Newley Purnell

Here’re some recent accounts of the ongoing protests next door in Myanmar.

New York Times (”Monks’ Protest Is Challenging Burmese Junta“):

The largest street protests in two decades against Myanmar’s military rulers gained momentum Sunday as thousands of onlookers cheered huge columns of Buddhist monks and shouted support for the detained pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Wall Street Journal (”Burma Rising“):

Burma’s oppressive military junta appears to have a bigger problem on its hands than anyone realized. What started as relatively small-scale, informal protests over gas prices have turned into a large and growing protest by the country’s highly respected Buddhist monks. And now the monks and Burma’s political pro-democracy movement are converging, with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi emerging from house arrest to greet the monks at the gate of her home on Saturday. Reform has proved elusive in the past, but hopefully its time is arriving. The international community needs to show support for the protesters now.

CSM (”Protests swell against Burma’s military regime“):

A protest movement led by Buddhist monks chanting prayers is gathering momentum in Burma (Myanmar), leaving an embattled military regime stranded in a groundswell of popular frustration at economic and political stagnation.

From Foreign Policy’s blog, Passport:

In a unique environmental scheme, Ecuador’s government is asking developed nations to pay $350 million for them NOT to drill for oil in a major field in the heart of the Amazon. The sum represents about half of the estimated revenue that Ecuador would receive from drilling in the Yasuni National Park, a UNESCO-designated biosphere reserve that may contain up to a billion barrels of crude. Since Ecuador proposed the scheme last spring, politicians from Germany, Norway, Italy, Spain, and the EU have expressed interest, according to Ecuador’s minister of energy. President Rafael Correa…had this to say:

“Ecuador doesn’t ask for charity [...] but does ask that the international community share in the sacrifice and compensates us with at least half of what our country would receive, in recognition of the environmental benefits that would be generated by keeping this oil underground.”

Read the whole post for more information.

The Economist:

A RECENT glance at the Low Countries revealed that, nearly three months after its latest general election, Belgium was still without a new government. It may have acquired one by now. But, if so, will anyone notice? And, if not, will anyone mind? Even the Belgians appear indifferent. And what they think of the government they may well think of the country. If Belgium did not already exist, would anyone nowadays take the trouble to invent it?

Such questions could be asked of many countries. Belgium’s problem, if such it is, is that they are being asked by the inhabitants themselves. True, in opinion polls most Belgians say they want to keep the show on the road. But when they vote, as they did on June 10th, they do so along linguistic lines, the French-speaking Walloons in the south for French-speaking parties, the Dutch-speaking Flemings in the north for Dutch-speaking parties. The two groups do not get on—hence the inability to form a government. They lead parallel lives, largely in ignorance of each other. They do, however, think they know themselves: when a French-language television programme was interrupted last December with a spoof news flash announcing that the Flemish parliament had declared independence, the king had fled and Belgium had dissolved, it was widely believed.

No wonder. The prime minister designate thinks Belgians have nothing in common except “the king, the football team, some beers”, and he describes their country as an “accident of history”. In truth, it isn’t…

(Emphasis mine.)

CNN/Reuters:

Thailand’s voters have approved an army-drafted constitution, but a hefty “No” vote suggests December’s general election will be messy, with ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra still a potent political force.

With 98 percent of votes counted on Monday in Thailand’s first referendum, the Election Commission said about 57 percent of people had accepted the charter, designed to prevent a repeat of Thaksin’s powerful single-party style of government.

However, 41 percent rejected it, sending a signal to the generals who removed the telecoms billionaire in a coup last September that they will struggle to control the make-up of the next administration.

Roughly 25 million of the 45 million electorate cast their ballots, a 56 percent turnout.

Having pressed for a “Yes” vote, the army-appointed post-coup government had been hoping for at least a 60 percent turnout for what will be the 18th charter in 75 years of on-off democracy.

Bangkok Pundit has more details.

Time’s Hannah Beech:

The guy selling spears of chilled guava down the street sports a Chelsea football jersey. Everywhere in soccer-mad Bangkok, in fact, people wear garments proclaiming their affiliation with one or another English Premier League team. But one jersey you’re unlikely to spot? That of Manchester City. It’s not because City has struggled, unsuccessfully, for three decades now to emerge from the shadow of its more moneyed crosstown rival, Manchester United. Even Birmingham’s lackluster Aston Villa, after all, maintains a dogged fan base in Thailand’s capital. No, the reason Manchester City is taboo in Bangkok is because its new owner is ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra…

Richard Bernstein’s Letter from Thailand, in yesterday’s IHT, provides an overview of the current political situation in Thailand:

About a week ago, the Thai press reported on a 30-year-old man, apparently not a brilliant one, who, for unexplained reasons, was tormenting an elephant. He hit the animal, according to the newspapers, whereupon the usually placid beast wrapped the man in his trunk, slammed him down, and trampled him to death.

This may be stretching a point, but it seemed to me, visiting Thailand after an absence of a few years, that the elephant-kills-man story is a pretty good metaphor for the delicate state of Thai politics these days, almost a year after an army coup overthrew a democratically elected government that had run afoul of important segments of Thai society.

The ruling coup’s leadership is the elephant in this scheme of things, striving to be a useful beast, indeed making plans to exit the stage as soon as its plans for a constitutional referendum and new elections, all by the end of the year, have been carried out.

But then there are those people angry about military rule and, in some cases, allied to the government of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra that was overthrown last September.

They have been trying, in the name of democracy, to get all Thailand sufficiently riled up to attack the elephant.

So far, however, the elephant has trampled them.

CNN:

How ill is Kim Jong Il? Talk of the reclusive North Korean leader’s health emerged anew this week when he made a rare public appearance Tuesday in a surprise meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Pyongyang. Chinese television footage showed Kim shaking hands with the guest and brandishing a big smile.

That image was the first publicly available video of the secretive Kim since late April when he reviewed a massive military parade from a balcony over Pyongyang’s main plaza, clapping and waving to his troops as they hysterically shouted cheers, appearing deeply moved by a rare glimpse of Kim.

The 65-year-old leader — revered as a near-demigod in the totalitarian nation — looked generally well in the latest footage. But compared with the April clip, he appeared a bit thinner and had less hair. Some South Korean media made similar observations, and engaged in renewed speculation about his health.

(Via.)

Simon Romero had an excellent story in the New York Times yesterday about Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, fighting to defeat the high-altitude soccer ban I mentioned recently. I particularly like the lede (as well as the delightful image, above):

Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, donned a green jersey the other day, watched a llama sacrifice for good luck and flew to a snowy spot nearly four miles above sea level, where he scored the winning goal in a brief match pitting him and his aides against a group of mountain climbers.

It was a textbook lesson in Andean political theater, and the perils a globalized sport can meet when it comes up against a small country’s nationalist passions.

On the surface, Bolivia’s president was simply staging an amusing stunt to fight a ban on international soccer games at altitudes above 2,500 meters, or 8,200 feet.

It’s well known that Mr. Morales will play soccer against virtually anyone, from the foreign press corps to local squads in the hinterlands, to let off steam, and recently broke his nose doing so. But in fact, the ban, enacted last month by soccer bureaucrats in Switzerland, played right to Mr. Morales’ trademark populism, and gave him an opportunity to act as a unifier of his otherwise fractious country.

“Bolivia’s dedication to soccer cuts across the deep dividing lines in the country, which are economic, racial, regional and ideological,” said Jim Shultz, a political analyst in Cochabamba, in central Bolivia. “Fighting the ban is great domestic politics.”

(Emphasis mine.)

A friend of mine who’s studied politics in neighboring Ecuador once told me that he felt the Ecuadorian national football team was the single greatest cohesive force that the nation has working in its favor. The game trumps race, class, politics — everything.

Two related books that I recommend highly: “How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization,” and, in the case of Bolivia and its “market dominant minority,” “World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.”

Here’s another good IHT story, this time from Seth Mydans. It’s about the Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand.

PATTANI, Thailand: Some are already calling it war, a brutal Muslim separatist insurgency in southern Thailand that has taken as many as 2,000 lives in three years, with almost- daily bombings, drive-by shootings, arson and beheadings.

It is a conflict the government admits it is losing. A harsh crackdown and martial law in recent years seem only to have fueled the insurgency, generating fear and anger and undermining moderate Muslim voices.

A new policy of conciliation pursued by Thailand’s junta since it took power in a coup five months ago has been met by increased violence, including a barrage of 28 coordinated bombings in the south that killed or injured about 60 people a week ago.

“The momentum of violence is now beyond the control of government policy,” said Srisompob Jitpiromsri, a political scientist at Prince of Songkhla University here.

“The separatists can pick and choose the time and place of the violence without any effective resistance,” he said. “They have the upper hand.”

CNN/AP:

At least 28 bombs exploded Sunday in apparently coordinated attacks in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency, killing three people and wounding more than 50, the military said.

The bombings targeted hotels, karaoke bars, power grids and commercial sites in the country’s southernmost provinces, the only parts of predominantly Buddhist Thailand with Muslim majorities. Two public schools were torched.

Police said three Thais of Chinese descent were also gunned down in Pattani province in what was believed to be the act of insurgents. The killings occurred as the country’s Chinese community was celebrating the Lunar New Year Sunday.

Violence in the south has been escalating in recent months despite a major policy shift by the military-imposed government, which is trying to replace an earlier, iron-fisted approach in dealing with the rebels with a “hearts and minds” campaign.

More than 2,000 people have died in the provinces bordering Malaysia since the insurgency erupted in 2004, fueled by accusations of decades of misrule by the central government. The insurgents have not announced their goals, but they are believed to be fighting for a separate state imbued with radical Islamic ideology.

For more details on the story, go to Bangkok Pundit. And for background info, I recommend the south Thailand insurgency Wikipedia page.

CNN/Reuters:

Ecuador’s first female defense minister was killed on Wednesday after only nine days in office in a mid-air collision of two helicopters, government and military officials said.

The accident in the Andean nation further rocks the leftist government of President Rafael Correa, who has clashed with Congress over his executive powers and prompted street protests since taking office along with his ministers on January 15.

Minister Guadalupe Larriva, a former teacher and senior official of a socialist political party supporting Correa, died in the crash in a Pacific coastal province east of Quito, presidential spokeswoman Monica Chuji said.

Correa wanted Larriva, one of only a few civilians to lead Ecuador’s 176-year-old military, to control an institution that has played a part in the ouster of three presidents in the last decade by publicly withdrawing its support as street protests erupted.

Larriva, one of the most popular members of the Cabinet, had promised to strengthen presidential control of military ranks, improve salaries for the armed forces and make the promotions system more transparent.

U.S. firemen stationed at an air base at the port city of Manta rushed to the scene of the crash, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said.

(Emphasis mine.)

Note: In his presidential campaign, Correa vowed not to renew the US’s lease on the facility, which is set to expire in 2009.

Related: More on Ecuador’s new president.

Seth Mydans has a good front-page story in today’s IHT. He sums up the theories regarding who might’ve orchestrated the new year’s eve bombings and weighs in on where Thailand may be heading:

A string of lethal bombs that disrupted New Year’s celebrations here has brought into the open a simmering confrontation between the ruling military junta and the opponents it unseated in a coup three months ago.

The attacks signaled the start of what could be a difficult year for Thailand as the military, the police and the entrenched elite wrestle for control of the country’s future.

Read the whole thing.

