The Enemy of Your Enemy...

...is your friend, as the saying (and lyrics from Asian Dub Foundation's song, "Enemy of the Enemy") goes.

The Thai Prime Minister was recently ousted in a military coup, lead by a senior army general. The coup was near-bloodless and received minimal condemnation from world leaders. The intentions of the coup's leaders are, as yet, unclear but they have promised to hold eletions within a year and return to full democracy within two years. It is also unclear whether or not (former) Prime Minister Thaksin will be allowed to stand in any future elections. However, previous coups have expressed similar sentiments in support of a return to democracy, and have delayed and delayed to the extent that they become de facto rulers for several years.

Several years ago, General Musharraf took control of Pakistan in a similar coup and was condemned as above. Now that he has retained power, his government is recognised by the vast majority of UN members - why? He has not won any completely fair election and has no plans to reform the laws governing those elections. Cynics would say that it is the general's support for the US "War on Terror" (a phrase that, IMHO, still demands quotation marks) that has gained him international support or, at least, tolerance. I'm not sure that's the whole story, but it appears to have some basis. The US seem to have rationalised the situation:

1. He's not an Ilamic fundamentalist.
2. He opposed the Taleban in Afghanistan.

Ergo, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

As the new Thai government hasn't expressed any particular position with regards to any important aspect of foreign policy, the world is reserving judgement. Perhaps this view is rather cynical; indeed, a more charitable person would say that the world is simply avoiding interference in what is, mostly anyway, an internal matter for the Thai people. Then again, is it not now clear that the West, and the US in particular, feels that it is it's right to "police" the world? If so, why are Western democracies not condemning more openly the Thai coup?

Perhaps these questions will only be answered in the contents of diplomatic pouches, but the West should consider if it really sees democracy as something to be spread vigorously around the world, or if it should take a more "softly, softly" approach, i.e. if it is with the US or against it, to paraphrase President Bush.