Has there been any place where Thaksin Shinawatra's past, present and future can be discussed along with those of Thailand without raised voices, microphones snapped off and tables being banged? At least one. On June 10 at Room 2172 on Capitol Hill, a US House subcommittee hearing on the Thai political crisis took place in a manner as solemn as they've come.
In fact, the two-hour hearing, a full video clip of which was obtained by The Nation, was so solemn it looked almost surreal. That didn't mean it was boring, though. "Thaksin was a crook" was part of one testimony, which was countered by another witness saying the former prime minister "represented a rags-to-riches" success that endeared him to poor Thais. The session ended with the chairman's teasing question: Would Thailand achieve reconciliation if Thaksin were allowed to come back and run as prime minister?
The hearing by the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment preceded the US House of Representatives' vote that was almost unanimously in favour of peaceful solutions for the Thai crisis and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's reconciliation road map. Congressman Eni FH Faleomavaega, the subcommittee chairman, set the tone for the hearing by emphasising the long-term, solid relationship between the United States and its close friend and ally and every panellist stuck with that tone throughout the session, despite diversified opinions on causes and ways out.
The first to testify was Scot Marciel, deputy assistant secretary for Southeast Asia and ambassador for Asean affairs. Throughout his one-hour testimony he was careful not to veer off the this-is-the-matter-for-Thais-to-resolve track, but noticeable was repeated acknowledgement that the crisis was very complex and remained unpredictable. Morale support by the US, yes. Interference, no.
He was followed by a panel of Asian/Thai academic experts, one of whom went further by saying that Abhisit's road map should receive backing. Dr Richard Cronin, who heads the Southeast Asia program at the Henry L Stimson Centre, was apparently not a Thaksin fan, and at one point he described the former prime minister as a crook who had a poor human-rights record.
According to Cronin, giving moral support to the Abhisit government in regard to its reconciliation efforts would not compromise US democratic values, and what was "very important" as far as the United States was concerned was that "oversimplification" of the Thai crisis must be rejected.
Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat by Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.
Catharin Dalpino, visiting associate professor and director of the Thai Studies Programme at Georgetown University's Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service, was very cautious about Thaksin's "popularity" among rural people. Southern Thailand was "rural", too, but Thaksin wouldn't be able to land a foot there. And what he did to the Muslim "insurgents" while prime minister was ironically similar to the approach he had condemned his political opponents of applying, she said.
The three academics were, however, more or less in the same tune after chairman Faleomavaega pro-vocatively asked whether a Thaksin political return would end the problems in Thailand, since that was apparently what brought the red shirts to Bangkok. Even Jackson suggested that the only plausible scenario was for Thaksin to do a Thanom Kittikachorn. The former Thai leader overthrown in the 1973 uprising sneaked back to Thailand three years after his downfall, and although the return led to another political bloodbath, he managed to live a quiet, albeit secluded, life later.
Dalpino was more blunt in her response. Thaksin's return would restart it all over again, she said. In her opinion, there was no middle-class prejudice or conspiracy against Thaksin. She noted that when Thaksin first arrived on the political scene, he was very popular among the middle class because he was seen as a sophisticated "globalisation" flag-bearer whose family visits to Starbucks were considered "cool".
Ominously or not, the chairman ended the hearing by saying that he and those who had come to testify might have to meet again. He acknowledged that Thailand's problems were far more complex than a fight between the rich and the poor or lovers of democracy against the military. "I don't even know whether Thaksin can visit our country," Faleomavaega said. If that was intended as a question, it was the only one that received no reply.