In Time magazine, Hannah Beech quotes an analyst who says the bombings probably weren’t carried out by southern insurgents:

…
As the new year began, Bangkok was swirling with speculation about the masterminds behind the bombings. Initial suspicion centered on Muslim insurgents, who have terrorized Thailand’s south with unrelenting attacks that have claimed nearly 2,000 lives over the past three years. But the insurgents, some of whom are fighting for a separate Muslim state, have never taken their bloody campaign out of the south. “It’s unlikely this was the work of southern insurgents,” says Francesca Lawe-Davies, Southeast Asia Analyst for the International Crisis Group. “It’s always been more about their territory; if they were to stage an attack in Bangkok, I think they would choose a target more directly linked to the Thai state instead of public places.” At a press conference a day after the bombings, interim Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont discounted speculation that the carnage was coordinated by Muslim extremists, instead linking the bombs to “people who lost benefits from losing political power.”
…

At USNews.com, however, David E. Kaplan, quoting Zachary Abuza, links the bombings to the southern insurgents:

Add Thailand to the list of Islamist insurgencies spinning out of control.

Best known for its spicy food, sex trade, Buddhist monks, and once booming economy, Thailand is now home to one of the world’s more brutal jihad wars. For three years, a stubborn and increasingly violent insurgency has grown in the heavily Muslim districts of the country’s south, made worse by the clumsy and corrupt response by Thai officials.
…
You can look forward to hearing more about this mess. Add Thailand to a troubled list that includes Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir, Mindanao, and Somalia.

And, finally, the Washington Post is running this Reuters story by Ed Cropley:

Army-installed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont told Thailand on Thursday to prepare for repeats of the bomb attacks which killed three people and wounded 38 in Bangkok on New Year’s Eve.

“I would like to ask our brothers and sisters to brace themselves for a life-threatening thing like this for a while,” Surayud told the National Legislative Council, which is acting as a parliament in the wake of a September 19 military coup.

He gave no details.

His comments are likely to keep the 9 million inhabitants of the sprawling capital on edge after a string of bomb hoaxes and scares since the New Year. Thai media reported false alarms at a government office and major shopping mall on Thursday.

Here in Bangkok, four days after the new year’s eve bombings, the mood is still tranquil. But the question remains: whodunit?

My buddy Dan Ten Kate has a good story in the Asia Sentinel:

“Thailand’s Bombing Mystery Gets Murkier: Allegations, conspiracy theories and bomb threats continue to swirl in Bangkok.”

A snip:

Although Thailand’s junta leaders have been generally praised by the local press in the wake of the bombings that rocked Bangkok’s peaceful ambiance at the start of the year, concerns are growing about their competence in the wake of contradictory statements and a seeming lack of political, economic and law enforcement direction.

Contending forces appear to be emerging across a wide range of the power structure including within the police and military. Some political analysts are also theorizing that the bombings, which took the lives of three and injured nearly 30, could be the manifestations of a power struggle within the junta that took power after pushing deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power.

Certainly, there were conflicting statements aplenty Wednesday from the military junta and the country’s appointed civilian leaders. Although General Saprang Kanlayanamitr, a leading junta member, told reporters that the “evidence and intelligence information proves that the bombs were the dirty work of politicians who lost power and benefit. Some bad soldiers loyal to the bad politicians collaborated with them with the intention to topple this government,” an hour or so later that statement was contradicted by military-appointed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

Elsewhere:

– Taipei Times/AP: “Thai army says Thaksin backers behind attacks”

– IHT/AP: “Thaksin denies links to New Year’s bombings, Loyalists behind attacks, military says”

And as for the impact that the bombings may have on the Thai tourism industry, MSNBC.com is running two stories, one from the AP and one from Reuters:

AP: “Tourists undeterred by Thai bombing, But blasts concern experts about effects of travel advisories”

Reuters: “Bangkok bombs cast shadow over Thai tourism, Tour operators fear travel warnings will make year’s growth more difficult”

I can say this: My family and I traveled throughout various parts of Bangkok yesterday — from the Oriental hotel on the banks of the Chao Phraya to Emporium mall on Sukhumvit Rd. — and there was no shortage of tourists anywhere. Even the open-air Suan Lum night bazaar, which we visited two nights ago, was crowded, despite the fact that a bomb was reported to have been discovered there on new year’s eve and subsequently disposed of.

Elsewhere, Jotman is blogging about the bombings. And Bangkok Pundit, of course, continues to be a reliable source of info.

