By Marwaan Macan-Markar
BANGKOK, Jun 12 2002 (IPS)

Just as Thais had finished celebrating a 10-year spell of political life without military domination, talk of a military coup has entered the stream of this country’s political discourse.

One Thai-language daily, ‘Khao Sod,’ posed a blunt question in an editorial this week: “Who will gain from a military coup?”

In the same editorial, the paper added that Thailand’s defence minister, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, was serious when disclosing that “attempts were being made to stir up military sentiment against” the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

What has fuelled such talk are reports about perceived disagreements between the Thaksin administration and the Thai military over how best to resolve the current conflict along the border Thailand shares with Burma.

The government has struck a conciliatory note towards its counterpart, Rangoon’s ruling military junta, soon after word got out about the border row. Thaksin, for instance, said the Thai army was “overreacting” during an exchange of artillery shelling with Burmese troops.

But on Tuesday, Thai army commander General Surayud Chulanont was quoted in the local press dismissing the charge that his troops had overreacted in the border skirmishes.

“I want to reaffirm that the Thai army hasn’t done anything that could be called overreacting. It has strictly adhered to the required regulations when it has had to deal with spillovers from Burmese soil,” he was quoted in “The Nation,” an English-language daily.

In late May, the Thai army began a military exercise, involving some 10,000 troops, along the country’s northern border. The exercise was aimed at curbing the flow of illegal drugs from Burma and ensuring the army’s war-readiness, including the ability to defend the Thai border from any threats.

Thai-Burma border skirmishes occur off and on, given the number of active ethnic rebel groups along this porous terrain. Two of the rebel groups, who belong to minorities in Burma, are at odds with Rangoon, while the others are fighting with the junta’s forces.

Panitan Wattanayagorn is hardly surprised that such a course of events has trigged mention of the “c” word. There are reasons why such a difference of opinion in Thailand – “perfectly understandable in a democracy” — is being interpreted as signs of an impending coup, says Panitan, a military expert at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

“We are a new democracy, where the institutions, civil authority, and government are still developing,” he explains, while, on the other hand, the “military institutions are very strong, and the military is seen as a capable force now.”

Such talk of coups, he adds, surfaces now and again when there are “signs of tension” between the government and the military.

The whispers in the corridors of power late last year are a case in point. General Surayud, for instance, was quoted in the local media saying that a few young military officers were displaying their frustration at the fluid political environment under parliamentary democracy.

And Thailand’s history provides ample evidence why the country continues to be haunted by the prospect of an impending coup. Since a constitutional monarchy was established in 1932, this South-east Asian nation has experienced 17 military coups. Military generals, moreover, have served as the country’s prime minister for 48 of the past 70 years.

May 1992 marked the last attempt when a Thai general made a bid for the country’s premiership after having staged a coup earlier. The authors of Thailand’s 1997 constitution, dubbed the “people’s constitution” for its civil liberties clauses to strengthen democracy, also did their share to ensure that the military will be accountable and under the control of the democratically elected civilian authority.

Currently, the Thai army has an estimated 300,000-strong force and defence spending is around 1.4 percent of Thailand’s gross domestic product (GDP).

“The military is becoming more professional now and the army accepts the prime minister’s authority,” says General Charan Kullavanijaya, who once served as secretary-general of Thailand’s national security council. “The prime minister and the commanders understand clearly what is going on. There is no dissension.”

Such unity of purpose, however, may not be the case among the “lower ranks”, he adds. “The press reports about the border problem can result in a reaction from the lower ranks.”

And leading human rights activists are convinced that such sparks of dissension would not precipitate a military coup. “There are no signs of a coup,” says Somchai Homlaor, head of Forum Asia, a Bangkok-based regional human rights watchdog.

However, Somchai blamed the Thaksin administration’s confusing signals on Burma for provoking the signs of disagreement between the military and the government. “The policies of the government are not realistic towards Burma. It is putting the army along the border into a difficult situation.”

Since Thaksin, a business tycoon, became the country’s prime minister last year, he has sought warm ties with the military junta in Burma. But critics assail some of his efforts, including Thaksin’s insistence on a more personalised approach to diplomacy with Rangoon.

And after the Thai-Burma border conflict arose, Thaksin has been faulted for attempting to appease Rangoon’s rulers than defending the Thai army’s efforts to protect the country’s borders from any Burmese incursions.

“The government is trying to play down the difference between it and the army,” says Somchai. “There is a threat to Thailand’s security.”

But Suranand Vejjajiva, a government parliamentarian, sees it differently. “It does not mean the army disagrees with the prime minister. The army accepts his word; they recognise it as part of democracy.”

“We all know how things were in the past, the power of the military, where they played a central role in politics,” he adds. “It is not so now.”

However, military expert Panitan is more cautious in his forecast, given two factors: the military having rebuilt its image during the 10 years since confined to the barracks and its strong following in rural Thailand due to the many agricultural projects it runs in the provinces.

“I won’t be surprised if people call back the army to power,” he asserts. “The government has to be careful and maintain a balance — you cannot pressure the military and you cannot give them too much freedom.”

Excerpt: