Oliver Jufer Jailed for 10 Years

The Nation reports: "A Swiss man was jailed for 10 years Thursday on charges of insulting His Majesty the King by vandalising His portraits during a drunken spree."

Depressing. See my previous post relating to this case.

Update: HM has commuted Oliver's sentence. Horay!

What to make of this?

A recent incident conveys the depravity of the ongoing violence and the outside world's confusion about the nature of the Southern Insurgency in a nutshell.

The Bangkok Post reports that gunmen stormed an Islamic school in the South of Thailand and shot three students dead. The government says the Islamic terrorists are to blame, and that this attack was orchestrated by the extremists to engender support for the cause. The local villagers don't buy this explanation, holding "paratroopers" responsible.

Who are we to believe?

Giles Ungpakorn's "A Coup for the Rich"

Professor Giles Ungpakorn has published a new book critical of the coup and relatively supportive of Thaksin, the deposed prime minister. It's not available in Thai bookstores, but you can download a PDF copy for free here. (Via Bangkok Pundit)

Thai Army Chief Calls for Emergency Rule in Bangkok

The Nation reports that Thailand's junta chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin has urged Thai PM Surayud to impose martial law on Bangkok in the wake of protests in the capital which had grown to as many as 2,000 Friday.

No good is likely to come of this development.

More Evidence that Southern Insurgents Responsible for Bangkok Bombings

Bangkok Pundit has posted some news clippings -- including translations from Thai language sources -- and commentary relating to investigation into the Bangkok bombings at New Years.

The bombing of Bangkok can be seen to have supported the overall strategy of the Southern insurgents. According to Bangkok Pundit, by attacking the Thai capital, the terrorists hoped that: 1) the people of Bangkok would severely pressure the government to solve the problem in the South; and 2) government would further soften its stance. The insugrent's latter aim appears well-founded. Bangkok Pundit points out that escalating violence led the new goverment to relax the hard-line policy of Thaksin towards the insurgents, though the government is unlikely to admit that this turn in policy came in response to increased violence.

In an earlier post, Bangkok Pundit suggested that the governemnt of Thai PM Surayud is "in freefall." Pundit views Surayud as "the lesser of two or three evils" and sees him as a restraining force, so long as he is able to survive. Pundit is particularly concerned that continued attacks on Buddhists in the Southern Provinces could lead to vigillante violence should pro-Buddhists groups from the North mobilize, seeking vengence against Muslim communities of the South believed to harbor terrorists.

What's wrong with "Babel"

Peter Bradshaw, writing in The Guardian, has written a marvelous review of Babel that lucidly explains just what's wrong with this much touted film:

There are some films that arrive here from the international festival circuit almost incandescent with self-importance. They hover into the cinema in a kind of floating trance at how challenging and moving they are. They are films with a profound reluctance to get over themselves. They look up at the sceptical observer with the saucer-eyed saintliness of a baby seal in culling season, or a charity mugger smilingly wishing a nice day on the retreating back of a passer-by.

One such is Babel, the exasperatingly conceited new film from Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Some scenes are quite well done, others not so. The behavior of the police officers of the various nations seems plausible. On the other hand, scenes depicting some quite deplorable behavior on the part of the Western tourists stuck on the bus were unconvincing. If you travel a lot, the movie will seem fake.

Now that I have lowered your expectations, rent Babel sometime. You just might enjoy it.

Australian National University Honors Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew

Should an Australian university be awarding a honorary "law" degree to Singapore's founding president, Lee Kuan Yew? An Australian professor points out the obvious problem here:

. . . it seems somewhat inappropriate to be awarding Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew with a Doctor of Laws. Lee has demonstrated a complete lack of respect over the years (and certainly no honour) for free speech and used the laws of Singapore to ensure he gets his way. If the ANU wishes to recognise the role Lee has played in Singapore’s economic development or his success as a social engineer then by all means award him a degree in government, development or perhaps even business but not any kind of degree with the word “law” attached to it. (source: New Mandala)

Indeed.

Where is Kalmykia?

