The big issue: A borderline case Sunday, November 17, 2013 08:16 AM Resolution Monday failed to live up to its billing, for which everyone can be thankful. But now comes Wild Wednesday. First, a quick review. The International Court of Justice convened in The Hague and on your TV screen. Its verdict took hours, but boiled down to a wishy-washy decision that, yes, Cambodia owns land around the Preah Vihear temple, but just how much and exactly where is something the governments should thrash out. Last Sundays story: A city of two tales It was the perfect setup to the years most boring parliamentary session. The Senate held what is technically called a debate, featuring a total lack of disagreement. The honourable members of the Upper House then voted unanimously to do what everyone wanted them to do _ kill the bill passed a week earlier by the Lower House to give amnesties to everyone for everything. In 1962 the ICJ delivered a decisive ruling, well, decisively in that Cambodia owned the Preah Vihear temple. The 2013 judges only pretended. Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, that were stationed there, and Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear sound so manly, until one reads the rest of the 37 pages. The very un-Solomonic judgement reads as if the ICJ panel made a conscious effort to placate and satisfy all Thais and all Cambodians. It left almost all issues right where they were a week ago. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, as she had signalled all along, flatly refused to accept the ruling as final. Negotiations are necessary with Phnom Penh over how to proceed, she said. For starters, Thai troops wont budge from their border positions. Thailand will pro-actively oppose any attempt by Cambodia to register a temple-maintenance programme with Unesco under the World Heritage sites project. Preah Vihear temple, with all thanks to the namby-pamby ICJ, remains a flashpoint on three fronts: At the actual site, where troops face each other up close and dangerously, and on the streets of both Thailand and Cambodia where ultra-nationalists and governments equally can quickly inflame public opinion. Meanwhile, at home in Bangkok, the Senate ended the threat of an immediate amnesty for Thaksin with a 140-0 vote, but the killbillies were in no mood to declare victory and head home. The rolling rallies, centred in the Ratchadamnoen area, remained just a junior version of the old yellow shirt mobs. But when a crowd of 40,000 is properly described as street politics in a holding pattern, the threat (or promise, depending on your view) of quick escalation and political crisis is obvious. Suthep Thaugsuban, an ex-member of parliament and former minister and one-time party financier, entered into the spirit of being Rabble Rouser No1, an unfamiliar role. His speeches grew progressively more passionate, but his tactics, at times, had the look of the neophyte. Mr Suthep called on the public to dial up the pressure on government through a general strike. But the brand-new political firebrand and ex-MP seemed not to have read up on such political demonstrations. Everyone should take part in a three-day national strike, he explained, except for those whose work is vital to peoples everyday lives, private companies and shop owners who are due to pay mid-year taxes. So the strike consisted of everyone except all workers and businesses. Ironically, the only visible strike came on the first day, when attendance at the Democrats rally site fell to a few hundred, hardly Mr Sutheps aim. By Friday, the killbillies were pressing Mr Suthep to let them know just where he was heading. All Mr Suthep could offer the enthusiastic and impatient pre-weekend crowd of 40,000 was a vow to ``go after the Thaksin regime. Not that the Democrats lack political arrows for their quiver. For example, they can raise the Preah Vihear issue and (try to) whip up the masses with anti-Cambodian rhetoric of the type they used successfully to start a brief war in 2011. That 4.6 square kilometres of disputed land will certainly resurface in politics for many years to come; why not now? Today, though, the protest-minded factions all are focused on Wednesday. This newest D-Day is when the Constitution Court is to consider whether the latest charter amendment _ affecting the structure of the Senate _ is legal. The highly political arguments against this amendment dont actually matter; only the courts decision can put the countrys future at stake. One possible ruling: The amendment is constitutionally fine, carry on. That is effectively no decision, and nothing changes on the street, in parliament or anywhere. Carry on revolting. The other: The amendment is illegal, an abuse of parliament and the political party that handled the process is hereby dissolved. That would mark the third judicial coup. There only are two chances that either Pheu Thai or its red-shirt supporters would accept that ruling gracefully: fat and slim. Source: Bangkok Post
Posted on: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 03:31:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015