BETWEEN "RED" AND "YELLOW"

There has been another military coup in Thailand, overthrowing the government of Yingluck Shinawatra. The frequent interference by the generals in the internal political process gives Thailand a unique quality: one of the most successful Asian countries in the economic sense, it is at the same time one of the most unstable. The reason is the continuing confrontation between the reformists and the conservatives, or as they are called in Thailand, the "reds" and the "yellows".

Thailand has been seething for the past seven months. There have been rallies everywhere in the country, accompanied by fierce clashes between government and opposition supporters. At least 28 people have been killed and over 700 injured in the confrontation. The split in the Thai population is both geographical and emotional. The north, which supported the now former government of Yingluck Shinawatra, broadly speaking supports her brother, Thakson Shinawatra, the former prime minister who was overthrown by the military in 2006. He was once a fairly popular head of government, who set up the country's first ever social security system. But his trouble-free rule was sullied by wealth: Thaksin was accused of corruption, whereupon he fled to the Emirates where he remains to this day. Supporters of the Shinawatra family, festooned in red during the demonstrations, are calling for reform in Thailand.

The south of Thailand, including the capital, Bangkok, is opposed to liberal reforms and is in favour of the sacrosanctity of the monarchy. It is not by chance that the colour of the conservatives is yellow, which is the official colour of the Thai royal dynasty. The "yellows" were in power in 2006-2011, following the overthrow of Thaksin. The office of prime minister at the time was filled by Aphisit Wetchachiwa who failed, however, to take advantage of the military's gift for long, and was ousted by the Shinawatra clan. The latter's supporters filled the streets with a protest march in the spring of 2010. The military dispersed a camp of the "reds", 90 of whose supporters lost their lives.  But this did not help Wetchachiwa's "yellow" cabinet stay in power. Within a year the "reds" had triumphed in parliamentary elections and formed a government headed by Thaksin's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

The stand-off between the "reds" and the "yellows" then reached such a stage of mutual contempt that Wetchachiwa, who had become one of the leaders of the opposition movement, openly said he was prepared to bring down Yingluck's cabinet by any means. "Our aim is to root out Thaksin Shinawatra's regime," he said. "If we win, none of the members of my party will stand for any posts in the future because we realize that we are striving for victory by unconstitutional methods of struggle."

The inner-political exacerbation which had preceded the military coup reached its culmination when Shinawatra's party tried to push through parliament a bill on a general amnesty, and then former prime minister Thaksin would have returned home. The "yellows'" protests became extremely aggressive. Because of this the Constitutional Court declared the 2 February elections invalid. Many polling stations were blocked by the protesters and a number of ministries were seized.

At the end of April Yingluck Shinawatra reached an agreement with the head of the electoral commission to hold a repeat ballot on 20 July. The prime minister decided to go on the counter-offensive and turned for support to his electorate - the "reds" who had started to gradually drive the "yellows" out of the government buildings they had blocked. But on 7 May the Constitutional Court took a sensational decision. Having declared as illegal the prime minister's removal of the country's Security Council secretary and the appointment of a relative of Yingluck's as chief of police, the court decreed that the prime minister should resign immediately. After this the clashes between the supporters of reforms and the royalist conservatives got even fiercer. And that was when the military intervened. The commander-in-chief of ground troops, General Prayuth Chan-ocha imposed martial law in the country. This was followed by a curfew, the introduction of media censorship and the arrest or ban on leaving the country of over a hundred political leaders - representatives of both the opposing sides. Among those detained was the former prime minister, but he was released two days later and warned not to get involved in politics.

Finally, the military's rule was legitimized by the consent of the 86-year old King of Thailand Bhumibol Adulyadej to the endorsement of General Prayuth Chan-ocha as head of the country's provisional ruling body, the National Council for Peace and Order. By all accounts, the military were able to convince the king, who is hugely respected in the country, that the political chaos had become too dangerous and the imposition of martial law was a matter of urgency.

And so, Thailand has seen its 19th coup, going back to 1932 when a constitutional monarchy was introduced into the country. However, according to the generals' official version, the military is acting in accordance with a still unrevoked law of 1914, whereby the army has the right to intervene in politics at times of crisis.