In the previous post, a Russian reader reported that the leader of the Kalmykia Republic was spearheading oil and gas exploration in Burma. Geographically, Kalmykia is an autonomous republic in SW Russia on the Caspian Sea. It's population is something under half a million. Social geography is one thing. But where is Kalmykia situated, speaking politically and economically? That Russia reader of Jotman explains:

Kalmykia is one very obscure part of Russia. Not precisely Russian equivalent of North Korea, but close. Kirsan has been in power ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. It's one of the least economically developed areas - although its conditions are pretty close to those Tatarstan, Buryatia, Bashkortostan, Yakutia etc, its at the lowest end of the scope - even Altay and Tuva are far more prosperous.

The Russian Jotman reader suggests that whereas Kalmykia is remote economically, politically it would appear more familiar to the West than some other Russian republics:

But all these lands (even Kalmykia) will appear heaven on Earth if you look deeper at the Northern Caucasus region: Chechnya, Dagestan, Northern Ossetia (Alania), Ingushetia, Karachaev-Cherkes republic (KCR) etc. Concentration of corrpution, nepotism and violent crime is striking even by Russian standards. A few days ago, two local branches of major political parties in Dagestan (both supported from Kremlin) were shooting at each other. Some time ago, in KCR inlaws of the local president murdered six people at once. . .

Russian Leader Spearheads Myanmar Oil and Gas Project

A Russian reader of Jotman.com has compiled an interesting report from the Kalmyk Republic (Kalmykia) -- it's a story with implications for Southeast Asia:

A Russian oil and gas company "Kalmneftegaz" controlled by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a controversial (a very moderate expression!) president of the World Chess Federation and leader of the Kalmyk Republic in the Russian Federation acquires a 50% stake in the Khukon valley oil and gas project of Myanmar state-owned MOGE energy company, the Kommersant reports. The Myanmar deal was made possible with the assistance of a Singapore-based company, Silver Way Energy, controlled by some Min Min Aun who is allegedly closely affiliated with Myanmar military circles. Details of the deal are obscure, apparently Silver Wave and the Kalmyk Rrepublic's officials created a joint stock venture registered in the British Virgin Islands. Mr. Ilyumzhinov claims the idea to enter an oil and gas project in Myanmar was inspired by the religious bonds of the Kalmyk Republic and Myanmar -- most Kalmyks are Buddhists, albeit nominally. (source: Kommersant)

Our Russian reader notes that Western media sources contain no reports about about this deal.

Investigators: Southern Insurgents Responsible for Bangkok Bombings

This Bangkok Post story (via New Mandala) reports that police investigators now have evidence that would appear to confirm what I have long argued. Namely, that it is not Thaksin supporters (as the Thai government had proposed), but Southern Insurgents who are responsible for the terrorist attacks around Bangkok on New Years Eve and early New Year's morning. Money quote:

The police team investigating the New Year bombings in Bangkok and Nonthaburi has concluded that a southern separatist group was responsible for the nine explosions. Police are now hunting for a man with a southern Thai accent who bought 300 silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) diodes, used in the assembly of bomb circuits, in Bangkok’s Ban Mo area. A highly-placed source in the investigation team said the insurgent group responsible for the nine bombs wanted to show its capability to launch terrorist attacks outside its home region.

Oliver Jufer faces 75 Years in Jail for Defacing the Thai King's Picture

Yes, someone has defaced the image of the King of Siam, but it wasn't Oliver.

Thailand has put a Swiss man on trial for defacing portraits of King Bhumibol. Mr. Oliver Jufer could face 75 years in prison if convicted. Apparently he was angry that no one would sell him alcohol on the king's birthday.

Does Thailand's lèse-majesté law apply to foreign nationals? It is my understanding that in the past Thailand has given reassurances to foreign nations that it does not. Regardless, lèse-majesté is a reprehensible law. It a disgrace to the Thai nation, and it is an insult to the dignity of a people who pride themselves on their freedom. In fact, by enforcing lèse-majesté law, and by prosecuting Oliver Jufer in particular, the government of Thailand has displayed the Thai monarchy before the world in a most unflattering light. This is something this Swiss man could not have possibly accomplished of his own accord.

Freedom of speech is a basic human right in a free society. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Thailand is a founding signatory. Only recently, Thailand's lèse-majesté law has been cited by powerful figures as an excuse to stifle political freedom, justify a coup d'etat, suspend the constitution, and imprison opponents of military rule. Shame on governments of Thailand past and present for continuing to associate the glorious Thai monarchy with this inhumane and barbaric law! Let there be no mistake: it is not Mr. Oliver Jufer's crayon, but the law under which he is being tried that stains the revered image of the King of Thailand.

