Shifting sands in the Middle East

THE Saudis, instead of leaving the Americans to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, have actually formed a military alliance of fellow Sunni Arab states, to save their proxies in the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula, thus, to go after the Shia Houthi, who have chased the Yemeni president out of his capital. The Americans, for their part, are fighting as virtual allies with Iran in their attempt to expel Islamic State from Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown.

In Israel, despite winning an unprecedented fourth term, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is getting blasted on all sides for his undiplomatic transgressions against the president of the only country that really matters in Israeli security.

In Washington, which with all due respect, doesn’t really need Israel for American survival, a profoundly irritated leader hasn’t let a day go by without a new blast at Netanyahu — or simply a green light to his senior aides to do it for him. In 26 months, Israel will have occupied Palestine for 50 years, and Washington is allowing a drumbeat and countdown to start, putting the Jewish state on notice to come to terms with that reality and quickly.

All across the terrain is the litter of a failed alliance. It turns out that the Pentagon declassified last week a 1986 study of Israeli nuclear capability, revealing just how close it was to making hydrogen bombs, not just atomic. Accidents like that don’t happen; at the very least, someone in the defence arena knew he could get away with the revelation, given how profoundly President Barack Obama despises Netanyahu, who started it all and can’t resist making matters worse.

At a higher strategic level, it is easy to see the result of an evolution of American doctrine. In the first instance, the pivot to Asia, though much delayed, was not just recognition of the higher long-term importance of Asia to America and the declining importance of the Middle East, but also a sign of Obama’s distaste for playing the Middle East game.

Not just that, he is the first American president not to get stars in his eyes on the subject of Israel. The result is that we are now an offshore balancer in the Middle East, rather than a direct player in most of the major conflicts. We have been giving high-level technology and training to the major Sunni states for decades, and it’s high time they take some responsibility for their affairs themselves.

Talk of an Arab Nato is a bit premature, but matters are moving in the right direction. Inside Israel, it’s a bewildering cacophony of extremist groups indifferent to the state’s strategic interest, not giving a damn whether its Washington allies are insulted or not. There are two million Arabs inside the Jewish state itself, and they are becoming more vocal about their second-class status; the thuggery and hostility against them; their difficulty at getting jobs; and their ability even to be heard in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

It is lucky that the newly elected Israeli president, though his job is symbolic and his background highly Zionist, is speaking out more and more vocally about democratic decencies in the Jewish treatment of Arabs— and survival of democracy itself.

Netanyahu’s disgusting racist statements on Election Day cannot be disavowed, any more than his subsequently backtracked promise that there would never be a two- state solution while he was in office.

The Obama administration is simply not letting him get away with this and is making him pay by its plans to support moves at the United Nations, without the habitual American veto to protect Israel, to move towards negotiations that begin to give Palestinians self-determination.

What I’m saying is that in tomorrow’s Middle East, all bets are off. There is simply too much change everywhere for us to have a clue what we will see when the dust is settled— from the eventual defeat of Islamic State, to the outcome of the Shia versus Sunni battle in Yemen.

The only virtual certainties are on the western and eastern poles of the region; the Israeli-American airtight alliance is forever gone. It may be that Obama likes it this way, but it was Netanyahu’s arrogance and offensive comments about the American leadership that tore the otherwise seamless fabric apart.

At the other pole is, of course, Iran. Obama had the foresight to see that whether one liked it or not, Iran is the regional heavyweight and will one way or the other play a role equivalent to what history, size and geography entitle it to.

Iran’s negotiators may have to answer to the ayatollahs, but they are also aware that the standard of living has declined by two-thirds, thanks to the sanctions, and that the 50 per cent of the country that is under 25 wants to be back in the connected world.

I am getting a little weary of hearing that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, which has a nuclear arsenal that Iran couldn’t possibly obtain in a generation.

Israel could try a little diplomacy and will have to learn to live without America forever bailing it out of its difficulties, even if Obama’s successor tries to rekindle the warmth of previous American-Israeli relations. That genie is just out of the bottle.

So, out of necessity, the Sunni states are organising themselves in an intelligent fashion; Iran will play a growing role not just in the Middle East but within the world as the weight of sanctions come off; and Israel will have to learn how to be a “normal” state — as it is in some of the world, for example in India, to which it is one of the largest arms suppliers and thus holding a position of real influence in Delhi.

Perhaps what we’re seeing is a reasonable balance of power emerging in the region, with Washington happy to try to play groups against each other, without ever again waging war, or directly intruding itself in the region.

Let’s hope this is more than an April Fool’s joke.

The writer W. Scott Thompson is emeritus professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, the United States

 

Military role in Indonesia’s food production raises questions

 

THE Indonesian government is moving quickly to create a big impact in the agricultural and food sectors. Framed within a strong food sovereignty narrative, President Joko Widodo is now imposing two big agendas for the rice sector’s development. The first is to boost rice production to achieve 100 per cent self-sufficiency. The second is to graduate from 100 per cent rice self-sufficiency (RSS) to be a rice-exporting nation in the near future.

To achieve these targets, the Agriculture Ministry recently planned to reutilise the military’s civic mission, TNI Manunggal Masuk Desa, through Village Supervisory Non-Commissioned Officers (Babinsa) as quasi-agricultural extension officers.

Amran Sulaiman, the minister, argued that “50,000 Babinsa across the country would be a big help to cover the deficit of 20,000 agricultural extension officers (AEOs)”.

In the past, this was largely inspired by security concerns (such as controlling communism and the farmers’ movement).

Joko’s food sovereignty concept has its origin in the global farmers’ movement, which allowed farmers to have greater autonomy and control over their own affairs based on their own decisions.

In fact, food sovereignty is a rather “leftist paradigm”. The military’s recent interest in backing up Joko’s agenda could be justified by its interest in controlling the implication of food sovereignty on the farmers’ movement.

One can, therefore, question the why and how regarding the government’s involvement of the military in boosting agricultural production as a temporary solution to quicken the achievement of rice production targets amid the lack of AEOs.

Some concerns remain, as this policy may have long-term implications.

FIRSTLY, one may question the urgency, effectiveness and added value of the military’s involvement in the rice field; and,

SECONDLY, the military’s presence may affect civil society’s role in agriculture because its involvement may discourage the genuine participation of farmers.

Even though agriculture work can be classified under military operations, other than war, the government should be able to explain the urgency of the military’s involvement in the food sector. This can be counterproductive for food production. It can dramatically accelerate a decline in public trust in Joko’s administration.

Food self-sufficiency has been a sacred goal that often receives high political endorsement. Despite scepticism and criticism from national and international experts, and economists, concerning the lack of rigour in its RSS policy, many governments view RSS as the most politically correct goal.

Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar and Cambodia have been able to achieve full RSS. These countries have maintained rice productivity above 250 to 350 kg/person/year over the last 10 years. In the case of Vietnam, apart from having less mouths to feed, the secret behind self-sufficiency is its adoption of better technology and incentives for farmers to grow rice.

Indonesia has currently achieved 180 kg/person/year rice productivity and faces serious difficulties to achieve rice productivity beyond 250 kg/person/year. Technically speaking, achieving the RSS ratio is simple.

Once the country produces enough rice for everyone (presumably above 144 kg/person/year), and has enough buffer stock in local markets and government warehouses, 100 per cent RSS can, in theory, be achieved, as we have seen in 1984/85 and 1992/93.

In fact, apart from the decline in RSS to 93.8 per cent in 2011, overall, Indonesia has been successfully maintaining a self-sufficiency rate above 96 per cent since 2004.

The Agriculture Ministry can also consider maximising pioneering farmers (Petani Pelopor), who have long been fostered by former governments to play a greater role amid the short supply of AEOs. There are more than a million Petani Pelopor who are successful farmers, as they have been equipped with adequate practical knowledge and experience that can be capitalised on.

Indonesia has the potential to achieve a rice yield above 6.5 tonnes per hectare and, potentially, it can be above seven or eight tonnes per hectare. However, it will have to deal with the continued decline in agricultural land and lack of consistency in providing incentives for farmers. Besides, the demographic pressure faced by Indonesia will not be easily resolved.

By the time Joko steps down from office in 2019, about 15 million babies would have been born. Should he win a second term and step down from office in 2024, about 31 million people — a population equivalent today to Malaysia (or Cambodia, Laos and Timor Leste combined) — would have been born.

