenger-rail line, and we pulled into the magnificent airport terminal complex, the same thought kept going through my mind: what a big mistake.

Not a mistake because its poorly designed (which it is), far from the city (true enough), or built on a swamp (they say the runway is cracking). No, it's not a big mistake for any of these or other reasons detailed in a recent IHT article. or illustrated in my earlier blog posting. Suvanabhumi Airport is a mistake because that massive expenditure on infrastructure was badly needed someplace else. Where?

In Bangkok. The money should have been spent improving Bangkok's infrastructure and making Bangkok a place worth flying into. Instead, the Thai government shut down a satisfactory (if unstylish) airport, and build something that was totally unnecessary. The trouble with Bangkok was not its old airport. No, Bangkok's troubles are summed up in two words: traffic congestion and air pollution.

I can't tell you how many first time visitors to Bangkok tell me they have no wish to return -- ever. It's become just another smoggy congested city. For example, in the lobby of my Singapore hotel today I overheard some travellers discuss how you could use Singapore as a base for visiting Phuket: "no need to go through Bangkok." Up in Chang Mai I met a fellow who was timing his return to Bangkok in the early hours of the morning, "you see, that way I won't even have to spend a night in that city." Perhaps the words that best sum up the situation I read in an email, "...tomorrow I arrive in Bangkok. God help me."

Looking at the billions spent on buildings, freeways, and a train line to this "complex in the middle of nowhere," I thought: Thailand, had you spent this kind of money on improving Bangkok, you would have given people a reason to visit. Certainly, the people I overheard in the hotel have a point, for getting in and out of Thailand's tourist spots, Singapore makes for a nice point of departure.

As I stepped off my flight into Singapore's Changi International, I took note of the very dated looking psychedelic colors of the carpet. But neither the age of the carpet or the 1970s fixtures mattered to me one iota. Because I had arrived in Singapore. Singapore built itself a decent airport more than a quarter century ago, and since then it's put all its public investment into making the city itself a worthwhile destination.

Singapore's strategy has payed off. But by continuing to neglect quality of life issues in its capital, Thailand puts an important industry at risk.

TRAVEL TIP: Wondering how to get from Suvanabhumi to Bangkok by express bus? Click here.

Banned Handley Biography of King Bhumibol, "The King Never Smiles," Flying off the Shelves in Singapore

SINGAPORE - A Singapore doctor I saw yesterday wouldn't stop talking about the Thai coup d'etat. The residents of the city state are taking interest in the political situation in Thailand.

A huge stack of the new King Bhumibol biography greets entrants to Singapore's largest bookstore. I watched as several customers perused copies of the The King Never Smiles.

Paul M. Handley's account of the king's life is an absorbing one to anyone who has taken an interest in the country's affairs, because the life of the world's longest-serving monarch is very much the story of modern Thailand. Handley, who reported for the Far East Economic Review from Bangkok during the 1990s, describes how the Thai monarch has had an impact on so many areas of Thai life -- transportation infrastructure, environmental protection, charities for the poor, punishment of criminals offenders, relations with Myanmar and Cambodia, and the military. And in Handley's view, the royal intrusion into these spheres has not necessarily been for the better (to put it mildly).

In the last chapter (written before the coup) Handley expresses concern that the two central figures in Thai politics, King Bhumibol and General Prem, are in their eighties. Handley speculates that in a worst case scenario -- when Thailand finds itself without either illustrious elder, the question of succession could even lead to civil war.

"Difficult times ahead for Thailand" would be an apt subtitle for this most timely book.

UPDATE: I just added this post, which covers a recent review of Handley's book.

Was Iranian President Ahmadinejad one of the US Hostage-Takers?

A Jotman reader from Russia writes:

"A former Russian intelligence member" disclosed a photo of someone resembling Presidentg Ahmadinejad, through the newspaper Kommersant. The photo was taken during the US embassy hostage crisis of 1979. The young man resembling President Ahmadinejad stands outside the Embassy building with a rifle on a shoulder strap. The photo was taken "by a Soviet citizen ... who had no formal accreditation in Tehran... but was able to move freely within the city."