More on the international news media reaction to this case -- and the Thai media's refusal to cover the story -- at New Mandala and Thailand Jumped the Shark. For more details on Oliver Jufer's plight read the The Telegraph article.

Update 3/29/07: Oliver Jufer was sentenced today to 10 years in prison.

Further Update: HM the King has commuted Oliver's sentence. Horay!

US Media Distorts Yet Another Bush Scandal

Ever wonder how Americans could have possibly reelected George W. Bush? Take a look at a front page story in today's Washington Post: "White House Cites Lax Voter-Fraud Investigations in U.S. Attorneys' Firings." This story is a beautiful illustration of how the mainstream US media plays along with the White House spin machine.

First, note that the headline is classic example of what I call the Propaganda Headline Syndrome (introduced here). The so-called "lax voter-fraud investigations" mentioned in the headline were something that appears to have been dreamed up by Karl Rove at the White House and disseminated by right-wing talk radio hosts. This so-called issue wasn't prosecuted by the fired US attorneys because there was nothing to prosecute! It's a bogus issue (see The Myth of Voter Fraud). But in the hands of the Washington Post this non-issue became a Propaganda Headline. As I wrote back in the fall:

Media corporations like CNN will repeat any strongly worded White House statement as a headline news item. So if the White House spin is fiction, the headline will be fiction. Because it's the headline that the public will remember, in this way a lie becomes an accepted "truthiness." Call this the "Propaganda Headline Syndrome."

The headline gives publicity to the widely discredited notion of "lax voter-fraud investigations." Nevertheless, one might expect that the article itself would have laid that myth to rest. After all the Washington Post is one of the most respected names in American journalism. Sadly, it does not. Rather the story gives some credence to the "lax voter-fraud investigations" concept. Indeed, the article is a classic specimen of the "he said, she said" phenomenon in US journalism: when both sides of the bogus allegation are given equal weight, the least reputable viewpoint is enhanced. Take a look at the main part of the article (my emphasis):

White House officials, in providing new explanations of how and why several U.S. attorneys were fired in December, have said that President Bush mentioned to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had heard complaints from Congress that some federal prosecutors were lax in pursuing voter fraud.

In attributing the firings at least partly to an inattentiveness to voter fraud, the White House is invoking a contention that has gained prominence in Republican circles starting with the 2000 presidential election, as both political parties have become aggressive in trying to leverage election law into Election Day victories.

The GOP allegation, repeated in several swing states where voting margins have been narrow, is that Democrats have illegally ratcheted up their tallies by permitting ballots to be cast by felons, by residents without proper identification, or by people who forged signatures on absentee ballots.

Democratic-leaning groups reject that allegation and counter by accusing Republicans of blocking fair elections by suppressing the votes of some eligible citizens.

Many readers of this article will say, "well, this latest scandal -- it's just politics." And that's what the White House wants readers to say. The Washington Post serves as a vehicle for the White House disinformation campaign.

Political news in the US is often reported like this: he said, she said. The journalist or her editor declines to help the reader to determine where the truth actually lies in such cases. So when the opposition party points to the most egregious crimes of the Bush administration, they are made to appear as just "one side" of a political spat. The US news media consistently gives the White House equal time and space to respond; it presents such propaganda as news; and it displays such disinformation under a media-crafted banner that promotes US administration spin -- the Propaganda Headline.

Bush Seems to be Personally Implicated in this White House Scandal.

There is now incontrovertible evidence that the White House has attempted to get US prosecutors fired for investigating Republicans and failing to go after Democrats on trumped-up charges. Josh Marshall at TPM, the blogger who broke this major story, writes:

The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

The NY Times reported "Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday." What voter fraud you ask? Well, Bush isn't referring to Republican-instituted "voter-fraud" (i.e. the tactics by which he stole the 2000 US election). No, he's referring to the supposed presence of "felons" on voter registration lists -- votes that are supposedly cast in contravention of some state laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting -- and the alleged failure of federally-appointed attorneys to prosecute these people (see The Myth of Voter Fraud, an oped in the Washington Post).

