Military Force in Thailand´s Political System

The French Revolution national mobilization politically and economically and Napoleonic warfare, including utter destruction of the opposition

Thailand has fallen under the rule of another coup, just as Scotland fell under the rule of Macbeth. Thailand has fallen under a disruptive government who can’t seem to stay in power. Just as Scotland, when the generals started to attack the king so did Thailand feel their wrath. After many attempts in Scotland and Thailand one person finally took control, but for how long will it stay? Power so strong yet so fickle in nature both countries are having trouble deciding what to do next in the light of their new power. Just as Macduff struggles to find his way so does the king of Thailand for what he will do next. The generals on both countries have an immense amount of power and have bid for the throne. With their bid for power has thrown both

Reason to listen- Living in Thailand, these issues rarely occur nowadays in Thailand, but in the past 80 years, according to OBEC there were 13 times of coup happening in Thailand whereby some of them almost led to civil war. Therefore, we cannot fully say that it would not happen again, which makes this topic really relevant for us, as Thai citizens, to listen to this speech . in order to gain some knowledge and to be well aware of civil war.

Management of war is interconnected between military and political spheres, “But it is sometimes forgotten just how deep and pervasive political considerations in war are.” The recent event of an airstrike on a hospital in Kunduz Province highlights this point. Success, from an operational standpoint, necessitates an appreciation that policy imposes constrictions and constraints on operational actions. Coordination between policymakers and the military to synchronize efforts at all levels of

In my experience in the military gaining informal power or informal leadership is not based on rank or position in the organizational hierarchy. It can arise from knowledge, experience, or technical expertise and may require initiative on the part of the individual to assume responsibility. When leading without designated authority, informal leaders need to appreciate potential impacts and contribute to the team’s success. When in a position like this, the ration is normally smaller, promoting continuous interaction while enhancing the growth of professional networks. In a cohesive team, informal power comes from the individual who can form and establish partnerships, one who has everything their leader has except the three stripes on one’s

1. Even before Japanese left Korea, Korea became a complete disorder with US proposal of dividing Korea into two and a shocking agreement by Russia in 1914. With north in communist and South in democratic style, Russia and US created two contrast country. The problem risen from the land owner that solved differently between each country. From there, the unbalance political in south (separate election in Chaeju), the gathering of army in north, and many more problems, lighten up the blitzkrieg from North Korea and start the Korean war.

Improving the value of exports is the primary goal of Thailand’s international trade policy. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC) was established as an effective cooperative strategy for gaining market advantages through regional market integration. Thailand aims to capitalize on trade agreements by networking and entering partnership with neighboring countries. Currently, Thailand’s cross-border trade in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) plays a crucial role in globalization, because it facilitates rapid and convenient trade and investment. Countries seek new export markets to disperse the risk of domestic market concentration, as evidenced by the economic recessions affecting

Thailand, a nation located in Southeast Asia, is well-known for its complex and turbulent political history. Similar to the United Kingdom, the country’s current form of government is based on a constitutional monarchy. A hereditary Thai king serves as the head of state while a Prime Minister is elected by a parliamentary government. Since the infamous 1932 revolution conducted by Royal Thai Army officers and members of the country’s wealthy, elite bureaucracy that put an end to the country’s absolute monarchy form of government, Thailand has experienced many military interventions in its political system that have included 19 coups and coup attempts. These have been conducted, until recently, to maintain the political power of the aristocracy and ward off perceived threats. As a result, the political and economic resources of the country are controlled by an aristocracy, and democracy has been in a constant state of flux for over 80 years.

In Burma, 1962, a dictator, U Ne Win, carried out a coup d’état, or an “overtake”, of the ruling government party. U Ne Win introduced the Revolutionary Council of the Union of Burma, whose members

Martial Law under the Marcos administration was a very uproarious period in Philippine history, and countless lives have been irrevocably changed because of it. With the working thesis of, “The execution of the orders from the higher ups during the Marcos era stems from the psychological capability of certain soldiers to communicate, understand, and properly implement the law in a peaceful manner,” the researcher delves into the concept of agency and how it is affected or compromised by both internal and external factors. It is important to first understand the structure of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Marcos’ time, as they played a vital, and often controversial, role during this era. According to Jongseok Woo’s ‘Security Challenges and Military Politics in East Asia: From State building to Post-democratization,’ “Under the martial law regime, the AFP experienced unprecedented expansion of the organization and its roles beyond the responsibility of national defense.” (Woo, 46) Due to beneficial and generous decisions Marcos made that are partial to the AFP, it could be said that Martial Law happened because of the support of the AFP officers rallying behind Marcos.

Although this separatist groups terrorism problem has long occurring at southern region, however in tahun2004, the violence had become more serious. This is because in July 2005, Thailand Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra has allowed use of force and violence by radical in effort handle conflict which hit in Southern Thailand.

As far as we are concerned, unlike other Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and others, Thailand military forces portrayed a significant concern pertaining to internal turbulence within Thailand. (Simon, 2000, p. 13) This is because, for several decades, since communist aggression and until todays, internal security has become the main core focus of Thailand military forces in the aspects of defence and security of Thailand (Taylor, 2013, p. 12); compared to other aspects such as external defence. Before discussing or deliberating the roles of Thailand military forces in internal security, it is better for us to understand the definition of internal security because it might raise confusion as it both aspects are associated closely with the national interest of a country. As coined by the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste National Parliament (2003), internal security is defined as an activity or program advanced by the State (Government) with the aims to guarantee order, security and public peacefulness, to safeguards people and goods, to prevent law-breaking and contribute to guarantee the normal functioning of the democratic institutions. Through this clear definition, it is clear that external security and internal security are different with each other. In Thailand, the military undertook a crucial role of internal security pertaining to the Burmese refugees and insurgency in the southernmost of Thailand insurgency by the Malay-Muslim insurgent. (Taylor,

Since General Ne Win’s seizure of power in 1962, the military regime controlling Myanmar has called itself many things. Throughout the 1960s to 80s, it was the Burmese Socialist Programme Party; during the late 80s to 90s, it was State Peace and Development Council; and in the present day they’re known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council. Though each of these different names represent a different era of Burmese military control, with different policies and different political dynamics, one thing is for certain: no matter the name, figurative political head, or purported change in objectives, the military regime is still firmly entrenched into the country’s political workings - and they wish to keep it this way. As the Burmese people look to the future, this is the biggest and most obvious obstacle standing in the way of progress. There is much debate and discussion amongst the international community and within Myanmar itself as to how the Burmese should move forward, but it is unanimous that the problem lies fundamentally with the military regime and its policies.

Martial Law has been described as the darkest years in Philippine history characterized by the looting of billions of pesos and iron rule of dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family. With the media censored and the Armed Forces of the Philippines at the disposal of Marcos and his cronies, state-sponsored disappearances and abuses were the norm during the regime with over 70, 000 accounts of human rights violations in the conservative numbers. While the brutality of Martial Law has been an uncontested fact for years, disappearances of student activists from the previous administrations as well as killings of drug-suspects and indigenous people under the current Duterte administration have brought to light once again the issue of Martial Law; said issue which is being made to look like the necessary evil to fight the banes of society.

The SPDC/SLORC regimes justified the necessity to maintain law and order and to ensure the state’s orientation towards a peaceful modern developed nation. However, this approach represented more propaganda than pragmatism. People continued to suffer from political oppression, lack of civil freedom, and disrespect for human rights. Issues of poverty and corruption remained considerable, and social and legal justice remained questionable. With the nominal practice of market economy and rent seeking from economic opportunities over two decades, the regime magnified the socio-economic disparity and the power gradient between the few (military elites and their business cronies) and the majority of the population. The military regime