January 6, 2026: The only ones yet to comment on the US-Venezuela saga are Thai politicians.
Ask them what they think and cast the vote for the people who give the most sensible answers in your opinions.
It’s not an IQ test. It’s not a hypothesis as it has actually happened. It’s extremely important to the future governance of Thailand. It will prove, or display, or expose one’s genuine ideological stand beyond doubt.
It involves the issue of national sovereignty. It concerns what ones think about the international law. It has to do with who should have the powers to arrest, prosecute and judge others. For Thai politics, where charges of political persecution are abundant, this is an issue most relevant.
Last but not least, it’s a sensitive topic plagued with conflicts of interest, and political figures or even some in the media have avoided giving opinions about it, but the controversy is too big to ignore, as the answers will go a long way in truthfully showing what kind of a person he or she is, especially those in politics who usually depend on rhetoric or blatant lies in order to thrive.
There are terms like “political sensitivity” that are often resorted to when ones don’t want to cross those more powerful, who can make lives miserable for people who disagree with them. But there is also the moment of truth, which separates the brave from the cowards.
Now that we are at it, ask the Thai politicians about Gaza, too.
Is it abduction or capture?
January 5, 2026: This is the question of the hour, although many people already have the answer.
It’s not just the most important legal question. It’s also a massive political issue for the entire world. Reactions, from politicians in powers to social media enthusiasts, range from great concern to downright fear. The majority of the world seems to think that America has set a bad, dangerous precedent, telling all nations that nobody is safe anywhere on earth if the White House brands them threats to whatever, that no sovereignty will be honoured if it is used to shield anyone the United States wants to get, and that Washington’s hypocrisy will be the new normal.
What if the US legal system rejects President Donald Trump’s action? Can American police arrest him then? On the contrary, what if the judges say it was all right? Can, for example, Thailand then send troops to kidnap political leaders in a neighboring country accused of supporting scamming networks causing widespread misery among Thais and bring them to court in Bangkok?
Trump has not made America great again. He has made the world afraid of it. This is not greatness. Moreover, what the White House has done mocks the all-too-familiar American preaching against ruling through fears. It can be oppression on the grandest scale.
The United Nations, long accused of being a paper tiger, is facing the biggest challenge less than a week into the New Year. Trump’s action nullifies the very thing the UN was built for and the very stand the US always proclaims it has _ the concept that nations respect one another, and dialogues, not violence, are the right way to go.
Nobel Foundation’s worst mistake(s)
January 4, 2026: When dealing with a potentially uncontrollable man, sometimes you have to forget your principles.
Imagine Donald Trump gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He would have behaved just a little more. Make no mistake, the strike on Venezuela and the capture of its leader would still happen, but Trump would at least have hesitated, which would have bought the world some time.
People say it was good that Trump missed the peace prize, because what he has done to Venezuela would have made it so ironic. This thinking fails to take into account the facts that the award would have calmed him down a little bit, and that a global uproar in case of a Trump win would have been worth it. (An organisation whose name is strongly associated with “peace” like the Nobel Foundation certainly would sacrifice its image if it could prevent a war, wouldn’t it?)
Failing to give him what he wanted is Mistake Number One. Another possible mistake is giving the peace prize to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has declared: “the hour of freedom has arrived”. Well, as controversial and infamous as her main political opponent has been, the explosions in her country’s capital and the manner of his downfall is anything but peaceful. Give her any praise except hailing her as a peace lover.
World public reactions are 99.99% against Trump’s government, and Venezuela’s oil is in every conversation. (This is primarily social media reactions, not official or mainstream media portrayals of the incident.) FIFA, which has just given Trump a “peace prize” that nobody knew the football governing body has, has been hilariously mocked.
It should have been a FIFA red card instead of that, one YouTube comment said.
Contempt or cynicism aside, everyone is extremely worried. Trump is changing the global idea of how the world should function. All people see this developing story as a watershed moment in the history of world order and global perceptions of Trump’s country, which seem to have changed for the worse forever.