The Kommersant asked two former hostages, Mr Kevin Harmening and Mr Charles Scott about the photos. Although Mr Harmening could not say whether or not the man in the photograph was among the hostagetakers, Mr Scott positively identified the man. Earlier, Iranian sources rejected Ahmadinejad's participation in the storming, although they admitted he was involved in its planning.

When I compare the old photo to this recent photo of the Iranian president, I too am struck by the resemblance.

I was reading today that the Israelis are beginning to worry that their one true ally -- the Americans -- are about to cozy up with the Iranians. It's looking like the country that will benefit the most from the US invasion of Iraq will be Iran.

The Most Powerful Woman in the US

In her speech tonight, the new speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi spoke of building "a future worthy of our values, worthy of our children's aspirations, and worthy of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform." Although not noted for her speaking ability, I thought she gave a really good speech. Nancy is second in line to the US presidency after Dick, should anything happen to George.

Nacy Pelosi has been elected to the most powerful position of any woman in US history.

Bush is a Symptom, not the Disease

Learning of the "robo-calling" scandal -- it's currently the most popular story on the Washington Post website (see previous post) -- I return to a question familiar to Jotman readers: how come I can’t find anything about the Robocalls issue on CNN’s website? Blogger Josh Marshall was asking the same thing when he wrote:

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Fox are each ignoring the GOP's nationwide campaign of false-flag robocalls meant to harass voters and fool them into thinking the calls come from Democrats… That's because the powers-that-be in the mainstream media are in the tow of the Republican party.... You have to understand that and absorb that before you can set about doing what's necessary to change it.

If the Democrats don’t do as well this election as expected, it will not because -- as Thomas Friedman put it in his column this weekend – Americans really are just as “stupid” as Bush and Rove think they are. Rather, it will have everything to do with where Americans get their news. This election has shown, as never before, the extent to which the commercial US news media is failing American democracy. I’ve tried to highlight this problem on Jotman, focusing on CNN coverage of key stories. Perhaps those postings (or "rants" as some of you call them) may not have made for as stimulating reading as my interview with a freedom fighter, accounts of exploration in Northern Burma, or photoblogging of the Thai coup.

However, I have posted extensively on CNN’s news coverage of the election campaign because I am absolutely convinced that the most important issue facing the world is a dysfunctional US news media. The tenure of George W. Bush is merely a symptom of this underlying disease.

I blog, in part, because I believe the blogosphere can help to expose the depth of this crisis.

Uncovered: A Republican Plot to Steal the US Elections?

The most consequential news story in the US (at the website of the Washington Post, it’s presently the paper's “most viewed” article) -- was reported first not by the mainstream media, but by the blogosphere.

The report concerns alleged criminal activity by a US Republican Party outfit that could conceivably impact the outcome of today’s elections. One blogger who broke the story was Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall provides a concise explanation of the “Robocalling” scandal:

Most of the call's script is a fairly standard attack robocall, a series of Republican talking points aimed at the Democratic congressional in a particular district. Nothing particularly noteworthy. The key is the introduction. The lead into the call starts with the speaker saying 'I'm calling with information about' Dem candidate X. Then there's a short pause.

At this point, you know it's an annoying robocall, so a lot of people just hang up. If you hang up then, you think it's a call from the Democratic candidate. Second, the repetition. And this part is the key. If you don't listen through the whole message, the machine keeps calling you back, often well in excess of half a dozen times with the same call. It only stops if you listen all the way through. As you can imagine, that's driving a lot of people through the roof.

According to a reporter on MSNBC, if successful, the law suit that is being launched by the Democratic Party against the Republican Party could inflict heavy punitive damages as the fine for a even single violation of the election law is $500 per phone call violation in some states. Josh has more on the story at his blog.