The real agriculture and food production problems in Indonesia are a complex mixture of technology, incentives, demographic change, climate change and agrarian issues, which may not be solved solely by military engagement because some of these problems lie in many domains — from the legal system and issues of governance to a proper institutional mechanism.

Still, farmers outside Java continue to experience delays in the distribution of seeds and fertilisers today.

One problem with Joko’s policy of food sovereignty is probably not about involving the military. If the military is the solution to Indonesia’s future food security, the big question is: what, then, is the real problem?

Jonatan A. Lassa is a research fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies and Adhi Priamarizki is associate research fellow at the Indonesia Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University

 

Colonialism, how did the Philippines benefit?

 

AN old sound-bite from President Ramos goes something like, “the British ruled us for just two years . . . it may have been better if they had stayed longer.” Indeed, for two years from 1762-1764, the British had a Governor General in Manila to look after Manila and Cavite, which they had taken as a result of the Seven Years’ War, a conflagration involving most of the world’s major powers at the time (Spain being one), sparked off by yet one of the many disputes between Britain and France over their respective North American colonies. But then as a result of some political horse trading in 1764, the Spanish from New Spain (Mexico) came back again to rule for another 134 years.

The British Empire at the time covered most of Canada and 13 colonies of the United States, parts of India and what is now Bangladesh, various cities in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, and a scattering of small islands all over the place. It later expanded to cover half the world’s population and about one-third of its land mass. It can therefore be said that the British were experienced colonizers. Most of this colonization was based on trade supported by military force and included swapping opium for tea. The Empire at its peak accounted for half the total trade of the world.

These days colonization, like “sexism” and “racism,” is an unpopular thing. It is viewed mainly as unfair exploitation and has attracted a lot of negative press highlighting subjugation, slavery and the rape and pillage of the natural resources of various sovereign states. Some of the great powers of the time were better at colonizing than others. Spain was primarily notable in terms of “giving back,” for the introduction of the Catholic Church and adoption of Catholicism by the local “heathens.” It is here that President Ramos has a point. Whilst there is little doubt that the British in their colonizing efforts raped and pillaged as much as any of the other powers, it is also fair to say that they gave back and that their “give backs,” even though some of them were self-serving to feed British industrial capacity (railways), are sustained in very many cases to this day.

In their tramping around the world, they put in place parliamentary systems of government, legal systems that work, infrastructural administrative systems, postal services and educational systems which, at a glance, appear to be counter to the colonialist model of exploitation, rape and pillage. They also built railways; Argentina, China, Thailand, Chile, Brazil, Mexico (not formal colonies), India, South Africa, Uganda, Malaysia, the USA and Canada. They built roads and established marine passenger transport and air routes. They set up and ran the Chinese customs and postal services for over 100 years even though China was not officially a colony.

Lest the reader think that I am trumpeting Britain’s colonial achievements—that is not my point, albeit it is saddening to see such a fall in the UK’s position in the world over the last 70 years. But then everything is cyclical. I wonder what would be different in the Philippines of today had, as President Ramos implies, the British indeed stayed for longer, prevented the reoccupation of New Spain and resisted the Americans, who themselves do not have a particularly good track record of successful colonization.

It may have been that there would be a parliamentary system of government today, a good education system, a working postal service and an objective legal system, as well as infrastructures that actually operate to support economic development. Interestingly, British colonization did not generally require that any particular religion be adopted; they were not great ones for missionary efforts although Anglican Christianity was a preferred option.

The Philippines would also have become a member of the British Commonwealth which encourages trade between its members such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the other 50 member states, among which their trade is 50 percent more than that with non-members. Members are generally ex-members of the British Empire; they have no legal obligation to one another. Instead, they are united by language, history, certain common cultures, and the shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. That these countries can still formally associate with one another is, to my mind, a testament to the fact that British colonialism was nothing like 100 percent bad.

So I agree with the observation of President Ramos that despite the many negative aspects of colonialism, had the Philippines “suffered” the British type for a period significantly longer than the two years it did, then it would indeed be a very different place today. We may even be playing cricket and driving on the left-hand side of the road!

Mike Wooton

 

Commentary: Is the West Ready for More Muslims?

 

By 2050, the number of Muslims worldwide will grow by 70 percent, outpacing every other religion and matching Christianity as the world’s most numerous faith. That rate of growth means that by midcentury, 1 in 10 people in France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom will be Muslims.

That’s according to a Pew Research Center study out on Thursday, which looked at the age distribution, fertility and mortality rates, and patterns of migration and conversion of the world’s religious groups. The study projects that by 2050, 30 percent of the global population will be Muslim — all but equal to the 31 percent that Pew projects will be Christian. An additional 15 percent will be Hindu, 5 percent Buddhist and 0.2 percent Jewish.

That shift will be especially pronounced in Western countries, many of which will see the share of their population that is Muslim double, and in some cases triple, over the course of just two generations.

In a perfect world, that trend would be welcomed as an addition to the rich diversity of cultures and beliefs that make up any pluralistic liberal society. In practice, it will probably increase the strain on countries whose self-image of tolerance has clashed with the reality of lingering prejudice and unease toward people who are different.

Take Italy, where 2 in 3 respondents told Pew last year that they have unfavorable views of Muslims, and the government of the Lombardy region passed regulations in January that restrict the building of mosques. Managing those tensions will only get more important: The share of Italy’s population that is Muslim is projected to roughly triple, to 9.5 percent, by 2050.

Or Germany, where a court last month lifted a ban on teachers wearing headscarves, yet marches by the anti-Muslim group Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West draw thousands of supporters. The share of Germany’s population that is Muslim is projected to double, to 10 percent, by 2050.

Or France, where a Muslim woman told a BBC reporter after the Charlie Hebdo shootings that being rejected by her country because of her faith is “like being rejected by your mother,” and others said the French “would rather we have blond hair and blue eyes.” The share of France’s population that is Muslim is projected to increase 45 percent by 2050.

Or Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Parliament last month that the niqab is “rooted in a culture that is anti-woman.” His government is fighting to prevent immigrants from wearing the niqab while taking their oaths of citizenship. The share of Canada’s population that is Muslim is projected to almost triple by 2050.

Those divisions and prejudices may have been inflamed by the rise of Islamic State, the attacks in Paris, the flood of refugees from Syria, a weak economy and any number of other challenges. But prejudice — whether its targets are Muslims, Jews or any other religious group — doesn’t need much of an excuse. If Pew’s projections are right, countering that prejudice is going to get more important.

Christopher Flavelle writes editorials on health care, economics and taxation. He was previously a senior policy analyst for Bloomberg Government.

 

US Misses Real Threat of China’s Fake Islands

 

The Barack Obama administration has been very busy dealing with nuclear negotiations with Iran, a war against the Islamic State, a new conflict in Yemen and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Yet the understandable focus on these other crises has obscured China’s efforts to speed up its militarization of the South China Sea. Now, Chinese progress has reached the point that senior Pentagon officials and Congressional leaders are demanding the administration do something about it.

There is no shortage of evidence of China’s rapid buildup of infrastructure and armaments in disputed territory far from its physical borders. Satellite photos released last month show that in the past year, China has built several entirely new islands in disputed waters using land-reclamation technology, and then constructed military-friendly facilities on them. In the Spratly Islands, new Chinese land masses have been equipped with helipads and anti-aircraft towers, raising regional concerns that Beijing is using thinly veiled military coercion to establish control in an area where six Asian nations have claims.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific Fleet, sounded the alarm in a speech in Australia on Wednesday, calling the Chinese project “unprecedented” and saying that the construction is part of a larger campaign of provocative actions against smaller Asian states.

“China is creating a ‘Great Wall of Sand’ with dredges and bulldozers over the course of months,” he warned, adding that it raised “serious questions about Chinese intentions.”

For example, satellite photos taken by Airbus Defence and Space and published by Jane’s in February, show that over the past year China has built a 74,300-square-meter island on top of Hughes Reef in the Spratly Islands, where no island existed before. China also began a reclamation and construction project at nearby Gavin’s Reef. Both islands now have helipads and anti-aircraft towers.

China has also expanded its already created islands on the Spratlys’ Johnson South Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef and Fiery Cross Reef — the last of which can accommodate an airstrip, according to the US military. Harris said China has created more than 3.9 square kilometers of “artificial landmass” in the South China Sea. China’s claims are based on what’s known as the nine-dash line, which if implemented would grant China 90 percent of the entire Sea.