This White House voter-fraud scare was a part of a too-clever Republican strategy to shift media focus away from successful Republican efforts to rig voter lists in states like Florida (which prohibit felons from voting). BBC reporter Greg Palast showed how the Republicans rigged the voter lists in Florida prior to the 2000 election by indiscriminately tagging black voters as "felons." As most blacks do not vote Republican, a various impartial analysts have concluded that this tactic swung the 2000 presidential vote to Bush. So Bush was having his Attorney General Albert Gonzales purge the US of prosecutors who went after Republicans rather than prosecute the Democrats on trumped-up charges.

More recently, there is evidence to suggest that irregularities in voter registration procedures in Ohio may have tipped the 2004 election to Bush (more here). The Bush White House has worked in tandem with Fox News and right-wing talk radio hosts to create the illusion that non-issues like "felons on voter lists" are worthy of prosecutors' limited attention. (see my next post, US Media Distorts yet Another Bush Scandal)

Josh Marshall has nailed the issue, but the mainstream US media is showing early signs of spinning this story in favor of the White House, by parlaying Bush White House spin that Clinton did the same thing when he hired new federal attorneys (something all presidents have done).

Let's hope that this is the scandal that brings down the Bush White House, lest such brazen efforts aimed at turning America into a one-party state prove successful. Enough of this nonsense, impeach!

Protester interviewed at a small democracy demonstration

I took this video Thursday of last week. A protester is interviewed on the grounds of the royal palace in Bangkok. The interview is in Thai and I will post an English translation as soon as one is available.

Thai PM "guarantees" safety of tourists in Thailand

The Bangkok Post reports that in the wake of security warnings issued by Australia and other countries the Thai PM said tourists' safety is "guaranteed." Embassies had issued warnings to tourists that terrorists may be planning to attacks in Bangkok and tourist areas of Thailand such as Phuket.

How can the PM possibly offer such assurance? For example, in the Phuket-Krabi region, my own inspection revealed the ferry system to be extremely vulnerable -- no security protocols appeared to be in place.

Small Anti-coup protest in Bangkok today

The Nation reports that there was a small anti-coup protest today at Siam Centre. Ten academics participated according to the paper.

Update: The democracy protest and march I witnessed Thursday does not appear to have been covered in the Bangkok Post or The Nation.

Thai Magazine Publishes Provocative Anti-Coup Issue

This seems worthy of mentinon. Chang Noi, an anonymous columnist published in the Thai English daily The Nation wrote in the March 5 issue:

Last month, the magazine Fa Dieo Kan put out a special issue on the coup. The editor apologises upfront for making no pretence of even balance. This publication is unremittingly and furiously against the coup. The contents include articles, speeches, interviews and translations by 20 people, so there is no single argument, and much disagreement. But the book's overall message is daring, revealing and very challenging.

The cover tells it all. The graphic lampoons the generals' protests that it was not really a coup. The title is: "The Coup for Democracy with the King as Head of State." The book's first main point is that you cannot start to understand this coup, or current Thai politics at all, without confronting the role of the monarchical institution. (my emphasis)

In these writers' usage, the monarchical institution is not an individual or family but a much larger collection of people including Privy councillors and royalist supporters. This monarchical institution is like a "black box" in economic or scientific theory. You cannot see inside so you don't know how it works. But you can see what it does and what the effects are on the outside world. Several of the writers argue that the major role of the black box in this coup is undeniable. You need only consider the role of Privy councillors both before and after. These writers then ask why this happened and what are the consequences?

Thongchai Winichakul answers these questions using a long perspective. The history of modern Thailand has tended to be written as good democrats combating bad soldiers. But the crucial battle of that war was fought in 1973, and the war ended by 1992. Instead Thongchai suggests the whole dreary history of coups from 1947 onwards should be seen as an attempt by self-serving elites to control the consequences of what happened in 1932. Their goal is not to return to monarchic rule, but to a form of elite rule that clings to the monarchy for legitimacy. But over time the politicians and the people have become pushier. One counter-strategy of the old elites is to go on and on about corruption and money politics. In itself, this criticism is not bad. But it can easily become a tool to discredit parliamentary politics as a whole, and overthrow the fundamental concept of democracy, the sovereignty of the people. In Thongchai's words, "If a government supported by a popular majority is only a 'jockey', then in the end the government machinery belongs to the king" . . .