Reuters/CNN:

Thai shares bounced back on Wednesday from their biggest sell-off in 16 years after the government back-pedaled on currency controls, but the abrupt policy U-turn shattered confidence in its economic chiefs.

The stock market, which plunged 14.8 percent on Tuesday — its biggest one-day drop since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — ended 11.2 percent higher after the army-appointed government exempted stock buying from controls on short-term currency inflows just a day after imposing them.

The stunning about-face in the wake of a foreigner-led rout that knocked $23 billion off Asia’s worst-performing bourse this year rekindled memories of the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis and brought howls of derision from analysts.

“The one thing worse than an incompetent central bank is an incompetent central bank that flip-flops,” said Bratin Sanyal, head of Asian equity investments at ING in Hong Kong.

Domestic investors were equally scathing in their criticism of the technocrats appointed by the military leaders who ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a September 19 coup.

“I’m stunned. They are truly incapable. Please, get the hell out,” 35-year-old businessman Chan Pornpipatkul said.

Meanwhile, Tom Fuller and Wayne Arnold report in the IHT that the Thai central banker says Siam’s the real victim here:

The steep decline of the dollar is punishing Asia’s smaller economies and should be addressed by global financial regulators, the governor of the Thai central bank, Tarisa Watanagase, said Wednesday.

Speaking as the Thai stock market rebounded from a record one-day drop of 15 percent, Tarisa defended the government’s attempt to block short-term foreign investment.

Dismissing criticism that the move had tarnished Thailand’s reputation among international investors, she instead portrayed Thailand as a victim of the large imbalances in trade and savings that send trillions of dollars sloshing in and out of developing countries.

“This is not a problem unique to Thailand,” Tarisa said during an interview. “I’m sure that if this sort of problem is not cured in a cooperative manner, we could see similar measures elsewhere.”

By imposing capital controls on Monday, Thailand sought to slow inflows of foreign money because it had resulted in a double-digit appreciation of its currency against the dollar since the start of the year. Tarisa urged the International Monetary Fund or the Asian Development Bank to find a solution to the problem. Otherwise, she said, “The smaller, open economies will have to take the issue into their own hands.”

(Emphasis mine.)

The AP’s Monte Hayes reports that Ecuador has elected a new president:

Ecuador’s president-elect Rafael Correa was once a Boy Scout, later a social worker in an impoverished highland Indian village and now describes himself as a Christian leftist.

Childhood friends still recall Correa’s natural leadership abilities and strong character on the soccer field.

But during his run for the presidency, the tall and charismatic nationalist picked up a reputation for also being confrontational and uncompromising, traits that could add to Ecuador’s political instability when he takes office in January.

Correa, a friend of Venezuela’s firebrand President Hugo Chavez, defeated banana tycoon Alvaro Noboa, 56, in Sunday’s presidential runoff.

(Emphasis mine.)

The Miami Herald’s Steven Dudley and Carol Rosenberg report that Correa vows not to renew the US military’s lease on an airbase in the northern coastal city of Manta:

The leader in Ecuador’s presidential election Monday repeated his promise to end the U.S. military’s counternarcotics operations out of an airport in Manta, while his rival cried fraud.
…
The U.S. military considers Manta ”an effective tool” in the drug war. It estimates that from 2000 to 2005, the military flew 2,000 missions from Manta and claims those flights contributed ”directly or indirectly” to the seizure of 52 metric tons of illegal drugs with a street value of more than $2 billion.

Correa, however, has alleged that the United States has used the base to attack Colombian rebels, in violation of the agreement. During the campaign, he claimed the U.S. government was trying to drag Ecuador into neighboring Colombia’s war against leftist guerrillas. Correa has said his country will remain ”neutral” in that four-decades-old war.

More on that from Nikolas Kozloff in Counter Punch:

It now looks as if Rafael Correa, a leftist candidate in Ecuador, has handily won his country’s presidential election. As of Monday morning, with about 21 percent of the ballot counted, Correa had 65 percent compared to 35 percent for Alvaro Noboa, according to Ecuador’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal. If Correa wins, he will preside over Ecuador for a four year term.