Top Asia watchers in Congress have been asking the Obama administration to confront China on the issue and devote more attention to the increasingly tense situation in the region. In the late hours of the debate over the Senate budget last weekend, three senators added two amendments aimed at pushing the Obama administration to reinvigorate its so-called Pivot to Asia.

The first of those amendments, sponsored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee members Robert Menendez, Cory Gardner and Ben Cardin, calls on the administration to develop and make public a comprehensive strategy to ensure freedom of navigation in the Pacific. It would also allow Congress to fund more training and exercises by the US military and its Asian partners.

A second amendment, authored by Gardner, the new chairman of the Asia subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, calls for an independent agency such as the Government Accountability Office to review what the administration is actually spending on the Asia pivot and to make recommendations on how it might be better managed.

“It’s important that the American people have a full accounting of the resources that have been devoted to this important policy and whether they have been prioritized effectively,” Gardner told me in a statement.

These pieces of legislation are the latest effort by Congress to find out exactly what the administration is doing to counter China’s moves. On March 19, all four leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter calling on the administration to wake up to the graveness of the situation in the South China Sea. “Without a comprehensive strategy for addressing the PRC’s broader policy and conduct,” the senators wrote, “longstanding interests of the United States, as well as our allies and partners, stand at considerable risk.”

The letter points out that $5 trillion in global trade transits through the South China Sea each year. They assert that China stands in violation of 2002 agreement it signed with the Asean countries in which all parties pledged self-restraint and avoid actions that could complicate the situation or escalate tensions.

Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told me that the Chinese are taking advantage of the Obama administration’s focus on the Middle East: “China understands that where this administration is, it’s a place where they can in fact move ahead in the world.”

Asked about the congressional letter, State Department spokesman Jeff Radke insisted that the US is increasing its coordination with countries affected by China’s moves and confronting the Chinese leadership privately. “We have consistently and frequently raised with China our concerns over its large-scale land reclamation, which undermines peace and stability in the South China Sea, and more broadly in the Asia Pacific region,” he said.

But  James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, testified to Congress last month that the Chinese don’t seem to be getting the message. He called their actions “aggressive” and said Chinese claims in the South China Sea are “exorbitant.”

“Although China is looking for stable ties with the United States, it’s more willing to accept bilateral and regional tensions in pursuit of its interests, particularly on maritime sovereignty issues,” Clapper said.

The Beijing government has stated clearly that it believes its expansion in the South China Sea is both legal and non-threatening, refusing to address the region’s concerns in any substantive way. It complained loudly when the US and India took the relatively innocuous step of issuing a joint statement referring to their desire to address the issue.

No matter the state of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the Obama administration’s lack of response to China’s maritime aggression is worrisome. China is testing how far it can push the status quo before Washington does something. The Pentagon and  Congress are clearly telling Obama that the response needs to come before China’s military takeover of the South China Sea is complete.

Josh Rogin is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about national security and foreign affairs. 

 

Indonesian Domestic Solution Key to Keeping Papua, Not a Pacific One

 

Jakarta must consider the possible domestic pressure under which the MSG governments could find themselves, if the cause of Melanesian solidarity gains momentum in the Pacific region.

Last month, the Free West Papua Campaign alleged that Indonesian police had opened fire on a crowd of Papuans attending a fundraising event held in Yahukimo for Vanuatu and other Pacific nations affected by Cyclone Pam. The shooting left one dead and three injured. Wenda, spokesman for the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), wrote that there was no reason for the police to shoot as the event had been “peaceful.” The police, on the other hand, claimed that the event had no permit and that one of the attendees had attacked an officer and stolen his firearm.

If the Yahukimo shooting did indeed take place, it was the third state-sponsored act of violence against the Papuans after the December Paniai incident in which five were shot dead in a military rampage. The frequency of the attacks on Papuan and West Papuan civilians calls into doubt President Joko Widodo’s much-vaunted campaign promise to improve the lot of Indonesia’s two easternmost provinces.

In an interview with Australia’s Green Left Weekly, Jacob Rumbiak, the minister of foreign affairs of the self-proclaimed Federal Republic of West Papua in exile, said: “Before the election of Widodo, he got most of Papuan support, believing that Widodo would hear their voice and help them. But the reality is the opposite.”

