Surakiart is desperately seeking the post of United Nations secretary-general, and now he is claiming he will champion democracy in Burma and fight for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi - if he is elected, that is. Where has he been hiding all of these years regarding Burma? Can anybody recall him ever having had anything worthwhile to say about helping those poor and oppressed people? But then, how could he say anything when his mentor has such a cosy relationship with the military dictatorship?

Yet he still has extended the offer to help those desperate people, on the condition he gets to be top man at the UN.

Chiang Mai Mike

Chiang Mai

--------------------------

Caretaker govt should deal with pressing national matters

Re: "Burma visit fuels rumours", News, August 3. Thaksin has got his priorities all wrong. This caretaker administration should pay attention to current crises, such as the bird-flu epidemic, troubles in the restive South and emergency floods in the North. Instead, the caretaker government continues to make policy and engage in international politics, including the approval of major infrastructure projects.

He keeps preaching he follows the rule of law, a claim similar to that made by his cronies who are now in jail. He still cannot see he is responsible for most of the problems this country faces. Is this the kind of leader we really want?

Grass-roots people need to wake up and see what is going on: Thaksinomics is voodoo economics, and it won't last for long.

Surasak Piputtana

Bangkok

------------------------------

Human-rights concerns over trip is just 'diplomatic play'

Re: "Burma visit fuels rumours", News, August 3.

If Thaksin's visit to Burma was truly for national interests, his visit was justified; however, the secrecy surrounding his visit leads to speculation he was pursuing his own interests. Regarding the media's reporting of US concerns over human-rights violations in Burma, we all know such a pretext is mere diplomatic play. Compare Burma's situation with the ethnic cleansing that took place in Rwanda, where international intervention came in too late.

A realistic perspective on the global order would dictate Thailand pursue its national interests under the condition it did not elevate corruption or cause true humanitarian and environmental damage.

NJC

Bangkok

--------------------------------------

PM has many travel options should he decide to skip town

Re: "Taxpayers deserve to know why Thaksin visited Burma", Letters, August 4.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul mentioned that if caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin went to Burma to explore political asylum in that country, it would not be anybody's business but his own. Actually, it would be of significant concern to Thailand, because a person seeking asylum there with billions of US dollars and deep grudges could destabilise the Kingdom. Furthermore, Burma may not have an extradition treaty with Thailand or may refuse to hand over criminals to Thai authorities. A billion goes a long way in Burma.

Thaksin's brain trust could be developing contingency plans for his exile. We heard about an acquisition of a penthouse in London, but it has not been confirmed the UK wants him. The British Virgin Islands are a bit small, and what is there to do there but count money and form dummy corporations all day? On paper, Texas looks like an ideal location. He could visit Sam Houston State University, his alma mater. Before long, he could reminisce about the good old times with key members of the Bush family.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

----------------------------------

Choice of secretary-general a bad start for Pracharaj Party

Re: "Thaksin let me down: Snoh", News, August 4. I am amazed to read that Prachai Leophairatana (ex-Thai Petrochemical Industry head) is the new secretary-general of the Pracharaj Party.

I wonder what makes Pracharaj feel that someone whom the Stock Exchange of Thailand blacklisted from being a director or executive of any listed Thai company is suitable to run a political party and hence apply for high office in the government?

Concerned Brit

UK

---------------------------------

Israel provoking neighbours by encroaching on land

Re: "Redefining borders would not appease Israel's neighbours", Letters, August 3.

Josh Baker claims the Arab countries would not agree to recognise Israel even if it returned to its pre-l967 borders. Yet just a few years ago, Saudi Arabia offered a peace proposal in which the Arab nations would establish full diplomatic relations with Israel if it would pull out of the occupied territories.

If Israel was serious about giving up the occupied territories in exchange for peace, why on earth would they be building new settlements in the West Bank, which is a direct provocation to the Palestinians?

Didn't returning land to Egypt and Jordan lead to peace with those two countries?

In 1968, the late King Hussein of Jordan said Israel could have land (the occupied territories) or peace, but it could never have both. That is as true today as it was when it was first said nearly 40 years ago.

Eric Bahrt

Chon Buri

--------------------------------

Self-serving world leaders bar progress in Middle East

It is interesting to note various letters on your Editorial page taking one side or the other in the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict. The Lebanese government stands accused of ignoring UN Resolution 1559 regarding Hizbollah, yet Israel has disregarded numerous UN resolutions (425, 451, 465 and 472, for example). US government support for implementation of UN resolutions seems selective.

The difficulty in a conflict like the Arab-Israeli one is trying to find a point round which the process of historical flow can to lead to a better outcome. Jimmy Carter, in his thoughtful article ("Mideast needs more than a quick fix", Opinion, August 2), argued for the pre-1967 borders as the most reasonable point from which to start in this most intractable political problem.

Politics is the art of the possible, and it will take men of Carter's stature and intellect, whether African, Arab, Asian or European-American, to help steer historical process to anything resembling justice in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, at this critical juncture of human history, when global warming and oil-resource politics are intertwined, we have political leaders like President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, men who are driven to inhumanity by inner conviction beyond doubt, reason and ability to admit error.

Will historians of the 22nd century, assuming there are any, look back on this period as a dark age of unreason?

Oliver Hargreave

Chiang Mai

------------------------------

Death tolls do not account for years of attacks on Israelis

Re: Politicians use 'terrorism' to get away with murder", Letters, July 30.

The writer states: "Certainly Israel has a right to protect itself, but this is too much." How much is too much protection? What is the reader suggesting? That Israel should tolerate or dismiss decades of pot-shot terror attacks and only respond "in proportion" to the latest infraction?

Along the same line, since when did television networks such as CNN and the BBC start keeping a scoreboard of casualties, and why should the participants in a war be expected to keep casualties proportional? No one kept such a scoreboard in the past, and I have noticed these casualty reports fail to include the decades of terror attacks launched against the Israelis. The coverage is grossly biased. Regardless, wars are fought to be won, and casualties happen.

The losing side usually has more casualties - that's the ugly business of war.

Sue P

Chai Nat

-----------------------------------

Set an example by stopping Lehman Brothers' expansion

Re: "Lehman Brothers' deep coffers enable them to bypass foreign-ownership laws", Letters, August 4.

I agree with the letter-writer's assertions. Thai regulators should not turn a blind eye to the actions of American corporations like Lehman Brothers, which is buying plots of land along Sukhumvit Road and Thai beachfront land in Pattaya and Hua Hin.

Such corporations' manipulative use of nominees to acquire titles flouts the letter of the law.

Thai lawmakers made these rules to be followed, not sidestepped through the use of wily corporate lawyers and deal-makers in smoke-filled rooms.

I, too, call on the Thai authorities to act, if they have not been mesmerised by the thrill of Wall Street. These get-rich-quick artists are silently achieving what the colonists never did.

Lehman Brothers should not be fined a token amount; it should be forced to abandon its brazen takeover, forfeit its shares and be barred from further involvement in Thai capital markets. It has been caught with its hands in the cash register.

Herry Gustanto

Jakarta