US Election

Thomas Friedman wrote a scathing attack on the Bush Administration today in the NY Times. You can read it here.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

Not just Karl Rove, but US news media also thinks Americans are stupid: why else have they focused on the Kerry story for the better part of a week? CNN scarcely mentioned the NY Times report that the US governement had put atom bomb designs on the the Internet.

Santorum Press Release Proves Republicans Hijacked CIA for a Resource-Intensive Partisan Mission

Republican Senator Rick Santorum explains the rational behind a catastrophic piece of legislation which led to a situation where documents containing Iraqi atomic bomb designs were posted on the Internet. The March 16, 2006 press release, posted on Senator Santorum's website (found today by Jotman), bespeaks the Republican Party's intention to have the CIA execute a partisan political mission and details the onerous legislative demands that would have pressured the CIA to the breaking point:

“This legislation concerns the need to release military documents and photographs recovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to make publicly available on an Internet website documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom...

“By way of background, The Weekly Standard published several articles detailing a number of these documents and the information contained within them which “connect the dots” between Saddam Hussein and the training of Islamic terrorists....

“Many of the translated and analyzed documents were entered into a government database known as “HARMONY.” It is now four years since these documents were captured. I understand that previous requests to release information from the HARMONY database have been rejected or delayed. It is reasonable to assume that over the course of the last four years any actionable intelligence contained within these documents has already been exploited.

“It is imperative that documents captured in Iraq which highlight the connections between Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime and Islamic terrorists be released as soon as possible. These documents are increasingly necessary to help the American people understand both the reasons for our involvement in Iraq and the challenge of defending freedom and democracy.

“However, in the interest of national security, the bill permits the Director of National Intelligence to withhold making a document publicly available--provided he informs the relevant congressional committees of the justification for not disclosing the document.”

This press release makes three things evident about the release of the Iraqi WMD documents:

1. The sole purpose for releasing the documents was to bolster the Republicans and the Bush Administration politically, in the hopes that there might be something in one of the documents that could justify the Bush Admistration's discredited rational for the Iraq war.

2. The bill passed by the Republicans "required" the CIA to release the documents. (See S. 2408, Section 1, (a))

3. The bill made it bureaucratically cumbersome for the CIA not to disclose the classified Iraqi documents about WMD. (See S. 2408, Section 1, (b))

Let's take a look at the big picture. The CIA does not have a sufficient number of Arabic trained analysts. This is a documented fact. Besides, the CIA has more than enough on its plate just combing through intelligence reports in an effort to head off possible terrorist attacks. Then in an election year, into the overburdened CIA offices storm Republican law makers. The Republican Congress, with the full support of the Bush White House, forced the CIA to immediately devote precious Arabic-speaking manpower to review a veritable mountain of captured Iraqi documents related to WMD. Just how many Arabic language documents?

As many as one million documents in Arabic. On March 27 2006 the NY Times reported "...the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by American troops." At that time, only "600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files" had been "posted" on the public website.

The Republican Congress gave the CIA six months to review and post 48,000 boxes of Arabic language documents on the Internet. All this extra work for the CIA, in the vague hope that amidst the mountains of documents might be some evidence that could redeem the Republicans for having supported a war based on false pretenses. What the CIA opted for was a a quick and -- as as we found out today -- careless review. For the CIA managers, the only alternative to releasing the WMD documents was a bureacratic nightmare -- informing "relevant congressional committees of the justification for not disclosing the document." Because we are talking about 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language documents here, this alternative would have strained both CIA management and its Arabic resources. So CIA was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

This was not only Mission Impossible, it was Mission Unneccessary: The time and expertise of the CIA hijacked by Republicans in their vain hopes of unleashing a pack of conspiracy-hounds on the data; the bill was a desperate party's prayer that amidst a million classified Iraqi documents a nugget of support might be found for the US decision to go to war in Iraq. But Mission Impossible backfired. Instead, Republican lawmakers created the context in which the CIA -- charged with an impossible and unneccessary task -- made instructions for manufacturing atomic bombs available to the general public.

Update: The text from Santorum's Press Release -- quoted above -- was taken from the statement in which he introducted bill S. 2408 on the floor of the US Senate. You can read the draft of the Santorum bill here.

