UDHR - People's Stories


	View previous stories
	Thai Prime Minister steps down by AFP / BBC News / SBS News Thailand April 9, 2006 The Thai people speak. (The Boston Globe) Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra''s resignation last week signifies a healthy triumph of people power in Thailand. A cascade of huge public rallies against Thaksin''s manipulation of democratic forms finally led to the fall of a new kind of autocrat - the oligarch who buys power and wields it as the CEO of an entire country. The immediate catalyst for the billionaire tycoon''s decision to step aside was, apparently, a well-timed nudge from Thailand''s revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Despite a stunning level of opposition to his Thai Rak Thai party in the parliamentary election - in which 10 million people cast no votes - Thaksin initially pretended he nevertheless had a mandate to continue in office, since a majority of voters had voted for his party. But after being summoned to a "special audience" with King Bhumibol Tuesday, Thaksin went on television to say he was stepping aside so as not to spoil the celebrations in June of the king''s 60th anniversary on the throne. The king, however, was only fulfilling the will of his people. In many constituencies, there were more "no" votes than votes for candidates of Thaksin''s party. This was the outcome in 26 constituencies of Bangkok and in 56 more in predominantly Muslim districts of southern Thailand. In 38 other constituencies, unopposed candidates from Thaksin''s party failed to get 20 percent of the votes cast, a requirement for gaining a seat in Parliament. Hence, the election did not produce a new parliament in accordance with the Constitution, but it did deprive Thaksin of a mandate to continue in power. The election results and the rallies that brought as many as 100,000 demonstrators into the streets were rooted in revulsion against both the domestic abuses of Thaksin''s rule and his regional missteps. His government''s extra-judicial murders of suspected drug traffickers, the massacre of Muslims in southern Thailand that infuriated neighboring Malaysia, his commercial dealings with a savage military junta in Burma that has been flooding Thailand with methamphetamine, and the corrupt granting of government contracts to well-connected cronies - these were among the causes of popular disenchantment with Thaksin. But the final straw was the sale of his family-owned conglomerate to the government of Singapore for $1.9 billion. Included were not only the satellite and mobile-phone branches of his business empire, but also an airline in competition with the Thai national airline. The Thais are showing the world that there is a crucial distinction between corporate culture and democratic culture. 6.4.2006. Thaksin agrees to step aside. (AFP) Thailand faces weeks of uncertainty following Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra decision to step down. Mr Thaksin stunned the country by announcing his resignation following weeks of mass protests and a controversial election. In his absence, deputy premier Chidchai Vanansathidya will be appointed acting caretaker prime minister, government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said. Mr Thaksin"s opponents in the media, business circles and sections of the Bangkok middle class have praised his decision to go and expressed relief that an end to a months-long political crisis may be in sight. One of his leading critics, Sondhi Limthongkul, vowed to press ahead with a new protest in Bangkok, this time demanding Mr Thaksin leave politics entirely. But a poll on Wednesday found 87 percent of those asked in the capital want the protests to stop. The same poll showed Mr Thaksin"s popularity jumped to 64 percent in Bangkok after announcing his resignation. He will stay as caretaker premier until parliament convenes and will remain leader of his party and an MP after that. A close aide said many cabinet members had been shocked by Mr Thaksin"s sudden announcement late on Tuesday, which came just about two hours after he met the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The opposition, which boycotted last weekend"s election in a bid to force him out, also seemed caught off guard. The Democrat Party and two smaller parties met for most of the day to decide how to react. Mr Thaksin"s party looked set to win about 56 percent of the vote in Sunday"s vote, the Election Commission said, with 99 percent of districts reporting. Those results were in line with Mr Thaksin"s expectations. He had insisted on Monday that his party would win 57 percent of the vote in Sunday"s polls, despite a strong protest vote in Bangkok and southern Thailand, and the boycott which undermined the credibility of the balloting. But the election left 39 seats empty, due to disqualified candidates or because the winner failed to meet the minimum 20 percent vote requirement. Uncertainty Parliament cannot convene until by-elections for 39 districts are held on April 23 and all 500 seats are filled. The Democrats have already announced that they will not field candidates in the by-elections. The uncertainty left it unclear when Mr Thaksin would actually leave the post he has held since 2001, because a new prime minister cannot be confirmed until parliament convenes. "The next big step is how (to resolve) what happened with the results of the current election," said John Brandon, director of international relations at the Asia