The Thai tradition of coup talk begins again

Thai army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha.

Thai army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha said two things yesterday (February 1) that would appear significant only when put together. First, he described persistent coup talk as nonsense, and then he called for calm amid the uproar over that Cambodian temple in a disputed area. With that we have got this message: No coup by me, at least for now, and don't expect the army to play a nationalistic card against the Abhisit administration.

Which one looks a stronger commitment, though? That he won't stage a coup? Or that he will strive to make sure the border tension does not escalate to the point of war? Well, a more intriguing question would be: What pretext will he have if he changes his mind about not overthrowing Thai PM Abhisit Vejjajiva by force?

Prayuth's statement all but ruled out the government's handling of the territorial conflict with Cambodia - an issue being amplified by Thailand's domestic politics - as an excuse for a coup. Just how "relieved" should Abhisit feel at that?

An army chief's pledge not to stage a coup, in the Thai political context, is as good as a soccer star saying he is "100 per cent committed" to one club. This leaves Prayuth's statement on Cambodia the only thing that Abhisit should be really happy about.

A pessimistic Abhisit will think that Prayuth was only playing it smart. If the Army chief falls into the temple-must-be-dismantled trap, his life will become very difficult in the event that he changes his mind and decides to roll out the tanks to "invite" Abhisit to step down. If Prayuth had denounced the temple and demanded its demolition, the first thing he would face as a "coup leader" would be his words coming back to haunt him.

Overthrowing a government is one thing. Overthrowing a government and having to send troops into a disputed area to bring down a structure built by a neighbouring county and force its people out is another. For all the coups that have consistently dotted Thailand's political timeline, none was ever staged in the name of nationalism.

But was yesterday's Cambodian court verdict sentencing two Thai activists to eight and six years in jail, respectively, a game-changing moment? Having a religious sanctuary built in a disputed area is quite different from jailing high-profile defendants caught in a disputed area. The temple is more or less symbolic; the plight of the two Thais is real.

Both Prayuth and Abhisit, having issued numerous public statements on the fate of the arrested Thais, will need a really good script to communicate with the Thai public following yesterday's rulings. Abhisit scraped through in the wake of the previous verdicts on the other five Thais, who were found guilty of trespassing but were released having spent weeks in Cambodian detention. This time he faces the fact that the two remaining Thais were given real jail terms, not "suspended" ones.

The best Abhisit can hope for is a murky ending similar to the case of Thai engineer Sivarak Chutipong, who was given seven years for "spying" on Thaksin Shinawatra's flight information into Cambodia but later received a royal pardon. Thaksin played a big role in securing Sivarak's freedom, leaving behind the question of whether the convict's mother's connections with the red shirts had anything to do with his release.

Now, again, Thais have been jailed in Cambodia on spying charges. Only the colour is yellow this time. Another big change from days gone by is the status of Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. He was "heroic", cleaning up after Thaksin during the Sivarak controversy, but has become a "fake" yellow shirt who decried former ideological comrades as "cry-babies".

What can Prayuth say now, after allowing the Thai Foreign Ministry, despite criticism from the yellow shirts, to sound more aggressive than him where Cambodia is concerned? Should he make a U-turn and call yesterday's verdicts "unacceptable"?

Whether he likes it or not, Prayuth has been dragged into politics. (This is not to mention the fact that he is also a key feature in Robert Amsterdam's lawsuit filed against Thai authorities with the International Criminal Court). His honeymoon period with the yellow shirts appears to be coming to an end. And it will end soon if he keeps being diplomatic toward Cambodia.

Finally, what are we looking at? Apparently, an embattled prime minister who doesn't seem to believe he will be forced out of power undemocratically; an Army chief who has thrown away one previous card, which in the future could have made a complete, formidable hand reading "coup"; and an unpredictable leader of a neighbouring country whose mood swings can affect our domestic political developments. Good news: This status quo is not necessarily a recipe for disaster. Bad news: Many people don't think so.