One can only weep for the people in South

The airship scoop was initially splashed on the front page of The Nation in February 2010. I wrote in the same month to your Letters column questioning the justification, “No impropriety in Army”, by Art Sullivan, vice president of the supplying company, Aria International, in response to your splash then:

“First, Aria is only a procurement agency for the Thai Army and selected the Sky Dragon 40D for the Army to vet and eventually accept…

“Second, the assurance of taking the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act seriously by Aria is comforting, presumably inclusive of all US personnel directly or indirectly involved.

“Third, the press report of the airship cost of Bt330 million to Bt350 million is in substance correct if inclusive of five surveillance cameras and video transmission equipment. Aria’s revelation of the pure airship cost as equivalent to Bt90 million and equipment of Bt237 million (in total Bt327 million or US$9.7 million)) supports previous press reports...

“Fourth, hundreds of CCTVs with 25-per-cent cost of this airy project would be effective enough if not better if there was an effective centre to monitor. Furthermore, common sense tells us that CCTVs can cover all nooks and crannies while the airship is floating above ground – neither is a threat or a deterrent to onlookers.

“Fifth, no matter how comfortable Sullivan is with the physical existence of the airship, I still think it is an eyesore and reflects Thailand’s last-ditch effort to deal with the insurgents. Give me an example of one country using an airship to monitor an insurgency!

“Sixth, this airship or surveillance programme has never been approved by the US Department of State for release to a non-US source. I don’t know whether it is an honour for Thailand to have this special privilege or whether it is because non-US countries have never asked for this dispensation. 

“Finally, so far nothing tells me that this surveillance programme, as Sullivan called it, up in the air could assist us in the ongoing battle against the insurgency in the South. I fear that it may turn out to make us the laughing stock of the world.”

Subsequently, further clarification from Michael Crosby, Aria’s CEO, stating that “Airships work”, was given and I questioned his content as follows:

“However, he has not clarified his colleague Sullivan’s assertion that the airship still can fly even with 20 bullet holes. If he asserts the same, then I take it that the Thai Army would have recourse to get a refund from Aria of that Bt327 million and compensation for the loss of lives if the equipped airship in the future is blown up by gunshots or missiles.

“I’d love very much to see the end of the southern insurgency and any innovative programme is definitely welcome. But unfortunately I am still puzzled by the choice of this programme especially after the explanations given. I would not have questioned the choice if no assurance was given by Sullivan of the airship’s survival, even with bullet holes or Crosby’s assurance of the subject not being sighted at night. Neither gives me comfort that the airship will not be shot at since the insurgents strike anytime, 24/7. It is now an open challenge to the enemy to blow it up. I am also not impressed with its use in Afghanistan, Iraq or Ireland as proudly referred to by Crosby. The end of terrorism in Ireland was due to political solutions and not to the use of airships. The to-date records of Afghanistan and Iraq are not persuasive enough for me to buy the programme. 

“My only comfort is to believe that the Army knows best and has to take the responsibility for ‘partnering’ with a foreign corporation to ‘secure the south of Thailand’ since Aria International Inc is not merely a procurement agency per Crosby.”

Another comment followed from a Jonathan Peter accusing me of having a “Backward attitude to technology” on March 3, 2010. My response was as follows:

“Now I am accused by Jonathan Peter of being an impediment to 3G high-speed wireless Internet services in Thailand because of my letter-writings on February 8 and 10 questioning as a paying customer (taxpayer), the rationale of the explanations of Aria International Inc on its supply of ‘avionics or digital surveillance technology’ to the Thai Army.

“I had no qualms on the subject until I read of Sullivan’s assertion that the airship could float even after being hit by 20 bullets. The extreme defence of the surveillance system told me as a usual buyer to beware of the supplier’s words since in life I have been fooled by sellers using technology incomprehensible to a common man to cause me to part with my hard-earned money for a useless purpose. Even with that feeling, I still then believed the Army should know best. However, subsequent to that letter, the recent GT200 saga has now caused me to ponder whether again we have been fooled by a salesmen’s talk.”

Eventual revelation of doubt on the effectiveness of GT200 bomb detectors previously purchased by the Army and the seller now accused in England of fraudulent acts in knowingly selling ineffective bomb detectors have saddened me even further. In a scientific test in Thailand by the Science and Technology Ministry in 2011, the GT200 could find C4 explosives only four times in 20 trials. I truly weep for the people on the ground in the South because of the greed of others.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok