Bangkok Not A War Zone!
Monday, April 12th, 2010This makes me furious! The NYT today had a decent article but the video in the sidebar said “City Like A War Zone.” The Reuters’s reporter in the video repeats the term. The city is not a war zone! Compare Bangkok to Los Angeles. The encampments of the Reds were in two small places only: at the Phan Fa Bridge and the intersection near the Chit Lom sky train station. The battle shown by the video in the article took place at the Democratic Monument near the bridge…one place…a very small area. Sukumvit Soi 20, where I am staying, is four sky train stops from Chit Lom and 45 minutes away in good traffc away from the Phan Fa Bridge.
If you were not hearing about the demonstration, or just happened upon it, a person visiting Bangkok would never know anything was going on. The city is operating normally with the exception that the Chit Lom sky train exit and one mall is still closed.
And this statement:
“The aggressiveness of the anti-government forces, some among them using firearms and explosives, raised the possibility that provocateurs — the “third force” bent on destabilizing the government that some analysts had feared — had escalated the violence”
technically is correct but confusing. Mixing “anti-government forces” in a sentence with some among them when talking about a demonstration of the protesters gives the impression that indeed it was the Red Shirt protesters who had the high-powered rifles and bombs. This has not been established yet. No one knows who fired the first shot which can be heard about one-third of the way through in the video on my last post.
And yes, there is a very real possibility that a “third force,” that the government is now calling “terrorists on the government run TV station” may have infiltrated the demonstration. But you can be sure that whoever it was has a vested interest in the outcome of this crisis.
This makes me think of the massacre of 200 plus students in the soccer stadium in Mexico City in 1968. Apparently, as most people understand it in Mexico today, the police stationed a sharpshooter on a roof of the stadium who then shot a policeman. What do you think the natural reaction of the police force was then?
Another sentence:
During Saturday’s clashes, bystanders sometimes cheered on the military, offered refreshments or gave them refuge to change out of their uniforms and flee the protesters.
Apparently the reporter was not on the scene for the whole month before the violence on Saturday when bystanders along the incoming routes were cheering the Red Shirts as they entered the city in waves. And it over-simplifies the divisions within the public itself toward the Red Shirts and the military that is itself divided. It was the businesses in the malls that were complaining about the protesters. After the protesters took over ThaiCom TV station after fighting the police and military, the Red Shirts were seen shaking hands with the “watermelon” police who easily fell back. Nothing is simple in Thailand. But it’s the job of a good reporter to make it not seem so.
Between the country warnings and the press, tourists in Oaxaca in 2006 were scared off causing loss of jobs, closing of hotels and restaurants and all manner of other hardship that the city and state is still trying to recover from! Is this going to help a country that depends (as Thailand does) on tourism for a good portion of it’s GDP? The other reason for letting foreigners in is that they shine a light on activities and become “witnesses” that make it more difficult for the wrong-doers to get away with wrong-doing. But the State Departments of various countries feel obliged to “cover their asses” in case some stupid tourist stumbles into trouble.
End of rant.
BTW, this afternoon some Red Shirts on motorcycles kidnapped the CAT Telecom CEO demanding he reconnect the broadband connection.
The number of casualties has gone up to 21 with nearly 900 wounded. A call for blood overwhelmed the hospitals who have now called off the blood drive.
Zoe