State Violence in Thailand and Burma

By HTET AUNG

BANGKOK — The Thai military’s recent refusal to use force to crack down on the current demonstrations staged by the People’s Alliance for Democracy has become the subject of an academic debate about whether this signals a real change in the Thai military, and whether it could give a positive lesson to Burma’s military rulers that could have an effect on the country’s democratic transition.

At a recent seminar entitled “State Violence against Popular Protests: Thailand and Burma,” Thai and Burmese academics and activists exchanged views in a discussion comparing how the governments of the two countries have used violence against citizens struggling for democracy in their respective countries.

The seminar was held on September 26 and hosted by the Center for Social Development Studies at Chulalongkorn University and the Peace for Burma Coalition to commemorate the first anniversary of last year’s monk-led Saffron Revolution in Burma. The seminar also served to show Thai civil society’s solidarity with the defenseless people of Burma, who have been living under repressive military rule for over four decades.

The two Southeast Asian nations both have a history of bloody military coups and violent crackdowns on protesters. “Thai and Burmese states are not different, because they always use violence against popular protests,” said Dr. Naruemon Thabchumpon, director of the Master of Arts Program in International Development Studies at Chulalongkorn University.

“In Thailand, an historic popular protest which was brutally suppressed by the Thai military happened on October 14, 1973. Thailand, like Burma, also used similar violent methods, resulting in the deaths of many demonstrators, including the assassinations of more than 20 farmer leaders at the time,” she added.

Dr. Naruemon, who specializes in comparative democratic studies and the politics of civil society and grassroots movements, also analyzed important changes in civil society movements under the repressive Thai military governments of the 1970s.

“During 1973 -1976, Thailand experienced more than one thousand demonstrations, which came from the working class and the rural farmers. It was the time that Thailand began to form the Farmer Federation of Thailand, labor unions and democratic organizations like the Union for Civil Liberty.

“In 1976, Thailand experienced another bloody coup, resulting in many students and protesters fleeing to the jungle to join the Communist Party of Thailand. The event is very similar to the 1988 democratic uprising [in Burma] and the consequent fleeing of Burmese students to the border area.”

But she pointed out one important difference between the two countries. As the Thai economy became much more integrated into the global market in the 1970s and 1980s—something that did not happen in Burma—it generated a middle class which began to feel that the military could not run the country’s economy.

“The Thai military regime and elites understood that whatever happened in Thailand also had ramifications externally,” noted Larry Jagan, a veteran journalist and Burma watcher.

He pointed out that this economic factor also played a major part in the Thai military’s decision to refrain from using force against the current popular protests, citing the possible impact on international aid and trade if the army had responded to the unrest with violence.

Members of the panel agreed that Thai military leaders are more business-minded than their counterparts in Burma. According to Jagan, the Burmese regime always takes the attitude that “We never negotiate, but we can discuss.”

“The Burmese army doesn’t understand a win-win situation. They have the military mindset that there is no such situation in the battlefield. If you win, somebody loses,” said Jagan.

Even former prime minister and intelligence chief, Gen Khin Nyunt, who was considered by the international community to be the only Burmese military leader with an understanding of international politics, subscribed to this view, said Jagan.

“It is in the mind of the Burmese army and the military leaders that the army is the only institution which can save the country from being split,” said Zaw Min, who is in charge of foreign affairs for the Democratic Party for a New Society, a Burmese opposition party. He told the panel that the Burmese army’s core belief is that “it is the savior of the nation in history.”

“We can see the political changes after each popular protest in Thailand. But after every popular protest in Burma, there has been no progressive change but more oppression and restrictions,” said Zaw Min.

To make his point, he listed the many occasions that the Burmese military has violently responded to protests since it seized power in 1962. These include the crackdown on student demonstrations on July 7, 1962; the violent suppression of unrest at the Southeast Asian Peninsular Games in 1967; the crushing of student protests during the funeral of former UN Secretary-General U Thant in 1974; the crackdown on workers’ protests in 1975; the bloody coup that ended the nationwide student-led democratic uprising in 1988; and the ruthless assault on Buddhist monks during the Saffron Revolution in 2007.

The last panelist to speak, Dr. Buranaj Smutharak, a member of the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), said the Thai military’s decision to refrain from using violence to end the standoff in Bangkok could indicate “the positive change towards the openness of the societies in the region.”

However, while the Thai military has learned to avoid using violence against citizens involved in popular protests, the Burmese army has shown no such willingness to act with restraint. Whether Burma’s rulers are prepared to follow more positive regional trends remains an open question.