It’s yet another feather in the cap for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who had long cultivated the aspiring leader’s support. What’s more, it’s a stinging blow against the Bush administration which now must confront a much more unenviable political milieu in the region. Ecuador now joins other left leaning regimes such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Chile, all of which are sympathetic to Chavez.

Bush cannot dismiss the Correa victory as inconsequential: Ecuador is currently the second largest South American exporter of crude to the U.S. The small Andean country hosts the only U.S. military base in South America, where 400 troops are currently stationed. Correa opposes an extension of the U.S. lease at the air base in Manta, which serves as a staging ground for drug surveillance flights. The U.S. lease expires in 2009.

“If they want,” Correa has said ironically, “we won’t close the base in 2009, but the United States would have to allow us to have an Ecuadoran base in Miami in return.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Business Week’s Geri Smith, however, says Correa’s future is insecure, and that Washington is “taking a wait-and-see approach”:

A leftist economist who has vowed to break off free-trade talks with the U.S. and advocated defaulting on the country’s foreign debt has been elected president of Ecuador. But there is no telling whether 43-year-old Rafael Correa will remain in office long enough to carry out the platform that swept him to victory: Ecuador has had seven presidents in the last 10 years, several of them removed by its congress or forced out by violent street protests after just days or months in office.

Correa, running as an independent in a country where traditional political parties are widely discredited, won 57% of the vote to defeat billionaire banana magnate Alvaro Noboa, a populist. But Correa has no political base in Ecuador’s congress, and that means he has a tough road ahead: He campaigned on a promise to dissolve the congress and convene a special assembly to completely rewrite Ecuador’s constitution, but the congress is likely to block that initiative. “This is a president who will face possible impeachment at every turn,” says Patrick Esteruelas, a Latin America analyst for the Eurasia Group, a New York risk consultancy.

Describing himself as a “close friend” of Venezuela’s firebrand President Hugo Chávez, Correa is the latest leftist candidate to win at the polls in Latin America, where voters seem increasingly frustrated with the inability of governments to reduce the poverty that afflicts nearly half of the continent’s people, in spite of high world prices for oil and other commodities produced in the region. In early November, Nicaraguans elected former Sandinista revolutionary Daniel Ortega, also friendly with Chávez, and with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, as president. By electing Correa, a political outsider, Ecuadorans made it clear that they are frustrated with corruption and incompetence among their country’s political class.

(Emphasis mine.)

Elsewhere, the CSM’s Sara Miller Llana reports:

The apparent victory of Rafael Correa - a left-leaning economist and friend of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez - in Ecuador’s presidential runoff election Sunday is the latest triumph for leftist governments in Latin America.

“Hopefully, we will get much, much closer to Mr. Chávez,” Mr. Correa said after declaring victory Sunday night.

At press time, three exit polls, a quick count, and official results from more than half of the ballots showed Correa with close to 60 percent of the vote.

The election, which pitted Correa against billionaire banana tycoon Alvaro Noboa, was watched closely in the US. Correa had promised to disregard a free trade agreement with the US and close down a US military base in the country. Correa’s win means Ecuador joins Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on the list of countries that have also elected leftist presidents in recent years.

But Eduardo Gamarra, a Latin American expert at Florida International University, says that while Correa will forge closer relations with Latin America’s leftist leaders, he is unlikely to become as radical or isolationist as his opponents have painted him. “[Ecuador's] relationship with Chávez will be stronger, the relationship with Evo Morales [Bolivia's leftist leader] will be stronger,” Mr. Gamarra says. “But these countries have gone too far on the side of democracy and the economic side to turn back. Ecuador cannot think of closing its doors.”

(Emphasis mine.)

And finally, my friend Ed P., on the ground in Paute, Ecuador, a small town outside Cuenca, sends along these images of graffiti there.

An anti-Noboa campaign poster. The headline on this sign says, “Who is Alvaro Noboa? He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

“Bush, terrorist. No war of empire.”