This book argues that the big issue now is not the military or political corruption or populism, but how to prevent an elite minority controlling politics and keeping the masses as passive partners, in part by exploiting the symbolic power of the monarchy.

Regular Jotman readers may recall that University of Wisconsin historian Thongchai Winichakul was the author of an earlier statement denouncing the September 19 Thai coup d'etat. It was entitled, "Bad Excuse for a Coup".

Given that in recent months The Nation has behaved as little more than a propaganda arm of the Thai junta, I was pleasantly surprised to discover this Chang Noi column.

Australia issues new (and broader) warning concerning travel to Thailand

The Bangkok Post reports that Australia has issued yet another warning to its citizens about visiting Thailand:

"We continue to receive reports that terrorists may be planning attacks against a range of targets, including tourist areas and other places frequented by foreigners," Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs said in its latest advisory.

It said more attacks could occur "at any time, anywhere" in Thailand.

"The increase in violence in Southern Thailand may lead to attacks elsewhere in Thailand, including Bangkok and other tourist areas, such as Phuket and Pattaya," it said.

Previous warnings issued by foreign embassies over the past two weeks concerned the threat of attacks in Bangkok. For what may be the first time, a foreign country has warned its citizens that terrorist attacks could occur in touristed regions of Thailand outside the capital. Phuket in particular is named this time.

As I reported in some earlier posts, the Phuket-Krabi tourist region is particularily vulnerable, especially in view of its international profile, proximity to the southern-most provinces, and importance to the Thai economy. Of particular concern to me is that fact that some of the Kingdom's ferry-boat ports appeared to have no security measures in place.

Live Blogging a Bangkok Protest

Here is a drive-by video clip I shot of a protest march in Bangkok this morning -- just an hour ago. Protesters assembled on the grounds of the royal palace and marched to parliament.

Protesters March from Bangkok's Royal Palace to Parliament

Protesters marched from the Royal Palace to Parliament in Bangkok around 10:00 am this morning. They carried banners and many wore headbands. At first I assumed the protest was about democracy. As some signs related to violence against women, I left the scene a bit confused.

However, there was a small group of pro-democracy protestors gathered to one side of the palace grounds (shown in the photo and video clip). They were interviewed by Thai television. One man held a cardboard cut-out of a Thai general, another woman waved her hands in the air.

Is Japan bullying Thailand to accept its toxic waste?

Yesterday, the Bangkok Post reported that a statement had been appended to a draft of the Thailand-Japan Free Trade Agreement stating that no breech of Basel Accord is "intended" -- a weak appendage that activists say would have no legal force.

The Basel Convention, signed in 1992, stipulates that countries must dispose of toxic waste within their own borders. It broadly bans all forms of hazardous waste being shipped from the industrialized world to the developing world. However, Japan appears to be using a proposed bilateral free frade agreement (FTA) with Thailand as a way to force Thailand to accept toxic waste imports. The proposed draft Thailand-Japan FTA specifically eliminates Thai tariffs on the import of toxic waste:

"The investment charter of the Thai-Japan FTA has many clauses protecting the Japanese investor involved in recycling hazardous waste," said Witoon Liancharoon, spokesman for FTA Watch. "Thailand won't be able to use any protections guaranteed under existing multilateral environment agreements if a problem occurs." (Asia Times) Why would the Japanese be insisting that such clauses be part of an agreement, unless they inteded to export toxic waste to Thailand (in contravention of the Basel Convention?).

An Asia Times article provides some figures which indicate that Thailand has not been safely disposing of toxic waste:

As of 2001, according to industry monitors, less than 10% of the estimated 1 million tons of hazardous waste produced in the country was properly stabilized, processed and disposed of. The rest was dumped either into rivers, into open dumps or unregulated private properties, or at sea. The 25%-state-owned General Environmental Conservation Public Co, or Genco, has long held a local monopoly on industrial-waste disposal - but until recently only had the capacity to handle a mere 20% of Thailand's annually produced toxic waste, according to industry experts.