 

Reality increasingly reflects the common theme that runs through Jokowi’s government: nationalism. In a symbolic gesture during a recent televised interview with Al Jazeera, the president proudly asked his interviewer to look at an enormous map of Indonesia in the background, while declaring that Indonesia “spans from Sabang [in Aceh] to Merauke [in Papua].” The length and breadth of the country are therefore implicitly non-negotiable for Jokowi.

The current administration’s predilection for expressing such nationalist sentiment alone will probably preclude any more concessions of autonomy for both Papua and West Papua in the foreseeable future, as the possible independence of both is seen as a direct attack on Indonesia’s territorial integrity. Jakarta will go to great lengths to ensure that the Papuan independence agenda is seen to be defeated.

In late February, Foreign Affairs Minister Retno Marsudi visited three countries in the Pacific in a bid to lobby against the application by the ULMWP to register the West Papuan state-in-exile as a full member in the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Minister Retno offered as a bargaining chip the promise of $20 million in assistance to support capacity building for MSG nations.

Indonesia made the pledge of assistance to MSG nations last year during the first ever visit to Fiji by a sitting Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. At the time of the visit, Jenny Hayward-Jones, an Australian observer, said: “Indonesia is concerned about an increasingly assertive Melanesian Spearhead Group [MSG], which promotes the West Papua cause, and therefore wants to be influencing the members of the MSG.”

However, if Jakarta wants better relations with Pacific Island nations, it is baffling that the government has not sent any aid to Vanuatu and other Pacific regions ravaged by Cyclone Pam as a gesture of goodwill. In contrast, when the threat of ULMWP being granted full membership in MSG loomed, our foreign minister wasted no time in visiting the region. The inconsistency suggests that the main concern of the Indonesian government in relation to the Pacific island nations is indeed their support for Papuan independence.

Given the muted representations by the Papua New Guinean and Fijian governments on the issue of the continuing human rights abuse in both Papua and West Papua during the ministerial visit, Retno’s shuttle diplomacy may have been successful, for the time being.

Nonetheless, the Indonesian government would be foolish to believe that, should it fail to improve its human rights record in Papua and West Papua, the MSG nations could refrain from voicing their protests indefinitely. Jakarta must consider the possible domestic pressure under which the MSG governments could find themselves, if the cause of Melanesian solidarity gains momentum in the Pacific region.

As the loss of the Papuan provinces would be too great a blow to Indonesia’s national pride, it may be political suicide for any Indonesian government to be seen dithering on the issue. Jakarta will do its utmost to keep them, but how? A wise administration would go about it by reducing the visible symbols of oppression Papuans have to encounter on a regular basis; a foolhardy one would insist on continuing the reign of terror.

Johannes Nugroho is a writer from Surabaya.

 

Thai Lockdown of Liberties Worsens

Thailand’s new democrats

Proposal to lift martial law opens way for even more draconian measures

 

If anybody thought Thai coup leader Prayuth Chan-ocha’s announcement that he will lift martial law in the country means he intends to lighten up, they are wrong. He intends to replace martial law with one that maintains the military’s powers and, critics say, even expands them.

The lockdown of the country is already so severe that many observers fear it will eventually lead to an explosion of popular sentiment, as has happened with previous coups, particularly one in 1992 that resulted in scores of deaths before the military was forced back to the barracks.

The extent is numbing. According to one source, the military has established five committees to monitor all media content, including international outlets, and to report offenders to military leaders daily. All six television major stations and 525 radio frequencies are under constant threat of being closed. Any coverage of politics is out.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of offending websites have been closed or blocked if originating from overseas. By one count, 219 sites were blocked during May last year, when the coup took place. The police offer a US$15 bounty for internet users to inform on friends and co-workers who post anti-coup comments. Last week Prayuth threatened journalists with closing them down, arresting them or ordering them to be shot, which may have been in jest but which kicked off widespread local and international criticism. 

Prayuth, the former army chief who took power in May of 2014 with a coup and subsequently named himself Prime Minister, said he would replace martial law with Article 44 of the interim constitution completed last July.

According to the official translated language, the measure “empowers the leader of the National Council for Peace and Order” – Prayuth himself – to issue any order “for the sake of the reforms in any field, the promotion of love and harmony amongst the people in the nation, or the prevention, abatement or suppression of any act detrimental to national order or security, royal throne, national economy or public administration, whether the act occurs inside or outside the kingdom.”

