Some Thais couldn't fathom that their own soldiers shot their own people

Thai soldiers charge and shoot in the air, in the direction of Thai supporter of exiled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (not in photo), in Bangkok on April 13. Thai troops fired warning shots and tear gas in clashes with petrol bomb-hurling protesters in Bangkok Monday, leaving 70 injured as the government launched a crackdown to enforce a state of emergency. AFP / Getty Images / Nicolas Asfouri

Cambodians and Burmese

Thursday, 20 May 2010
Originally posted at http://thailandtrouble.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambodians-and-burmese.html

Cambodian mercenaries were manning army positions protesters told me at Bon Kai and Din Daeng during the afternoon on 18 May. The only evidence they could offer was that some of the troops they had tried to talk to could not speak Thai. A young woman, who was still selling drinks outside the Erawan Hotel while her baby perhaps just a year old lay sleeping on the ground as the army was advancing up Ratchaprasong, called from within the refuge of Wat Pathumwanaram to tell me it was too dangerous to outside as there were Burmese troops. Later when I reached Siam Square, where there had apparently been fighting between armed civilians and troops I only met Thai infantry.

Could the government find enough Burmese or Cambodian mercenaries, put them in Thai uniforms and train them with Thai weapons at short notice? What benefits might there be other than increasing numbers of dependable troops in light of rumours of many junior soldiers being red?

Or might it be that these rumours are without substance but spread and are believed because they relieve people of having to accept that they are facing, and being shot by, soldiers who like themselves are Thai? Some may be comforted if it is Burmese or Cambodians who are there to impose the state's will and defend its interests because of the generally negative stereotypes attached to these nationalities?

Not dissimilar is the disagreement and even mystery over the identities of a handful of civilians with rifles who it seems fought with troops in and around Siam Square. I got no closer than eight, maybe six, feet to one man with an M16 for just a few minutes. It was not possible to talk. Some protesters say these men are Red, a proto-militia perhaps, but one protester insisted their identity and motives were a mystery. But what could motivate a small group of men other than anger, belief or vengeance to fight against the much greater numbers of the army when their only advantage may have been intimate knowledge of the urban terrain? On the other hand it may not matter because that they were there and fighting troops makes for common cause with people of the Red movement, whether they of the mind to pursue their demands by peace or through force. Thus their exploits may enter into Red mythology. Are these men drawn from the same group of men-in-black caught on film on 10 April? The armed man I saw was only wearing a black jacket, his jeans were blue and he wasn't wearing a hat or balaclava. Being dressed quite differently from the men-in-black may suggest he was from a different group?

There is a large black market in military weapons in Thailand. Hitmen, enforcers and mercenaries are apparently relatively common livelihoods. It may not be difficult for either the government, Reds or other elements to finance hired hands to do violent work. Many hands may willingly take up such duties spurred on by the intensity of feelings and the depths of division in the country. This violent backdrop, the lack of evidence, and the interests of all players to pin blame on rivals for killings forms a difficult environment for building confidence, stability and engagement but a fertile one for rumour and suspicion.