At the same time, Thailand has nonetheless imported growing quantities of hazardous waste. In 2002, it accepted 54 tonnes of waste from Japan, which increased to 334,000 tonnes in 2003, and 350,000 tonnes in 2004, according to Thailand's Customs Department. "Yet we don't know what happened to the waste, where it was sent to in the country," said CAIN's Penchom. "That information is described as a trade secret. This mystery is a problem to us."

More background information on this issue is available at the website of the the Basel Action Network (BAN).

Were the recent anit-Putin protests in Russia futile?

A Russian Jotman reader reflects on the recent protests in Saint Petersburg. As many as 8,000 people took to the streets to demonstrate against Putin. Over a hundred arrests followed. The reader writes:

What makes their position vulnerable is that the opposition doesn't seem to have a coordinated and resonant agenda. I mean, the technical details are not sophisticated for the smarter and more conscious people. For instance, none of the speeches at the improvised rally was focused and detailed enough to attract media attention. Blaming Putin and Co for the heck of it is perhaps fair and works well for radicalized youths and impoverished retirees, but not constructive. Where are the concrete concerns that could have been raised?

Issues that the opposition consistently fails to raise and articulate in a nation-wide agenda could include:

• Suppression of democratic liberties exemplified (but not limited) by in the abolition of local elections;
• Institutional corruption – most ugly examples are everywhere in the press, but it's never stated that the government should assume responsibility for that;
• Failure to crack down on violent crime Russia is so famous for. People are paying taxes after all, where's police to defend them?;
• Failure to conduct open and fair investigations of the most notorious recent crimes – starting from the FSB-associated bombing in 1990s, following with Beslan, and most recently prominent journalist killings;
• Failure of any imaginable democracy in Chechnya that has now ended up an ancient Oriental tyranny;
• Failure to reform the army – Russian media is full of horrors of dedovschina, yet no one puts them into a concise message;
• Worsening relations with most developed countries. Deteriorated image of the nation;
• Failure of the national justice system – examples are abundant. Unjust prison sentence for Khodorkovsky as just one example
• Failure of the administrative reform – virtually nothing has been facilitated for ordinary people, while government personnel has multiplied;
• Failure of the social insurance system – hundreds of thousands aged people subsist on bread and water (in fact pensioners are the sole politically active part of the population).

Without raising concrete detailed concerns, they fail to attract people who might be interested in any of these causes – and these topics are interrelated, because they represent the current state of neverending system crisis. Besides, unfocused "political noise" makes it more convenient for the authorities arrest people for "general disorder". Maybe the opposition is just concerned not to take on too much of responsibility? Anyway, at least they now appear a bit less amorphous, for me.

If Russian polls are to be believed, Putin remains popular in Russia, enjoying the support of around 70% of the Russian populace. As a follow-up, I asked the Russian Jotman reader whether he thought this sort of street protest was futile. The reader replied:

Naively talking, blatant anti-Putinism works wonderful with some romantic liberals (few remnants of the 1960s), radicalized youths (very unusual for young people who are 99% apolitical), and impoverished pensioners – very short life expectancy for the latter – and they cannot be an active street force. As you can see, these are all few and far apart. To really shake the system you have to reach its foundation, its silent conscience, the pseudo middle class – a quiet army of low rank officials, state-owned company employees, school teachers, researchers, doctors, police officers, - everyone who's on the payroll.

This folks have been out of the politics for most of their existence, but they are the supporting force. You can't bring them back to politics (or out to the streets) by blaming Putin because he's one of them, their supporter and benefactor. Even though not all of them agree with Putin's policies, they are not interested in any drastic changes – because they have got something to lose. So you have got have some message that's aimed at this people, respects their interests and concerns, and doesn't threaten their existence. Of course it is more complex, than just a wish list, but a list of claims is an important step to make them understand that it's not fun.

Cynically talking, history knows many examples when massive uprisings were effectively launched with a little and at first unimportant reason (often such as quality of food, lack of salt, fake coins, conspiracy theories etc) – this is more true for very unstable tyrannies with little or no supporting bureaucracy, but in case with Russia, you never know what's going to work. Anything could work, but for the opposition it's important to start probing what could be a most resonant agenda.

As for making their views available to the population, opposition is cut off from media (with a notable exception of online outlets). No access to TV and radio, censoring of printed media. Hence street activity.

