Thailand Stock Market Plummets

Tuesday was the worst day ever for the Thailand stock market:

The Stock Exchange of Thailand's benchmark SET Index plunged as much 19.5 percent before recovering to close at 622.14, down 14.8 percent, and the lowest since October 2004.

AP has the story here. The Thai government has now backed off the measure that caused droves of foreigners to sell-off Thai and other Asian stocks. Bangkok Pundit speculates as to whether in-the-know Thais may have sought to profit from the massive sell off.

Russian Jotman Reader: Implications of FSB (KGB) Power in Russia

"I had somewhat different perception, through my personal private contacts with these folks..." - Russian Jotman reader

My last post related to a Washington Post report which alleged that persons associated with Russia's FSB (the former KGB) have come to dominate important institutions within the Russian Federation. If you are a Westerner attempting to make sense of this trend, perhaps you conclude, as I did, that such consolidation of leadership power must render the Putin leadership far more secure. Perhaps this points to a new dawn for Russia, a renewal of totalitarianism, a resounding defeat for democracy. Dominated by secret police, one might guess that the new regime may emerge as robust as the former Soviet order.

However, as a Russian reader points out, there are good reasons to think that this may not in fact be the case. "I had somewhat different perception, through my personal private contacts with these folks..." wrote the Russian reader. First, here is another quote from the article, explaining the source of the revelation about the growing influence of the FSB (former KGB):

Kryshtanovskaya recently analyzed the official biographies of 1,016 leading political figures -- departmental heads of the presidential administration, all members of the government, all deputies of both houses of parliament, the heads of federal units and the heads of regional executive and legislative branches. She found that 26 percent had reported serving in the KGB or its successor agencies.

A more microscopic look at the biographies, she said -- examining unexplained gaps in résumés, unlikely career paths or service in organizations affiliated with the KGB -- suggests the startling figure of 78 percent.

However, on a higher level, in key areas, virtually any significant position would be secured by an ex-FSB or at least someone assisted by an FSB advisor, or there would be some other "cooperation" arrangements with those on key positions. The power and the authority of the old KGB was not in the number of its card bearing members – it was the organized network of supporters and informants – and the "leading role of Party" (I will get back to this).

This Russian reader of Jotman puts this development in historical context, and contemplates the implications. The reader responds:

. . . on a higher level, in key areas, virtually any significant position would be secured by an ex-FSB or at least someone assisted by an FSB advisor, or there would be some other "cooperation" arrangements with those on key positions. The power and the authority of the old KGB was not in the number of its card bearing members – it was the organized network of supporters and informants – and the "leading role of Party" (I will get back to this).

With regards to the scope of activities / issues covered by the FSB – the article is likely true. I can tell you for sure that any serious enterprise, regardless of its ownership has an assigned officer from the FSB – to monitor its activities and to promote some agendas – often contradicting with local/national interests on various levels. Such assigned officers would watch most industrial enterprises, especially those related to minerals and export operations, and especially those with some a portion of foreign ownership. Most research institutions have an internal security department that is a branch of the FSB.

In addition to this administrative network, there's a whole lot of KGB/FSB veterans engaged in various security-related tasks in private businesses. At some point of time, it would almost mandatory for a "serious" businessman to have a security force headed by an ex-KGB colonel – sort of a status thing.

There has always been so many of them – even in the downturn of the 90s. How many FBI/CIA folks (does the average American know?) Probably none...

At least three of my university class of 50-60 went into the FSB in 1999 – they disappeared for a couple of years for training, but all returned to the hometown on junior investigating/support roles. And it was a routine annual recruitment – they must have even increased it since then. Two of these students had their parents in the FSB already – family tradition. Later, in my daily work, I'd come across other feds on a weekly basis. And that's me, someone who'd never been engaged in any intelligence or law enforcement or anything. And that's a small 250,000 town! They own a dull grey building in one of the central streets that looks like it could easily accommodate 300 or more full time employees.

They lack quality servicemen, equipment, training - everything. They lack morale. And most importantly they lack understanding of their mission. In the Soviet times, the KGB was one of the arms of the Party that had some (perverted, but still some) kind of common ideology that would at least officially unite people – and provide the daily agenda. The FSB men of these days don't even where the orders come from. Is it a homemade initiative of the local boss playing around with the regional authorities? Or is it some one's game in the Kremlin's administration? Or is it a part of some national agenda announced by Putin? In these conditions, lower echelons start playing their own games – with disastrous consequences. Many, far too many believe that a purge, like Stalin's Great Purge is what the secret police needs to be efficient.

