The abandonment of an Asian summit in Thailand because protesters defied the state of emergency spells gloom and doom for the emerging economies of the fastest growing continent, writes Gamal Nkrumah Some cultures are good at agitation and easy with perturbation. The people of Thailand, and the rest of Southeast Asia, are clearly not prepared for a more Spartan existence in light of global recession. Popular protests will continue to erupt spasmodically until brighter economic prospects usher in a more prosperous era. The Thai tendency for disquiet was displayed to best advantage, from the opposition point of view, in these hard economic times. From Pattaya, the plush Thai seaside resort where an all important Asian summit was to have taken place last weekend, it appeared like Asia was the first casualty of the global financial crisis, and Thailand was the first of the Asian casualties. "This would have been the first high-level regional summit after the London [G20] summit, so there were a lot of issues to be discussed by the leaders of east Asia so that the countries can synchronise their plans to help the region move on. It is unfortunate," the Secretary-General of the Association of East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Surin Pitsuan summed up the sorry situation. The ASEAN summit, with the leaders of 10 Southeast Asian countries, of varying degrees of economic development, were assembled in Pattaya to discuss the global financial crisis. They were fearful of the consequences of the crisis on their economies, among the fastest growing in the world. They were determined to coordinate their policies and to work with the leaders of Asia's other economic giants -- Japan, China, South Korea, India and Australia. This way of thinking has guided, to a greater or lesser extent, the ASEAN strategy. "It is for the interest of all peoples in ASEAN that leaders of ASEAN and East Asia are able to come together to discuss and synergise efforts to cope with the many challenges that the world is grappling with now," Surin stressed. "It is imperative that we do not let these efforts be derailed." This was a time for Thailand to display quiet and responsible regional diplomacy. ASEAN was the model regional grouping that worked well in spite of the fact that it included impoverished countries like Burma, Cambodia and Laos on the one hand and Singapore, with an average per capita income rivaling the wealthiest countries in the world, on the other. It cannot do so unless it puts its own house in order. That it appears is a most difficult task at the moment. The opposition is up in arms. Protesters, the so-called "red shirts", have taken to the streets. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva would not resign, though. He is fighting for his political life, but he adamantly refuses to step down. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, also insisted that he will not step down. Both Abhisit and Suthep have the tacit support of the Thai army and the blessing of the king. Arismun Pongruenrong, a former pop star, led the Pattaya protests. "Whoever announces victory is the real enemy of the country," Abhisit declared. Many Thai political analysts disagree. "The government is completely humiliated," warned Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute for International Studies at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. "It is a debilitating setback for Thailand because a lot of people gave us the benefit of the doubt that last year was just a one-off. This will leave a lasting impression on the international community." Thitinan was referring to the debacle last year when anti- government protesters sabotaged Thailand's attempt to host an ASEAN summit. At least Abhisit and Thitinan are in agreement on one thing. "This is a loss for the whole nation," Abhisit concurred with Thitinan. Thaksin Shinawatra, the billionaire telecommunications tycoon, is still very popular. He does not have the full approval of the king, who is supposed to be above politics at any rate. King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand is a king-maker, and so is the Thai army. The Thai army ousted Thaksin in 2006, ran the country for a year before handing over power to civilians in shady elections. Thaksin's supporters, nevertheless, have managed to redefine the terms of Thailand's political discourse. So what is to be done? Democracy Thai-style threatens to lead to political chaos and anarchy. Parallels are naturally drawn with neighbouring Indonesia. Legislative elections took place on 9 April and the incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is said to have received the most votes. Final official results are to be announced in May. And the incumbent Indonesian president, a former army general widely expected to be re-elected for a second term in elections in July, has the backing of the Indonesian army. Yes, there was loud grumbling in certain parts of the country. Indeed, a prominent group of presidential hopefuls including former presidents Megawati Sukarnoputri and Abdel-Rahman Wahid protested that the Indonesian election was fraudulent and they dubbed it "the worst election" in the country's history. An Indonesian election watchdog noted that there were no less than 963 violations in the polls. "The election has been far from fair, dignified, just and democratic. The voters' list was problematic and caused millions of Indonesians to lose their constitutional right to choose their representatives," a statement by disgruntled presidential hopefuls read. They are preparing to ratchet up pressure on the National Electoral Commission to pay attention to observations and to heed their demands for fairness. Fundamentally, though, the Thai syndrome holds no terrors for the political establishments of Southeast Asia. Successive governments in Southeast Asia have been backed by their national armies, or at least by the high-ranking army personnel. The army had a hand in toppling the late Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 as much as the forces of people's power. The allegiance of the armed forces is essential for the survival of any Southeast Asian government. The Thai people are betting on renewal, on political rejuvenation. The stale, old political establishment no longer appeals to the Thai voter. The suspense was broken at the weekend when all hell was let loose. Events in Thailand have been widely condemned abroad, not least because they give the impression that Southeast Asia is a politically unstable and volatile region. The Thai government itself is in a political quandary. It does itself no favours when adopting a needlessly brash tone in the domestic political arena. The ASEAN summit was too important a stage for such petty grandstanding, which damaged Thailand's international image. Such doubts over Thailand's regional political ambition are regrettable. The world worries about the political future of the Southeast Asian region. The massive accumulation of dollar reserves by Asian governments, Thailand not excluded, is a reflection of the growing economic importance of Asia. Political stability in Southeast Asia is vital for a prosperous world economy. If the leaders of Thailand cannot display statesmanship on both these fronts, they will significantly erode the credibility of the entire region even further.