A Bangkok Success?

A recent NY Times story presents Bangkok as a model for Asia -- a success story in the fight against pollution. The Times reports that that Bangkok has "considerably cleaner air than Beijing, Jakarta, New Delhi and Shanghai." That counts as news?

RANK --- CITY ---- POPULATION--- COUNTRY -- PER-CAPITA GDP (03)

• 3 -------- Delhi ---------11,100,000 -------- India --------- $2,900
  
• 4 -------- Shanghai -----10,800,000 -------- China -------- $5,000
• 11 ------ Jakarta ------- 8,400,000 -------- Indonesia -----$3,200
  
• 14 ------ Beijing -------- 7,700,000 -------- China ----------$5,000
  
• 23 ----- Bangkok ------ 7,000,000 --- ---- Thailand ------- $7,000
  

Obviously, with fewer inhabitants, Bangkok should have less pollution! Thailand is also a much richer country -- measured on a per-capita basis -- than India, China, or Indonesia. So you would expect the Thais to be able to afford cleaner technologies. Thailand, to its credit, has pressured Toyota and other car and motorbike manufacturers to sell cleaner vehicles in Bangkok:

. . . while the number of motor vehicles registered in Bangkok has increased 40 percent over the past decade, the average levels of the most dangerous types of pollution — small dust particles that become embedded in the lungs — have been cut 47 percent, to 43 micrograms per cubic meter from 83.

Yet, if you had stood beside me on a Bangkok sidewalk yesterday as one dirty smog-emitting bus after another passed by, you too would declare it premature for Bangkok residents to celebrate.

The air in Bangkok remains filthy. Relatively simple measures that would make a real difference to the low quality of air in the Thai capital -- notably regulating bus and tuk-tuk emissions -- have either not been enacted or not been enforced. Bangkok certainly could be a model city for Asia, but it's not there yet.

Russians in Saint Petersburg Protest Against Putin

A Russian reader of Jotman reports that a surprisingly large demonstation took place on the streets of Moscow over the weekend. Noting that the protest appears to have received little if any coverage in the Western media, he provides this report:

This Saturday, in Saint Petersburg opposition has finally managed to launch an impressive rally of about 5000 people. This was the long-awaited "March of Dissentients" that had failed last December in Moscow. Official estimates are that 2000 people attended, the opposition claims 8000. Police force was about 3000. Last year, it was banned in Moscow, so was this year in SPb, but the opposition did not obey this time.

The "March" was organized by a coalition "The other Russia" (A Different Russia) comprised on the "United Civic Front" led by Garry Kasparov (ex chess champion), "People's Democratic Union" under Mikhail Kasyanov (ex PM), and the "National Bolshevist Party" under Eduard Limonov - a most notorious radical that appeals to youths.

Interestingly, the authorities attempted to label the march as "Russian nationalistic" to repel potential followers.

The illegal meeting started at the Oktyabrskaya subway station, where it gathered only 500 people. and was quickly contained by the police force.

However, what happened next was apparently totally spontaneous and unexpected both to the organizers and the police. Several dozens of people headed by a SPb parliament member Sergey Guliayev broke through the police lines and the crowd rushed to the Nevsky Prospect. The march followed all the way to the Rebellion Square (famous for the attempted December coup of 1825). There an improvised rally took place and leaders of opposition Kasyanov, Kasparov and Limonov gave passionate speeches against Putin's government (and current SPb mayor L. Matviyenko).

Arrests started almost immediately and continued the next day. Around 100 people have been arrested so far for "general disorder".

Anti-American Television News

"The only American news channel available overseas" - Fox News

That's what Fox calls itself. It also happens to be true (a surprise in itself, coming from Fox). Although CNN International is available overseas, most of the time it doesn't show the same content as CNN in the United States. CNBC is mostly business news, so it doesn't count.

Let's suppose that Fox News was all someone knew about the US. How would this person tend to view Americans? I asked myself this question last night watching Fox News in Thailand, and here's the list I came up with.

The foreign viewer of Fox News is likely to conclude that Americans are . . .