It appears that Kremlin is desperately trying to rebuild the secret police in attempt to handle future domestic conflicts (first priority – liberal opposition, second priority – ethnic clashes). I don't believe this is going to work: the tsarist secret police had infiltrated everywhere but was unable to stop the socialist revolution.

This lack of the common national agenda translates into various tensions and inefficiencies on all levels. Federal agents are supposed to promote imperial values – all ethnic groups under one rule. But what can they do about this mutual hatred that comes from the "grass roots", from "common people"? Especially when the central power is surprisingly self-censored on all ethnic issues (I believe that Russia has no more serious and immediate issue than to design its ethnocultural image/mission). Especially if the feds are (mostly) of modest upbringing and often have the same xenophobic feelings. Or imagine a federal agent with mixed backgrounds...

By the way, what if the Litvinenko's poisoning was a showcase aimed at untrustworthy FSB agents?

The Russian Jotman reader says that the best historical analogy to the present status of the FSB is not KGB of the Soviet era, but the secret police of Tsarist Russia. Like the police of the Tsar, the FSB of today lacks a unifying ideology that could motivate lower-echelon service officers and those serving disparate ethnic communities.

Might a looming crisis of political legitimacy -- triggered, perhaps, by provocations related to ethnic disunity -- render the Putin oligarchy's grip of control over Russia more tenuous than it first might appear, given the range of FSB oversight? Holding positions of leadership isn't everything, the Russian Jotman reader seems to be saying: We also have to consider whether FSB leaders command the loyalty and enthusiasm of officers well down the chain of command across a vast multicultural landcape.

The bottom line? The people of Russia (still) play many games.

"Now the FSB is more powerful than the KGB was."

In November Bush's ploy to use terror threats as a pretext for extending executive privilege began to flounder. Now his besieged presidency appears to be collapsing around him (a recent poll puts George W's approval rating in the low 30s). Sadly, the same can not be said for a keen understudy of the Bush Presidency, one Vladimir Putin.

A truly remarkable story in today's Washington Post paints an ominous picture of post 9/11 Russia. It tells of how Putin consolidated state and commercial and even cultural power in the hands of former KGB operatives by walking the path blazed by President Bush. At least that's where Russia's leaders learned to talk the talk:

"Western countries condemn Russia for encroaching on democracy but invest in their own special and police services nearly unrestricted powers that encroach on the rights and freedoms of their citizens," Yuri Gorbunov, deputy director of the FSB, said in an interview in July with the official newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta. "Why? Because they know what a danger terrorism poses."

Russian critics of the FSB's expanding powers contend that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Putin's government essentially entered the slipstream of American policies justifying the extraordinary rendition or targeted killing of terrorism suspects and domestic programs such as warrantless surveillance of citizens.

The critics say that heightened state security, while ostensibly a response to terrorism, is also seen by the Putin establishment as essential to its own political preservation.

"The FSB can take action against any kind of danger that it sees -- not just terrorism but political and economic dangers," said Andrei Soldatov, editor of Agentura.Ru, an Internet publication that monitors the security services. "Now the FSB is more powerful than the KGB was."

The FSB's multiple briefs include intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, economic crime, electronic espionage, border control, social monitoring and, some observers claim, responsibility for the country's computerized election system.

A study cited in the article suggests as many as 78 percent of the top leadership positions within the Russian government and economy are in the hands of former FSB/KGB people.

This is mind-boggling when you stop to think about it.

Under the Bush presidency, American has not only lost a war in Iraq, it is not only losing another war in Afghanistan. But under Bush, the West lost Russia.

It didn't happen over the course of just one presidency of course. In truth, the son merely completed a trajectory set in motion by his father. After reading this article, who can have any doubt that in the post-Reagan era, the best that can be said for the West is this: we been complacent as forces of totalitarianism within Russia have quietly seized victory from jaws of defeat. The first casualty: the human rights of the Russian people. There will surely be other casualties.

Will Thailand Deport 152 Lao Hmong Refugees?

