Thailand’s nightmare scenario | New Mandala

Thailand’s nightmare scenario | New Mandala

 

JOHN FRANKLIN, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

26 AUGUST 2015

A multi-faith ceremony commemorates the victims of the Bangkok blast. Photo: Ritchie B Tongo/EPA.

There will be grim consequences if the Bangkok blast proves to have its origin in domestic politics.  

Recent posts for New Mandala by Zachary Abuza and Lee Jones have accurately highlighted the obvious weaknesses in the Thai authorities’ investigation of the lethal bombing at the Erawan Shrine on 17 August.

Perhaps it should also be said, though, that few governments emerge from terrorist attacks looking good. Every terrorist attack represents an intelligence failure, and security agencies’ post-attack responses are often characterised by confusion and lack of coordination.

There has been much speculation about the identity of the terrorists who carried out the attack.

For Thailand’s military government and ordinary Thai people, the most worrying possibility is that the 17 August attack signalled a dramatic escalation of domestic political violence, whether the conflict in the Thailand’s far south, or the long-running fight for control of the national government. Many hundreds of Thais have lost their lives in these bitter conflicts since the 1970s.

In the south, ethnic-Malay insurgents routinely murder not only military and police personnel, but also schoolteachers, Buddhist monks and other civilians, and make frequent use of IEDs. On their part, the security forces have sometimes in the past, particularly under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, reacted with excessive brutality to the insurgency.

However, although there have been signs of an expansion of the insurgents’ target-list to include tourist zones in the south, the southern conflict has until now been almost entirely contained within several provinces.

If southern terrorists were responsible for the 17 August attack – perhaps in retaliation for the military government’s hard-line towards peace negotiations – this would represent a serious expansion of an already vicious but contained conflict, with serious implications for international confidence in Thailand’s internal security.

Meanwhile, the central political conflict has seen large numbers of people from all sides lose their lives: students and left-wingers during the 1970s, students again in 1992, Red Shirts and soldiers in 2010, and Yellow Shirt protesters in 2013-14. However, the conflict has previously not involved any serious efforts to inflict large-scale casualties on civilians through terrorist attacks.

But while the military regime led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha has imposed superficial calm since the armed forces took power through their May 2014 coup, tensions have grown beneath the surface.

These tensions reflect not only a sense of disenfranchisement among the majority of the population whose political agency grew under the 1997 Constitution and the successive governments led or backed by Thaksin.

Most Thais recognise that, like it or not, the country’s present twilight era is likely to end soon. A struggle for power and wealth within Thailand’s conservative establishment may be imminent.

The nightmare scenario for Thailand would be outright violence between the country’s domestic factions, with ordinary people caught in the middle. The 17 August attack might provide a worrying portent of such violence.

However, despite sometimes contradictory and confusing statements from the Thai authorities, the circumstantial evidence that has emerged since the brutal and cowardly attack on the Erawan shrine suggests that it was more probably a manifestation of international terrorism than of domestic politics.

Under any government, Thailand, with its easy visa-free or visa-on-arrival access for many nationalities, its cosmopolitan environment, widespread corruption, pervasive organised crime, weak law-enforcement, patchy record of international cooperation on counter-terrorism, and plethora of sites popular with tourists, would be vulnerable to violent extremists from outside the country.

While in the past there doesn’t seem to have been a clear rationale for Islamist or other extremist groups to attack Thailand, Anthony Davies has argued quite persuasively that the Turkish nationalist-fascist group, the Grey Wolves,
may have perpetrated the bombing in retaliation for the Thai government’s forced repatriation of Uighur refugees to China.

If Thailand was a victim of international terrorism, this will pose serious challenges for the military government in Bangkok. To prevent future attacks, and to restore already sagging confidence in the country’s tourist sector, Thailand will need to improve its counter-terrorist capabilities, including in terms of intelligence collection and analysis. It will particularly need to intensify intelligence exchanges with the US, Australia, and other Western countries as well as Asian partners.

Indonesia’s acceptance of international support for its counter-terrorism effort following the 2002 Bali attack provides an example example of how such assistance can significantly bolster national capabilities. A bonus for Thailand and its international interlocutors would be expanded interaction on practical matters despite the tensions precipitated by Western governments’ reaction to the 2014 coup.

Overall, if the 17 August attack originated outside the country, there are grounds for an optimistic prognosis. With international assistance, the culprits may be tracked down. Enhanced counter-measures including tightened border controls and strengthened intelligence exchanges with regional and international partners could go a long way towards preventing similar attacks in future.

