Logo

Bangkokpost.com
Writer: Atiya Achakulwisut
Published: 21/07/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

The swine flu is as much a bane to Public Health Minister Witthaya Kaewparadai as it is a boon to Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. Without the flu scare, FM Kasit would have remained in the doghouse with his big "terrorism" bone of contention to chew on.

Thanks to the flu, Mr Witthaya was pushed into the hot seat while Mr Kasit vacated it for the spotlight of the Asean Ministerial Meeting. Aptly, he will be discussing the two important issues of human rights and terrorism.

This rotation of unpopularity does not mean we don't have a bone to pick with the Foreign Minister.

Once the Asean meeting is over and people have grown more accustomed to the nature and severity of the A (H1N1) flu, the airport closure deed and terrorism charge will return to haunt Mr Kasit (and us).

His continued presence in the cabinet will be like a giant oil well from which the opposition Puea Thai and pro-Thaksin Red Shirts can take a dip, throw the sticky flammable stuff onto the government and set fire to the coalition time and again, without exhaustion.

Mr Kasit may hope to dig in and wait for another scandal to take the bad press away from his "good food, excellent music" endeavour. But he must know that the road ahead will be a descent to indignity.

The issue is not whether the charge of "terrorism" is too harsh for the act of closing down the airport, in which Mr Kasit took part. It is not about which should be more embarrassing for a minister: a summons or an arrest warrant. It is not even about whether the man should resign from his post now.

The issue is, Mr Kasit should have never been made the country's foreign minister in the first place. PM Abhisit should not have agreed to the choice. Mr Kasit himself, knowing full well the baggage he had accumulated during his activism days with the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), should have declined the offer.

On the charge of terrorism, the trial of the PAD leaders will be an interesting one to watch. After all, the world has not seemed to settle on what exactly constitutes an act of terrorism. At last check, more than 100 definitions have been in use, ranging from "all criminal acts directed against a State" to "an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action" and "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury". Will the storming of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports (ostensibly to force a political outcome) fall anywhere in this apparently broad spectrum? Or can it still be covered as a "maybe illegal but allowable" act of protest against the state?

While the airport shutdown did cause damage to the state and intimidate civilians, it was not exactly meant to trigger a state of terror, to take hostages or to cause death. The group can even argue that if their trespass was seen as a serious act of terrorism, the authorities could have been more forthright in dealing with them then and there.

The police may have decided on what they may label the PAD's act as, but the final verdict will remain with the courts. Whether or not the airport closure will be classified as a form or terrorism or not, however, is not exactly the crux of the matter because it is inherently wrong regardless, with or without the scary label.

One thing must be made clear. There is nothing wrong with people exercising their constitutional right to gather and stage a protest so long as they do it in peace. The PAD, however, violated that social contract when it stormed the airports and forced the authorities to close them down.

As a career diplomat, Mr Kasit should have known where to draw the line. He could be a PAD supporter but he cannot go along with such a serious trespass on an international aviation centre and infringement of other people's rights.

The reality, however, is that Mr Kasit did not know better. He was an active supporter of the airport closure throughout. He has shown time and again that he does not see anything wrong, legally or morally, with the trespass that incurred incalculable damage to the country's economy and reputation, not to mention extreme inconvenience to international travellers and traders.

With his judgement in the wrong place, there is the serious question of Mr Kasit representing the Foreign Ministry. How can he speak on behalf of the Thai citizens to our foreign guests, heads of state and governments, and be trusted? How can he stand tall on the podium and launch the Asean Human Rights Body when it is dubious whether he recognises their protection at home?

If Mr Kasit stays put, it is PM Abhisit who will be next in the hot seat.