Adam Tanner of Reuters reported today:

Thailand should not deport a group of Lao Hmong asylum seekers because they face grave danger of persecution if returned to their homeland, U.S.-based Human Rights Watch said on Monday.

Human Rights Watch said Thailand was preparing to deport a group of 152 Hmong, including 77 children and eight babies.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees had already recognized 104 members of the group as refugees, Human Rights Watch said, while the rest are in the process of having their status determined.

Is the new govenment of Thailand going to stand up for the rights of refugees? Or will it revert to its old ways? The world is watching.

There is more on this story at Human Rights Watch.

South Korea, US, IAEA: Fueling the Nuclear Ambitions of India and Indonesia

Last week was a great one for the nuclear industry. Great nations of the world tried to outdo one another in teasing out contracts for new nukes:

1. South Korea joined Russia and Australia in pledging support for Indonesia's intention to build nuclear reactors (IHT).
2. IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei announced that the IAEA supports Indonesia's nuclear power ambitions.
3. The US Congress ratified an agreement to sell nuclear materials to India.
4. The UK announced its plans to modernize the country's nuclear weapons.

My arguments against the US-India nuclear pact were first posted back in 2003 as the agreement was anounced live on CNN (here and here). In the wake of the US-India deal, I reported (here) on China's intention to massively assist Pakistan, helping that country build more nuclear reactors. More recently -- with a hint of sarcasm -- I urged my mates in Australia to "go have a burl" at setting up nuclear reactors in neighboring Indonesia (here).

But this week, the "irresponsible government" award goes neither to Australia nor America, but to the British. With the cold war over, is it really neccessary for the United Kingdom to invest $40 billion in "modernizing" its trident nuclear missles? (Sorry, Tony your proposal for modest reduction in force size doesn't cut it.) Blair says the nukes keep Britain safe from terrorists. But as a blogger at TPM observed:

"If an independent British nuclear deterrent is, as Blair says, “an essential part of our insurance against the uncertainties and risks of the future,” why shouldn’t Germany or Japan or Saudi Arabia or Nigeria or Brazil or all the other countries who have decided to forego nuclear weapons not possess a similar insurance capability?"

I don't mean to let the UK off the hook, or the US, Australia, Russia, China, South Korea or Indonesia for that matter. But the guys at the IAEA look like major dolts amidst this frenzy.

Because this week the International Atomic Energy Agency announced its support both for Indonesia's efforts to develop atomic energy, and -- far more inexplicably -- Mohamed El Baradei is already on record supporting the US-India nuclear pact that was ratified on Friday. There comes a point at which the IAEA -- unable or unwilling to stand up for the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- simply becomes a rubber-stamp for the ambitions of the nuclear power industry.

The most pressing concern up until this point had been the India-US pact. In June Ivan Oelrich at the Strategic Security blog critiqued a Washington Post Op-Ed piece by Mohamed El Barade in which Barade expressed support for the India-US nuclear pact:

What the Administration does not say explicitly but I believe is consistent with their other actions and statements is that they actually welcome a larger Indian nuclear force to help keep China off balance. The Administration says that the Indians would never agree to a cap on their nuclear forces but notice they don’t say that they negotiated hard for that and failed. They never asked because it is not something they want...

ElBaradei’s goals are not the Administration’s goals. I believe the Administration does not see any India/non-proliferation tradeoff because they see a growing Indian nuclear arsenal as a good thing. The only hope for rethinking and restraint now lies with Congress.

Well, too late for that now. In his posting, Oelrich pointed to the underlying problem that most impedes efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons:

It is painfully obvious that the world’s nuclear powers, the United States and Russia in particular, have failed to live up to their disarmament obligations under the NPT. The SORT is virtually meaningless. The United States continues to keep thousands of extremely high yield, highly accurate nuclear warhead mounted atop fast-flying ballistic missiles, many of them forward deployed on ballistic missile submarines. The gap between the public rhetoric and the military reality of nuclear weapons grows ever wider. It is possible that we will drift into a world with ever more nuclear powers.

The IAEA ought to be making this case more forcefully. Furthermore, must the IAEA give its seal of approval to the expansion of the nuclear power industry at a time when the main bastions of that industry -- namely the UK, France, the US, and Russia -- are in flagrant violation of the principles of the NPT? Proffering -- as the UK did this week -- pretentious justifications for "modernizing" their own nuclear arsenals certainly violates the spirit of the accord.

Fiji-Style Democracy

A recent post by Andrew Walker at NewMandala bears the headline: "New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific"

Fiji's new military-appointed Prime Minister, as quoted in the The Sydney Morning Herald said: “Democracy might be all right for Australia and New Zealand but certainly not all right for Fiji, I can tell you that,” he said. “I think in Fiji we need a different type of democracy.”

Update on US Administration Incompetence

The press has recently documented two new milestones concerning Bush administration incompetence (Hat tips go to TPM and Sullivan):

From a NYT report on North Korea: Having previously rejected -- not to mention gleefully mocked --the Clinton administration approach of offering North Korea aid in return for ceasing to manufacture nuclear weapons, the Bush administration has flip-flopped. Now the US is willing to bribe the North Koreans if this will put a stop to their program. The US hand is much weaker today under Bush than it had been under Clinton, for North Korea now has the bomb.

From a MSNBC report on Terrorism: Dale Watson, the FBI's top counterterrorism official both before and after 9/11 (but now retired), did not even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite muslim.

Lawyer: And do you know the differences in the religion between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?

Watson: Not technically, no.

FBI leaders don't need to know about the actual issues to do their jobs, according to an official interviewed for the story. Also: only six FBI employees speak Arabic well; at least one of whom isn't trusted enough to do terrorism-related work. A previous story -- I posted on it here -- suggested that no Arabic speakers had been assigned to counter-terrorism at the FBI five years after 9/11.

A Personal Refelction

Standing in the middle of Broadway in an eerily quiet Times Square -- save for the occasional siren of a fire truck -- stone faced New Yorkers walked towards us; they were headed north. Just north, away from it. "It" was the sickly giant cloud rising over lower Manhattan, a mountain of grey and white smoke churning in the blue sky. Turning to a Canadian man standing beside me, I said something like (expletives omitted), "The head of the CIA --fired! Defense -- fired!"

How wrong I was. In time, the CIA and FBI chiefs were to be awarded the Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush, re-elected in 2004 for being perceived as tough on terror.

Writing Thailand's New Constitution

Pravit Rojanaphruk of The Nation interviewed Thai law prof Worachet Pakeerut of Thammasat University about the process of drafting a new constitution. Worachet calls it "backward" compared to the process for writing the 1997 Constitution. He notes that the coup leaders have stuck their noses into the drafting process ("They should have no say"). He points to the possibility that the planned referendum on the new constitution might in some sense backfire and turn into a referendum on the coup.

Reading what "Thai-style" democracy advocates have been saying, it always strikes me as if they have no concept as to why the rule of law is superior to the rule of men. Worachet delivers straight-talk on this critical point:

There is an argument that Thai people do not value the importance of a charter and, therefore, we should pay it little attention.

[The Constitution] is the highest law but it's the social force that breathes life into it. People do not think the charter is in anyway important to them.

Even after the coup some people said the charter is long dead [so we shouldn't oppose the coup]. In a way, this logic reinforces the legitimacy of solving problems by using means outside a constitutional system.

We could have instead had an election [this November] and elevated the struggle [against Thaksin Shinawatra] to another level. Yet we resorted to the old ways [like the coup of 1991].

How can we strengthen the Constitution and make it part of our political culture that we hold dear?

All parties must contribute, starting from the highest institution in the land. His Majesty the King must play a part but it's risky to make such a suggestion in Thai society.

The bad omens began in 1933 when part of the first Constitution was temporarily suspended. It started to create the feeling that this was perhaps not the supreme law. But no matter what level of crisis we face, we must try to solve it within the system.

Yet how many times did we tear the Constitution down citing previous government corruption as justification?

If such justification is to be taken seriously, then we can stage a coup every day.

In the future, Thais will think coups are a good solution whenever they face political problems. Instead of thinking about the rule of law, they'll think about the military.

I'm not sure if the folk spirit of the Thai people is that of autocracy or not, because they tend to approve of using power to solve problems.

What's even more alarming to me is the moral dichotomy between good and evil - that if you stand on the opposite side of me, you must be evil.

There will be many more coups.

You can find Thailand's 1997 Constitution here.