Politics Came Before National Security

Why did right wing groups press the US government to release the Project Harmony documents that happened to contain atomic bomb design instructions? My guess is that they assumed that among all the documents some conspiracy hounds would find among all the arabic texts and diagrams evidence either of 1) Iraq regime complicity with Al Qaeda or 2) continued Iraqi involvement in WMD research. Either findings would help to vindicate the Bush Administration's case for war with Iraq. The NY Times reported:

Former CIA terrorism specialist Michael Scheuer pointed this out in an interview with the New York Times: "There's no quality control. You'll have guys out there with a smattering of Arabic drawing all kinds of crazy conclusions.

That's precisely what these right-wing Bush supporters wanted to see happen! They wanted legions of conspiracy hounds combing through through the captured Iraqi documents.

What seems to have happened is the US government lacked sufficient arabic translators to certify the security of the documents before they were made public. Thus, information containing WMD technology secrets was put into the Arabic-speaking public domain.

All the documents, which are available on fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm, have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists and do not alter the government's official stance, officials say.

Secret WMD-related documents "received at least a quick review" before being released. I guess that statement was intended to reassure us?

However, the Bush administration has a reputation as being obsessed with secrecy. I guess, in truth, they are only secretive when it comes to not wanting the public understand the extent of the Bush Administration collaboration with the oil industry, the coal industry, and various multinationals; they don't care about secrecy in relation to US national security. Bush Administration officials will deliberately release the name of a CIA agent, or carelessly make public documents containing plans for building an atomic bomb.

This is Criminal Negligence

Bush Administration would appear to have crossed a line here from mere incompetence into the realm of criminal negligence. A few minutes ago the NY Times posted this story at the top of its front page (my italics).

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

But the documents were not removed from the website immediately. Only after the NY Times enquired did the government act. This action came one week after the Atomic Energy Agency had warned the US government about the disclosure of atomic secrets. The US government had been told about the danger, and for days the US government did nothing.

The US is losing one war in Iraq, and on the verge of losing a second war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, George Bush still has the support of upwards of 30 percent of the US public. CNN spends 2 days reporting the mangled joke of a senator who isn't even running for re-election.

Theses revelations alone ought to be sufficient crush the Republican party in the November 7 Congressional elections, paving the way for the neccessary impeachment of US President. But for this to happen, American voters would need to inhabit a space called "reality." A dimesion which the US new media is committed to preventing Americans from accessing.

CNN Still Bootlickin' for Bush

The Bush-bootlicking US media is presently going bonkers because John Kerry made a joke aimed at Bush that came out wrong. Kerry told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs – “If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” he said. Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." So this joke was intended at the president's expense, not the troops.

Josh Marshal puts the incident in perspective:

The funniest thing about this has to be CNN getting goaded into making it a red letter 'Breaking News', 'Developing Story'.

Later Update: It's really a case study in the Republican outrage apparatus, one McCain's in on too now. What does President Bush have to apologize for? Let's see. Taking the country to war on the basis of what he knew were lies? Check. Distorting and lying about WMD intelligence to goad the country into war? Check. Having no plan for what to do in Iraq after Baghdad fell? Check. Lying about how badly things were going in Iraq because he coudln't face the truth and thus letting hundreds or thousands or American military personnel die? Check. Mmmm. Lying to the country about al Qaida being tied to Iraq, resulting in hundreds or thousands of American deaths? Check. Got any more?

Unlike the president, John Kerry is a decorated war hero. His record of service in Vietnam attacked by Bush supporters (and assisted by the US media), Kerry lost the 2004 election. John Kerry's response was strong (you can read it at the very end of an extremely long CNN article about this over-hyped non-story):

"I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq."

He further expressed disgust with "Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country."

Kerry added that President Bush and Vice President Cheney "owe our troops an apology" because they "misled America into war."

Bush and Cheney "have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it," the senator said.

The Bush record, not John Kerry's speeches, is what the November 7 election in the US is all about.