What was real reasons for military reshuffle?
What was real reasons for military reshuffle?
The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok
The unexpected military top-brass changes were a muted affair,
but the motives are yet to become clear.
In the not-so-distant past, the annual military reshuffle had
the potential to trigger repercussions. Any "destabilizing"
factors could have easily sent political temperatures to "red
alert" level, such as when a respected Army chief transferred by
a prime minister with whom he had icy relations was replaced by a
crony of the incumbent political leadership. When it did happen,
it was mostly at a time when the armed forces and the government
were locking horns over a serious security issue with a
neighboring country.
Press coverage given to Gen. Surayud Chulanont's transfer from
Army chief to the prestigious but less powerful supreme commander
last week reflects how the military has lost political dominance
since the 1992 "May Crisis". The mass circulation Thai Rath was
relatively lukewarm about it, as were the other dailies. There
were no coup rumors, no round-the-clock vigilance in newsrooms.
Business is going on as usual. Ironically, Surayud's
professionalism has played a big part in the "depoliticizing" of
the military and his relatively low-key departure from the
limelight.
While these are good signs for Thai politics, there are also
worrisome ones. As we say goodbye to a professional, democratic
soldier, thank him for a job well done and wish him the best in
his new, pre-retirement post, we cannot feel totally at ease.
While politicians can initiate a change of guard as they see fit
-- as Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra did when he ordered
Surayud's transfer -- there's no guarantee the ugly old game of
nepotism, jockeying and disastrous meddling will not revisit the
military.
Surayud has proven his worth and shown he always put the
country before himself. His comments -- "I have been Army chief
for four years and that's a little too long", "All planes have to
touch down sooner or later" and "I think the transfer order is
fair" -- have soothed a very delicate situation. He has held true
to his democratic principles even when his own interests are
directly involved.
Can we say the same about the politicians who have kicked
Surayud upstairs? A lot of things have to be proven and only the
end will justify the means. Thaksin has done an unprecedented,
reshuffling of the top brass before setting a pecking order.
This, the government says, will allow the new military heads to
have a say in the annual reshuffle to be finalized before
October. What is left unspoken, however, is that meddling
political hands can reach further down the ranks and mess things
up.
The apparent need to get Surayud out of the way at all costs
is questionable, and the timing of the announcement makes it look
more so. Whether the conflict over how to handle Burma and the
border tension were big factors, the fact that the military
reshuffle was decided just before a goodwill visit to Rangoon by
Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai doesn't bode well for the
dignity of the Thai Army.
The clash over Burma -- the Thaksin administration, which
wants a friendlier approach to Rangoon, once accused the military
of "overreacting" to incidents along the border, which is
infested with drugs, ethnic minority problems and proxy politics
-- had intensified speculation that Surayud's days as Army chief
were numbered. The timing of his transfer and Surakiart's visit
may not be related, but they are an unsettling coincidence.
If Burma was a motive, then politicians, as a democratic
right, can do whatever they deem necessary to enact their
policies. This is not to say that an over-friendly approach
toward a secretive and aggressive neighbor is wise
diplomatically.
But if there are motives that involve personal or vested
interests, then the government will be doing politics a
disservice by once more interfering in military affairs. Both
institutions are best kept at a proper distance and should
function with mutual respect.