1. Creepy: Fox News announcers are hired for their looks, not their journalistic expertise. No thought required. Just the capacity to emote sneers and display righteous indignation. Intelligence could hardly be a prerequisite for the talking mannequins of Fox News, as their task is to repeat White House propaganda -- over and over, endlessly. Wasn't it Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie enough times and it will be mistaken for the truth? Had Nazi Germany a 24 hour news channel, one supposes it might have looked and sounded something like this.

2. Simple-minded. War on Terror. Us against Them. Tax cuts. On Fox News, just about every story has a simple answer. On Fox News you learn that "liberals" and "terrorists" are the root source of all problems. As a Thai friend told me: "Fox News makes the US seem like a big soap opera. But the plot and the characters of this soap opera are too simple to hold my interest."

3. Obsessed about their health. Seems like every five or ten minutes Fox News gives you a health report update.

4. Stingy. When some hikers get lost on a mountain, Fox News anchors reflexively snarl about how much search and rescue operations are costing the taxpayers. That taxpayers could be dinged ten-thousand dollars for a search and rescue operation invites serious discussion on Fox News, but not the $600 billion bill for the war in Iraq (Fox News is too "patriotic" to question the bill for the Iraq war).

5. Wilfully ignorant about what happens outside the US. A Florida girl with a bad case of the hiccups warrants more news coverage than a hundred dead Iraqis.

6. Mean-spirited. Fox News personalities come across as mean, bitter people who frequently express seething resentment about those "illegal" Mexicans, and any other would-be immigrants.

7. Power-happy. Fox News people come across as overly proud of American power and wealth. "We're great because we're strong" is the message. They are lacking in humility -- not exactly a sign of virtue to much of the world.

Most Americans are not power-happy, mean-spirited, or stingy. But watching smug and self-righteous Fox News hosts sprout White House propaganda before a set that prominently features the stars and stripes, I have to remind myself that they do not represent America. I have to remind myself that only a small fraction of the American public shares attributes characteristic of those intolerant Fox News personalities.

There is nothing quite like watching Fox News when you are overseas. That's when you realize that Fox News amounts to an incredibly powerful means of fermenting anti-American sentiment. That's when you realize Fox News provides actual testimony which explicitly confirm many of the worst prejudices foreigners hold against Americans. Fox News makes various myths that inform global anti-American sentiment seem true.

More ominously, overseas broadcasts of Fox News give foreigners the illusion that even the most egregious policies of the US government -- extrajudicial renditions, Guantanamo Bay, etc. -- are wholeheartedly supported by the American people. This happens because "fair and balanced" Fox News tends to downplay the extent of domestic US opposition to Bush Administration policies. In short, Fox makes it easier for people despise not merely the US government, but the American people.

The main effect of broadcasting Fox News overseas is to lend support to anti-American sentiment worldwide, shore-up the interests of Islamic terrorists, and give credence to the cause of various rouge regimes. Because overseas broadcasts of Fox News would seem likely to encourage anti-Americanism, it's fair and balanced to call this American news channel a gift to America's enemies.

North Korea 8: America 0

Bush's foreign policy legacy in East Asia could be summed up by the number eight. That's how many nukes North Korea would seem to have now scored on account of the foreign policy ineptitude of the Bush Administration. The NY Times reports:

“The administration appears to have made a very costly decision that has resulted in a fourfold increase in the nuclear weapons of North Korea,” Senator Reed said in an interview on Wednesday. “If that was based in part on mixing up North Korea’s ambitions with their accomplishments, it’s important."

The "costly decision" was to scrap the Clinton Administration's agreement with North Korea, which meant there were no longer any international constraints put on the North Korean nuclear program. Senator Reed, a Republican, seems to be presuming that North Korea had two nuclear weapons when Bush came to office -- that's how you get estimates of "a four-fold increase" under Bush, and the number 8. However, many analysts believe that North Korea didn't have any nuclear bombs in 2001.

Effectively, the White House gave North Korea the green light to produce nukes, scrapping the agreement signed by the Clinton Administration that had, in fact, put a stop to North Korea's (very real) plutonium program.The Bush administration scrapped the agreement whereby they could inspect North Korea's plutonium reactor; the US claimed North Korea had violated the "deal" citing evidence of a secret North Korean uranium program. But now the US Administration admits that the alleged evidence for the uranium program had been misinterpreted (sound familiar?).