Be that as it may, General Chan-ocha has been handed legislative and executive power for a transitional period. However, no-one knows how long this will be. The military have said they will return to their barracks only after the elections and the establishment of a government elected by democratic means. But who will determine when Thailand will return to the "tracks of democracy"?  The military command, apparently, believes that now is not the time for a nationwide ballot, because the opposing political forces are not prepared either for dialogue or compromise. This situation reveals the main difficulty facing the military council: security has been established, albeit by "violent" methods, but how can a political solution capable of delivering Thailand from a situation of inner conflict and ensuring stability in the country be found?

In an attempt to cope with the situation somehow, the military leadership has taken steps aimed at stabilizing the economic situation. The fact is that in recent months the Thai economy has been experiencing difficult times - production is down and tourists, who traditionally bring in huge revenues to the Thai treasury, are afraid to visit the country. Moreover, the rice problem has become extremely acute. As part of a programme by the Shinawatra government to purchase rice from farmers, the government owed peasants a considerable sum, estimated at around 2.5 billion dollars. And the military, when they came to power, immediately promised that the state would pay off its debts to the peasants in the course of a month.

However, the stabilization of the situation in Thailand and, in particular, the endurance capability of the military leadership will also depend to a certain extent on external factors. First and foremost, there is the attitude of the US - a traditional ally of Bangkok - to the recent events in Thailand. Washington has condemned the military coup, and to confirm this has cancelled a number of bilateral cooperation projects. Among other things, the United States has said it will end its participation in joint naval exercises with Thailand and has refused to organize a visit to Bangkok by the American admiral, Harry Harris, planned for June. Washington has withdrawn an invitation to visit the headquarters of the Pacific Command which was earlier extended to the commander-in-chief of the Thai armed forces, General Tanasak Patimaprakorn. Besides this, the US State Department has frozen an offer of military aid to Thailand as "America's main ally outside NATO" of 3.5m dollars from an overall package of 10.5m dollars.

Explaining Washington's position, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the actions of the Thai military command "will have negative consequences for relations between the US and Thailand, especially for our relations with the Thai army. We are reviewing our military and other aid and cooperation in accordance with US laws. There is no justification for this military coup".

The US has a history of censuring the Thai military. In September 2006, when the latter overthrew the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, Washington immediately announced it was cutting off aid to Bangkok of 24m dollars. Washington's current reaction clearly shows that the Americans have a vested interest in the continuation of the liberal course in Thailand, and it is precisely in this context that they perceive Bangkok's value as a strategic ally.  

The fact that a special role has been prepared for Thailand in the United States' new geopolitical configuration in Asia was clearly expressed by US President Barack Obama himself. After the 2012 presidential elections he made a tour of Asia and the first country he visited was Thailand. "Asia is my first trip after the presidential elections, and Thailand is my first stop on this trip. This is no accident. As I have said many times, the United States is and remains a Pacific power. The Asia-Pacific region is the most rapidly developing region in the world. In this sense this region has huge significance in this century for our security and our welfare, for the creation of new jobs and opportunities for the American people."

That was how, clearly and honestly, the head of the USA described the importance of Asia and Thailand for America's interests. It only remains to add that Barack Obama's tour was in many ways motivated to strengthen US' positions in countries which, to one degree or another, could constitute a regional challenge to China, a power which American strategists consider to be "enemy number one" in the foreseeable future. However, the problem is that the liberal democracy trumpeted by the United States is not always the best form of rule in countries that potentially or practically are allies of the USA. And it seems that the Thai military leadership is now trying to convince America's partners that it has no way of curtailing the disturbances in the country other than taking the reins of government in its own hands.

In trying to alleviate the critical reaction of the US and the West to the coup in Thailand, representatives of General Prayuth Chan-ocha have circulated statements via diplomatic channels disclosing the reasons for the coup in the country. Among these, first and foremost, are that "the political situation and the political environment in Thailand are quite different from those in other countries" and "democratic rule in Thailand has led to heavy loss of life". Will the Thai military be able to convince their western allies that they are right? And, indeed, will they turn out to be right in the long term, bearing in mind that General Prayuth has promised to "return the country to the people" if "the situation is calm"?

The day-to-day realities of Thailand, a country which has not without reason earned the reputation of being mysterious and unpredictable, do not so far provide answers to these questions arising from the military coup.