Cutthroat politics
January 3, 2026: Can overzealous believers in God and committed atheists live in the same house?
The answer to that simple question answers a more complicated one, of whether Thailand and many other countries, America included, are heading in the right direction.
Irreconcilable differences, they say, must be decided by a show of hands because there is no better way. That is not usually wrong, but it is not always right, either.
Many times, the irreconcilable become more irreconcilable. In other words belligerently divisive. Many times, the show of hands only sweeps the problem under the rug, creating a false impression that everything is now fine. More often than not, hate rhetoric will only increase, because the winner will want to keep the status quo and the loser will be determined to change it. And both will do anything necessary. Every unhealthy act will feed on itself.
In cutthroat politics, elections do not decide who we are and what we want. They only make the elephant in the room bigger. There are words like “revolution” or “anarchy” or “civil wars” to describe what can possibly happen next.
Writer’s note: More arguments against “Us or Them” here.
Age is (not) an issue
January 2, 2026: It’s now the US Democrats’ turn to talk about falling asleep at state functions.
Here’s a big tip for Donald Trump (and/or his publicists): Never ever call world leaders by the wrong names.
Trump’s walking is, as of now, nothing to worry about, but better be prepared than sorry. Trump is the oldest president inaugurated in US history, and his opponents are looking very closely for signs of age that they claim have been showing.
“He has at times appeared to fall asleep in meetings and not be able to hear questions,” said a BBC report, part of a growing coverage scrutinising his age. It’s safe to say that pro-Democrat media were largely apologetic when Joe Biden was accused by the Republicans of appearing like a dementia grandpa in public as the former president kept stumbling before cameras, saying wrong names, remembering incorrect years, dozing off on the table and eating ice cream with a bit too much eagerness.
The pro-Biden media could not help him during an infamous 2024 presidential debate with Trump, though. The incumbent Democrat, about 81 then, looked frozen a few times while giving answers, and even rivals were holding their breaths for him. That resulted in an unprecedented change of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. The rest is history.
Now, it’s Trump, 79, who is facing the mocking, the intensity of which will only grow because he’s not getting any younger.
On today’s BBC homepage, his interview with The Wall Street Journal was reported. And guess what, what was highlighted had nothing to do with Ukraine, or the American economy, or the immigration, or the Medicare. Here’s the BBC headline: Trump says his health is ‘perfect’ amid aging concerns.
So, if you believe Trump, age is not an issue. If you are on the other side, it definitely is.
But both camps have to agree that nobody is too old to declare a war.
Human rights
January 1, 2026: There are those who suffer in silence and there are those who play the victim.
The second type always gets all the constant headlines, everlasting sympathy from “human rights advocates” and messages of support from holier-than-thou governments. The first are too busy trying to save their own lives, crying over the dead bodies of their loved ones, or mourning their destroyed properties to bring their plights out to the public.
It is actually not hard to tell who is what type, but this world has been conditioned to encourage playing the victim and pay less attention to, say, the children and women of Gaza.
“Human rights” is one of the most recited words in political rhetoric, locally and globally, and it also can be the most abused word used to cover-up or overshadow real violations of human rights somewhere. This explains multiple standards of advocacy individuals or groups or even some in the media who would immediately jump out to decry “verbal devaluation” while conveniently ignoring or giving lukewarm attention to Muslim children whose arms are torn out or legs are ripped off in a war they have nothing to do with, or the inaccessibility of medicines that the world can make but the poor cannot get.
Even some of the curious “victims” themselves would not say a word about the killings and maiming in other parts of the world that actually pale their predicaments. Why? Because of the one thing that ideally has no business in the protection of human rights, but, in reality, it is the biggest influencer of what should be played up and what should be played down. Conflict of interest.
By all current indications, 2026 has started with a big challenge on its hand.
Daily updates of, and opinions on, local and international issues by Tulsathit Taptim.