The orders as issued are all deemed “lawful, constitutional and final” in advance. In a word, that empowers the former general to arrest anybody he wants, and to come up with the reasons to do it by citing his own version of the risk to national security, not only in the country but anywhere on the planet that he presumably could reach.  Thailand has asked several nations including Japan and the United States to extradite critics of the regime, but has been rebuffed.

“Article 44 will be even more draconian,” said Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a Thai former diplomat and academic who has gone into exile in Japan in the face of lese majeste charges, or insulting the royal family. The Thai foreign office tried unsuccessfully to get the Japanese government to send him back. “It is difficult to understand the mentality of the military,” he said. “Surely the abolition of the martial law was driven by international pressure. Perhaps they think they can fool the international audience in abolishing it so that could mean Thailand will appear freer. Once Article 44 is in full flower, the West will put more pressure on the regime. Then we will know disaster is waiting for them.”

Pheu Thai, the democratically elected party that Prayuth ousted after months of demonstrations manufactured by royalists and Bangkok elites, tried Tuesday to talk the government out of invoking the article, warning that its impact on tourism and investment could be even worse than martial law.

Proposal to lift martial law opens way for even more draconian measures

 

Pheu Thai’s former leader, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, is to be tried for her role in overseeing a disastrous rice-subsidy program that is said to have cost the government billions of dollars.  The still-popular Yingluck has already been impeached by a parliament that she never led. Sources in Bangkok have theorized that the government’s aim is to induce her to flee the country, as her brother, former Prime Minister Taksin Shinawatra, was forced to do in 2008 ahead of charges of tax evasion, lese majeste and concealing his wealth.

“General Prayuth’s activation of constitution section 44 will mark Thailand’s deepening descent into dictatorship,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch. “Thailand’s friends abroad should not be fooled by this obvious sleight of hand by the junta leader to replace martial law with a constitutional provision that effectively provides unlimited and unaccountable powers.”

Prayuth told reporters that once martial law is lifted it will be replaced with Article 44 of the interim constitution. “We are now waiting for the king to royally approve the disuse of martial law,” Prayuth said. “We have prepared Article 44 and will use it soon.”

The use of military tribunals, which the junta put in place to replace civilian courts three days after seizing power, has resulted in hundreds of people being called in and sent for trial including  opposition politicians, activists, journalists, and others accused of supporting Pheu Thai, disrespecting or offending the monarchy, or being involved in anti-coup protests and activities.

“General Prayuth’s action to tighten rather than loosen his grip on power puts the restoration of democratic civilian rule further into the future,” Human Rights Watch’s Adams said. “Concerted pressure from Thailand’s allies is urgently needed to reverse this dangerous course.”

Thailand’s economy is starting to take a beating from the crackdown. Indeed, the apparent dropping of martial law, according to Puangthong Pawakapan, an international relations professor at Chulalongkorn University, “is aimed at reducing pressure from the local business sector and international community. In recent months, the business sector has started to voice their worries over economic stagnation and dissatisfaction with the government’s poor performance. Lifting martial law will at least help boost up the tourism industry. The presence of martial law concerns foreign investors as it has increased business risk due insurance coverage.”

Tourism, which accounts for nearly 10 percent of GDP, is up – or was, until the International Civil Aviation Organization cited “significant safety concerns,” forcing three budget carriers and the national flag carrier Thai Airways to cancel flights.

Economic growth, predicted at 3.6 percent to 4 percent, while positive, has been trending down and looks like continuing to do so. The junta’s purge of all SOE chiefs and technocrats suspected of being involved in corruption – and in many cases replacing them with their own corrupt officials – has slowed public spending as projects are delayed and funds are not disbursed. Less than 10 percent of budgeted spending was disbursed in the fourth quarter of 2014.

A plan to reform the property tax apparently has been botched, falling harder on the poor than on the well-to-do and falling not at all on the Crown Property Bureau, the plaything of the royalty and the richest entity in the country.

“The military has no clue,” a Thai banker told Asia Sentinel.” They chose the old-guard finance minister [Sommai Phasee], he’s pretty corrupt, he isn’t doing anything meaningful. There are a lot of voices rising concerning getting the economy moving. It doesn’t look good.”