The outlook would be much grimmer if the attack was found to have domestic origins.

John Franklin is the nom de plume of a security analyst based in Southeast Asia. He has worked in the region since the 1980s.

Who is behind the Bangkok blast? | New Mandala

Who is behind the Bangkok blast? | New Mandala

JAMES GIGGACHER, 

18 AUGUST 2015

Debris from the blast in Bangkok. Photo by AP.

In the wake of a devastating bomb attack in Bangkok overnight, which has already claimed more than 20 lives, many questions remain, including who is behind the atrocity and what their motivations are.

To get a clearer picture of who might be responsible, New Mandala spoke to security and Thailand expert Dr John Blaxland from the Australian National University.

These are Blaxland’s responses.

_________

In the absence of any clear declaration claiming ownership, there are three broad possibilities for who is responsible for the bomb blast in Bangkok overnight: the military, Red Shirt supporters, or insurgents from Thailand’s Deep South.

At the same time, there are other rumours circulating in Bangkok claiming that it is Uighurs or people linked to their cause who are behind the incident.

In terms of the military, this is not a very plausible scenario, but nonetheless it is important to address it.

Some would say that the motivation for the military, or a military proxy, carrying out such an atrocity is to justify their ongoing military rule after Thailand’s May 2014 coup and into 2017, when elections are next most likely to take place.

This latest act of terror would seem to cement support for their ongoing rule and tight control of the state.

However, Thailand’s military leaders are currently focused on developing the country’s economy and tourism, and an attack at such an important tourist site would not assist them in this.

An attack on the Erawan shrine also can be seen as inauspicious for the military government, reinforcing the implausibility of the military as the instigators. Reducing the auspiciousness of the Prayuth government is something they would seek to avoid. In addition, their grip on power remains quite strong.

There is no compelling reason why they would feel a need to fabricate an additional and artificial security crisis. For these reasons I don’t think the military is behind it.

Another possibility is that it is a member of, or a supporter of, the Red Shirt political faction, the group which supports former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck.

They have been marginalised and frustrated by the military government’s success so far in containing political unrest and bringing about legislative changes inimical to the Red Shirts’ interests.

This incident could be seen as an attempt to undermine the military government’s sense of control or to add pressure to return to elections and civilian rule.

It must be remembered that the Erawan shrine, at the heart of the fashionable Rachaprasong shopping district, is also the scene of the May 2010 Red Shirt barricade, which after prolonged demonstrations and protests lead to violence that saw many hundreds injured and at least 90 killed, from the military and both sides of politics. It has great significance for the Red Shirts.

Striking at the heart of downtown Bangkok would be a blow to the nation’s elite, those who have often opposed the Red Shirts and their political aspirations. It would also be a powerful reminder of the power and support of the Red Shirts’ nominal leader, Thaksin.

The third possibility is that it is insurgents from Thailand’s Deep South, who have been waging a separatist campaign there for many years.

The modus operandi of this blast fits with their methods in that it is an improvised explosive device delivered by a motorbike and placed at the foot of a shrine. Thais who live in the Deep South are very familiar with such blasts as they are an all too common occurrence.

However, I think it is unlikely that the bomb came from this group. In all their long years fighting the state, they have avoided making attacks in Bangkok their priority.  In fact, they tend to avoid attacking cities in general. They’ve attacked Hat Yai, but have deliberately avoided attacking so far north or a city as large as Bangkok.

In addition, the insurgents from the Deep South have worked very hard to distance themselves from the global war on terror and the violent extremism of other groups, so as to avoid being entangled in operations that would see them suffer under the heavy hand of the US.

It would make no sense for them to change this approach now, and for that reason I don’t think this latest tragedy is the actions of insurgents.

That’s why on the balance of things, with no one claiming ownership of the attack, I think it would be most likely to have been instigated by a supporter of the Red Shirts.

Outside of these three possible groups, there are rumours that Uighurs or people supportive of their movement are behind the attack.The Uighurs have opposed the Chinese state for many years, sometimes resorting to violence, and only last month Thailand sent back over 100 Uighur asylum seekers to China.

Once again, I don’t think this is plausible, but it goes to show that amid the chaos and confusion it is hard to know exactly what has happened and why.

Whoever is responsible for this terrible tragedy, such violence has no place in any society, and should be abhorred.