Six domestic airlines took part in this public relations show and they all seemed to have passed with flying colours. And while everything went smoothly, there could be no mistaking the fact that no international carriers participated in the big stunt, even though they were urged to do so by the caretaker prime minister.

Worse still, after the test-flights there was a deafening silence on their part as to whether they would use the Suvarnabhumi International Airport on September 28. Only two of the roughly 70 international airlines have reportedly indicated that they would move to Thailand's new international airport.

This circus was not the first "test flight" for the new airport. In June of last year, the then confident prime minister led an entourage of Cabinet members and high ranking officials on board two Thai Airways International jumbos and they also landed safely at Suvarnabhumi. The caretaker premier immediately went on to declare that event a great "success" at a press conference. He was angered by questions from a BBC correspondent who asked why all of this international hype was necessary when the official opening of the airport was months, if not years away.

 Following the test-flights' "success", a similar question or something along the same lines could also be posed: Why the test flights when the airport is still months away from receiving full clearance and approval from the International Civil Aviation Organisation?

The scheduled opening on September 28 is much too soon for every shortcoming to be removed or corrected in time. The list of things to do is long indeed. If no clearance is forthcoming from the ICAO, international carriers do not have to comply with the government's requests. Foremost in their mind is their concern for passengers' safety.

Obviously, all the domestic carriers have no choice; they must cooperate. Thai Airways International, which is the national flag carrier and government-owned, will bear the brunt of the responsibility.

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai Party should be able to take credit for the fact that Suvarnabhumi was built and nearly completed while their government was in power. If that credit is to be extended further, he and his government must make sure beyond any reasonable doubt that Suvarnabhumi is ready according tointernational standards. If not, it could become a potentially dangerous liability that could unravel his government.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Engaging Abhisit in televised debate in Thaksin's interest

Re: "Abhisit presses PM for live TV debate", News, August 7.

Your comment of Abhisit's advantage in boosting the Democrats' stagnant popularity in this proposed television showdown is correct. But the immediate impact is more on raising Abhisit's profile as an alternative to Thaksin, and the premier may not want to give his arch rival such an opportunity.

However, if Thaksin is as brilliant an administrator as he likes to think he is, he should accept this challenge within 24 hours without the expected ramblings. It is a great chance for him to "legitimise" his standing as the nation's leader. Once the debate is on, anti-Thaksin forces would become ineffective because the issues would now be put at the forefront of the living rooms of everybody in Thailand. We will also see the true self of a man to whom all sorts of adjectives have been assigned and his temperament would be subject to the camera's test, even a pimple could be highlighted. Yes, Abhisit's challenge is the best thing he has ever done since he became the opposition leader, but do take note that the debate would not be one-sided. Furthermore, Thaksin is most effective when he is humble which is now rare.

I suggest three 90-minute debates just like US presidential debates, one each in August, September and October. The moderator should not be the usual television man who is not knowledgeable enough on economic and social issues and is typically self-centred. The ideal person is Anand Panyarachun, a man who could ask a lot of penetrating questions to ensure that our time is well spent watching the debate and to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of the two.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

End of Castro's reign would give Cubans a taste of freedom

Re: "US should learn from past international blunders and stay out of Cuban politics", Letters, August 7.

Indeed, Cuban exiles in Miami dance in the street at the prospect of Castro kicking the bucket, something Cubans in Cuba who value their life are unable to do. Meanwhile, letter writer R Richards wants Condoleezza Rice to send Castro a "get well" card. What a grand idea. God forbid that Cubans who were born after this murderous communist reign began should live to get a taste of freedom and prosperity in their land of birth before they pass from this earth.

But then again, for some it seems that nothing matters but hating George W Bush, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

Jake

Bangkok

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

Taxpayers' money is not being used to support alcoholics

Re: "Alcoholics choose to drink, so why should others pay?", Letters, August 7.

In response to Ken Albertsen's letter in The Nation, please Ken have a drink and relax. In Thailand, taxpayers do not contribute at all to helping sufferers of alcoholism. You are correct on one thing though, that alcoholism is not a disease. In fact, it's a psychological condition that can be hereditary and the victims of it should be regarded in the same way as anyone who has contracted Parkinson's or other mind-destroying disabilities. So, Ken there's no worry that your tax money will go to help folks who have been struck down by such a condition.

John Bligh

Bangkok

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

Past Arab peace proposals have  not been in good faith

Re: "Israel provoking neighbours by encroaching on land", Letters, August 5.

I am glad that Eric Bahrt brought up the 2002 Saudi "peace" plan. Unfortunately, he did not tell the whole story.

After the Saudi leader made public an offer to finally make peace if Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders, Ariel Sharon responded positively to the offer. Sharon invited the Saudi leader to Jerusalem, but stated that he was willing to go to Riyadh or a neutral site if the Saudis were more comfortable with those options. Sharon also stated that discussions could occur between the Israeli and Saudi foreign ministers if this was preferable to the Saudis. Finally, Sharon stated that he was willing to have negotiations take place in secret if that was more convenient to the Saudis.

The Saudi leader responded that discussions and negotiations could only occur after a deal was reached. Thus, Sharon called the Saudi bluff and demonstrated that the offer was a meaningless public relations stunt. Whether in diplomacy or business, discussions and negotiations occur first, then a deal can be reached. Obviously, there would be much to discuss; like who would disarm Hizbollah and Hamas; what about Iran, a non-Arab state, whose current leader denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map and what does peace mean to the Arabs - an end to the economic boycott of Israel or full relations?

It appears little has changed for the Saudis and the Arabs since 1948 when Israel agreed to the UN partition, which would have created a Palestinian state. The king of Saudi of Arabia stated at that time "so what if 50 million Arabs die, if we can kill the Jews, it will be worth it". Today, Arab leaders maintain the same attitude.

Josh Baker

Thailand

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

Mideast media coverage biased in favour of Israelis

Re: "Death tolls do not account for years of attacks on Israelis", Letters, August 5.

This letter dismissed arguments that Israeli's current attacks on Lebanon are disproportionate because this kind of thing has always happened and war is ugly.

The letter also touched on a perceived anti-Israel bias in the media.

Firstly, in this instance, both Hizbollah and Israel are guilty of crimes against humanity. However, the magnitude of the attack on Lebanon is typical of Israel's responses to its perceived threats. Israel's disregard for the Lebanese population is in a similar vein to the mistreatment of refugees on the Gaza Strip. According to Human Rights Watch, almost half of the casualties to date have been children. Areas have been attacked miles from any supposed Hizbollah strongholds.

I am aware that the BBC often comes under attack from the Israelis for being biased against them. This, to me, is fantastical considering the language used to describe the various Arab-Israeli conflicts. "Atrocity", "attack", "act of terror", "murder", "extremist", "loss of innocent lives" (followed perhaps by some biographical data on one or two innocent bystanders if it is at hand) are terms used to describe Palestinian acts of resistance to illegal occupation. Compare this, if you will, with language used to describe Israeli acts: "response", "defence", "collateral damage", "operation", "pin-point targeting". As the late Edward Said lamented, Palestinian victims are not worthy of a biography, they don't even make it to the classification of statistics.

Armed conflict is indeed ugly and almost always immoral/illegal - despite the best efforts of government public relations units and compliant media outlets to obscure these uneasy truths. However, as the letter l refer to exemplifies, we are in grave danger of becoming so desensitised to the horrors of war that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, we may all adopt the amoral stance of "well ... that's war for you ...".

James Martin

Bangkok