Foundation. Mr Thaksin had come under increasing pressure to quit since January, when public anger erupted over his family"s US$1.9-billion tax-free sale of its stock in Shin Corp, the telecom giant Mr Thaksin founded before entering office. His critics staged weeks of street protests demanding he resign for alleged corruption and abuse of power, while his political rivals boycotted the elections that were seen as a referendum on his leadership. Mr Thaksin"s decision to resign is expected to usher in a months-long process of constitutional reform, with an interim government running the country until new elections can be organised. Even a lengthy period of political reforms under a caretaker government was preferable to the standoff that had gripped Thailand for two months, said Kiatphong Noijaiboon, a vice chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries. "After the parliament convenes, political reforms can move forward," Mr Kiatphong said. "It will be much easier for the opposition parties to run in the new election to make sure Thai democracy works properly." 5 March 2006 Mass rally against Thailand"s PM. (BBC News) Thousands of opponents of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra are holding a protest in Bangkok, vowing to stay in the streets until he steps down. About 50,000 people marched to Mr Thaksin"s office waving Thai flags and shouting anti-government slogans. Police said the march was peaceful. This is the latest in a series of rallies accusing Mr Thaksin of corruption and abuse of power. He has called a snap election in April in an attempt to win back authority. One of Mr Thaksin"s most prominent opponents, Sondhi Limthongkul, told the crowd: "We will rally around the clock until Thaksin and (his wife) Potjaman leave the country." Another protest leader, Suriyasai Katasila, said: "The rally will go on and we won"t stop unless we win." On Sunday afternoon, the protesters marched from Sanam Luang (Royal Field) to the Democracy Monument, which commemorates the end of absolute monarchy. In the evening, rally organisers called on the crowd to march towards the prime minister"s office. Waving flags and accompanied by a van playing music the crowd made its way there. The BBC"s Simon Montlake in Bangkok says there were tense moments as protest leaders negotiated their way past police lines. Critics of Mr Thaksin say he has destroyed democratic institutions and is guilty of corruption, tax evasion and human rights violations. Mr Thaksin, who has said he will resign if his party does not win at least 50% of the vote in the election, is campaigning in the north-east. He has strong support in the countryside, where the majority of Thais live. About 100,000 supporters rallied on Friday to support him. Mr Thaksin dissolved parliament on 24 February after about a month of street protests. But his attempt to regain the initiative has been thrown into doubt by the main opposition Democrat Party and two other parties, which have said they will boycott the election. Analysts say this would seriously threaten their legitimacy. 5.2.2006. (SBS News) Underlying dissatisfaction with Thailand"s Prime Minister has come to the surface. Thousands of his compatriots have called on Thaksin Shinawatra to resign. They accuse the wealthy businessman-turned-politician of corrupt conduct over the sale of his multibillion-dollar family business. Estimates of crowd numbers ranged from 40,000 to 100,000. Either way, it"s the biggest anti-government demonstration in the capital, Bangkok, for 14 years. With the royal palace as a backdrop, the protest signalled a landmark challenge to Thaksin Sinawatra"s five years in office. The mood appeared festive, but the messages carried by banners were serious. They were meant to persuade the King to pressure the Prime Minister to resign. Adding to the pressure on the prime minister, his cabinet has been shaken by a two resignations in as many days. The protesters accuse the prime minister of using his political power to boost his business dealings - particularly in the $US1.9 billion ($A2.5 billion) sale of his family"s Shin Corp, the telecom giant founded by Thaksin. The $2.5 billion sale failed to attract the customary 30% capital gains tax. As the protest went deep into the night, his opponents labelled him a corrupt dictator who abused power for personal gain. "Thaksin get out!" they chanted. But with typical defiance, Thaksin Shinawatra said in a radio broadcast only the King, not the crowd, can ask for his resignation. Last year, the billionaire prime minister showed his disdain for media probing. When faced with a question he disliked, he denounced it as "non-constructive" and gave reporters a game show-style buzzer treatment. The protesters are hoping to convince King Bhumibol Adulyadej to pressure the prime minister to resign or to call new elections. Thaksin"s leading critic, media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul, led a group of 200 people to deliver a petition to a representative of the king. It called the prime minister a "dictator who is corrupt, lacks ethics, has no respect for rule of law, and who abuses power to seek his personal and family gain." Thaksin"s cabinet was rocked by the sudden resignation of technology minister Sora-at Klinpratum. It followed the walkout on Friday of Culture minister Uraiwan Thienthong who said she wanted to "preserve political ethics". Both belong to the same faction within Thaksin"s party, headed by Uraiwan"s husband Sanoh Thienthong.

	Multi-polarity as the new reality of international politics by Jonathan Steele The Guardian / UK 03 February 2006 The crises over Hamas and Iran underline the collapse of the neoconservative mission and the end of a one-superpower world. George Bush"s presidency still has three years to run, but this week"s state of the union address had an unmistakably ebb-tide air. Its tone - "chastened, deferential, modest" in the words of the Los Angeles Times - suggested that the president felt the waves of power were flowing against him. This is not the same as being a lame duck. The moment when second-term presidents start to face severe problems in getting legislation through Congress or convincing foreign allies to support controversial measures normally comes later in the cycle. The last midterm elections (in this case November 2006) are the usual peak before the White House incumbent"s domestic authority declines. On foreign policy the slippage comes even later. It may be delayed as far as the final weeks of office, as Bill Clinton found when he tried to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians in January 2001. Nor does the change in Bush"s demeanour this week result mainly from fading support among Americans for what will be remembered as the central decision of his presidency, the mistaken war on Iraq. His unprecedentedly low poll ratings certainly affected his mood on Tuesday night, and one sharp-eyed New York Times reporter noted that "he smiled seldom and only winked once". But the reason for Bush"s gloom goes much deeper. Like missionaries who find that the heathens are refusing to be converted, he and his neocon colleagues are beginning to realize that their mission of freedom is not as convincing as they expected. It is also having unpredicted effects, forcing them to confront awkward choices: carry on elaborating grand principles, or adjust the message and feel guilty of sinful backsliding. Bush"s speech was remarkable for the number of times he called on his fellow Americans not to retreat, not to give up, not to succumb to pessimism, not to be defeatist. If his policies were not floundering, these pleas would not have been necessary. They were markedly different from the confident tone of last year"s address, when he had just been inaugurated for a second term and the administration hoped that Iraq"s first elections would bring the collapse of the insurgency. Now, after a constitutional referendum and another election, the attacks on US and British forces show no sign of abating significantly. Bush insisted on Tuesday that democracy was still on the march around the world, particularly in the Middle East. He cited the polls in Egypt, Palestine and Saudi Arabia, though when he claimed that Iran "is held hostage by a small clerical elite" he seemed to forget that its president was also elected: he won in a well-contested race with a high voter turnout and no obvious frontrunner. Yet, as one listens to Bush and his neocon team, their sense of frustration is palpable. They realize they have been ambushed by their own policies. Their zeal for ideological purity pushed them into positions from which it is hard to escape without looking as though they are betraying themselves. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has made two difficult trips to Europe in less than a month. The first was overshadowed by the scandal over secret US torture centers in Europe; the second was meant to be a triumphant assertion of progress in Afghanistan, but turned into a series of crisis meetings on Hamas and Iran. Rice pleads with Europeans to understand that a real war is going on and there are bad people out there. She urges us not to be complacent about terrorism and argues the need to make tough changes in our civil-liberty laws. She sees it as a success that the Bush administration has abolished the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. This means, she argues, that the tolerance shown to the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1980s, which allowed them generous time to drop their commitment to violence, cannot be repeated with Hamas now. She fears that Hamas"s victory will erode Europeans" commitment to the war on terror as they struggle to square the circle of continuing to help the Palestinians while calling on their new government to tear up its manifesto. The Hamas crisis is not just a foreign-policy dilemma. It is a metaphor for the brittle nature of the Bush administration"s self-awarded global mission as it faces the contradictions of the real world. The crisis over Iran"s nuclear ambitions is equally significant. The post-cold-war era, when there was only a single superpower, is over now. The United States is being forced to enlist Russia and, to a lesser extent, China as partners in finding a compromise. With this, the economic rise of India and the resurgence of anti-yanqui nationalism in several states in Latin America, we have clearly entered a multi-polar world. No one in Downing Street or Washington will admit it publicly, but Jacques Chirac has turned out to be right. His global Gaullism, the notion that the world has several power centers, and it is no longer just "the west versus the rest", offers a more accurate picture than the image of the lone cowboy acting in the name of us all. The analysis is not Chirac"s alone, of course. The French president is in most ways a discredited figure, little loved even at home. But he is the most prominent European to dare to embrace multi-polarity as the new reality of international politics. Leaders of the non-aligned nations have been saying the same thing for a long time, as have Washington"s latest bugbears, such as Hugo Ch�vez in Venezuela. In his soft-spoken way, Kofi Annan has also been calling for a new recognition of the dispersal of international power. In a little-reported speech in London this week, he took issue with even the concept of a five-nation power centre made up of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. "Do not underestimate the slow erosion of the UN"s authority and legitimacy that stems from the perception that it has a very narrow power base, with just five countries calling the shots," he pleaded. UN reform is a slow process, and it is doubtful whether the new claimants for permanent security-council seats, such as Brazil, India and Japan, will get their way soon. But the trend is in their direction, regardless of whether it is formalized by the UN now or in several years. So, Bush"s frantic pleas to his American audience not to retreat are signs not just that his ideological simplicities carry less conviction at home than they once did. He has also begun to see that US power abroad is on the wane.

	View more stories