Iraq Meltdown: James Fallows weighs in, Bush too

Iraq news for today: Screams ring out as triple blast rips through Iraq market leaving 50 dead and 90 injured.

James Fallows wrote the definitive pre-invasion articles on the difficulties post-invasion Iraq would present for the United States. For those Atlantic Monthly articles, he spoke to a lot of military experts who told him that the invasion would be easy, but getting out would be the hard part. He reported what the best military minds in the land had told him: that they saw the adventure creating a whole minefield of potential problems for the US down the road. The US is now well down that road.

James Fallows' personal musings on the few viable choices left for the US at this juncture are worth reading. He concludes:

So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we’ll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course.

But it looks like The Decider has already opted for the "even worse than terrible" solution. A recent Newsweek article investigated Bush's position on the question. It concludes:

As he reviews his Iraq policy, Bush’s face is an open book. He has no intention of leaving Iraq, or abandoning its prime minister.

Makes me curious to know what strategies George has up his sleeve for winning the war in Afghanistan? And then there's Iran...

Proposals to Institutionalize "Thai-Style" Democracy

Andrew Walker and Bangkok Pundit report on some recent proposals by academics to institutionalize so-called "Thai-Style" democracy. Walker comments: "Thank goodness Thailand is well supplied with these great academic thinkers because those silly villagers seem to have the crazy idea that “democracy is equivalent to elections.”

The flawed assumption that lies at the heart of such scholarly proposals is a timeless fantasy of intellectuals of a certain mindset. Since Plato wrote his Republic, various academics have pursued the dream that one group within a society can be "most practical and realistic, focusing on the nation’s integration, security, and spirituality" -- to quote Pattana Kitiarsa, whose paper I critique here. I wonder if these Thai scholars are not Thailand's equivalent of the "Fellow Travellers" of the West. In 1930s many Western intellectuals uncritically swallowed Soviet propaganda, propagating the myth that Communist Party of the Soviet Union had the ordinary man's best interest at heart.

Human nature being what it is, elites -- whether communist, militarist, royalist, or corporatist -- tend to be self-serving. That's because power corrupts. Genuine democracy is the tried and tested safeguard; open society the antidote to this universal human frailty.

Visit Saint Petersburg - before RMJM builds Gazprom City

It survived Stalin, Hitler, and the Cold War, but will it survive Gazprom and RMJM?

British architecture firm RMJM has been selected to design a godawful tower complex called Gazprom City that will gut the horizontal skyline of Saint Petersburg. In contrast to the Brits, Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa proved himself to be a man of integrity:

The Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa, who was invited to serve as a member of the jury, read a two-page statement on Friday describing his vision for St. Petersburg, which would preserve its cityscape on a lower scale, and opposing any of the projects under consideration. He then resigned from the jury and left. In a telephone interview later, he said the city’s current limit on building heights was “the most sensitive issue to keeping the existing cultural value of the old city center.”

The above quote is from this NY Times article.

Crimes Against Humanity: When the Fates of Vietnamese Boat Refugees were in Thai Hands

I recently read Jon Swain's River of Time. It is a fantastic account of the war correspondent's adventures in Indochina focusing on the Vietnam war and the rise of the Khmer Rouge. One of the saddest chapters in the whole book was his account of the rape, robbery, and murder of Vietnamese refugees by Thai fishermen during the late 1980s.

In a recent posting, Bangkok Pundit reports that Thai government ministers may have been culpable in those deaths.

Some background from the Pundit's report: this week, former Thai senator Kraisak called for Thailand to ratify the International Criminal Court so charges of "crimes against humanity" might be brought against deposed PM Thaksin in relation to his prosecution of the war on drugs (alleged to have involved summary executions of suspected drug criminals by the police).

Bangkok Pundit asks: "I wonder what Kraisak thinks about Prem's government from 1980-1988, given his Dad was a Deputy Prime Minister at the time and he was Daddy's adviser for a period. Let's have a look at one thing that happened when Prem was PM." Bangkok Pundit has posted exerpts from an article detailing the horendous humanitarian consequences of directives issued by the Thai government of the day.

Many observers of Thailand say General Prem was a principle figure behind the recent coup. Back when General Prem was prime minister, his government's policies towards the Vientnamese boat people represented a low point in the history of modern Thailand. The leaders of the day should be held to account for their decisions.