> “we have the luxury of “hand moderating” our comments”
It’s not a luxury, it’s a straight choice. Because you hand-moderate the comments, the discussion is held up, and you can go on hand-moderating.
I’m not sure if the fixing a particular act is the main priority when the Thai legal system is simply medieval. Jiew was locked up until she coughed up 300,000 baht bail money and had her life on hold for many months. A foreigner facing the same charges might even have been denied any opportunity for bail while waiting for the court to deliberate on “the least cowardly option”.
Nich, you and Andrew might not be affected by Thai laws, unless you get the rotten luck of an overflight developing engine trouble, but unfortunately anyone involved with asiapacific.anu.edu.au could find themselves facing charges on their next visit to Thailand. Again, not a particular problem with this law – the Thais have demonstrated their will to apply any law on their books to crimes committed ‘abroad’.
I join others in thanking/congratulating Nick for once again providing an invaluable visual and verbal commentary largely absent elsewhere.
One aspect caught my eye particularly – though it seems to have attracted little attention in comments so far.
“The real surprise of the day, and a completely new development in the ongoing conflict scenario, took place in front of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, where the Democrat Party held a rally with about 2000 protesters with the light blue headbands that appeared first a few days before under [‘among’, presumably] the Mulicolored on 30 May 2012. The new protest group is named ‘Sai Loh Fah’ – the lightening rod. The Democrat Party has now made the transition into directly commanding their own street protest group.”
There was a suggestion* that the Dems bussed in supporters from the south to bolster PAD numbers in BKK – though nothing to substantiate it. The reference above to “Sai Loh Fah” adherents being among the “multi-coloured” (themselves usually viewed as an adjunct of the PAD main body) now does seem to lend credibility to the suggestion – or, at least, that new-minted Dem-sponsored protesters are now actively joining the (previously) usual suspects.
“One of the party’s senior politicians explained to me the reasons for this change in strategy is that all media is closed to them now, that inside parliament they are not allowed to finish their speeches, and that they needed a channel to reach the people. Several Democrat MPs said that they intend to continue and build up this street protest group.”
That a senior Dem could (presumably with a straight face?) claim “that all media is closed to them now” is truly astounding – even by established Dem-speak standards. Both the Post and Nation groups’ publications (English and Thai language) routinely act as Dem cheerleaders and apologists – to say nothing of much of the rest of the Thai language media. Add to this that the Dems have now set up** a “media monitoring group” and you start to get a very clear picture of a Dem party that, while a] portraying a Parliament no longer under their control as being pretty much a pointless exercise, now b] claims (despite all the plentiful evidence to the contrary) that they simply can’t get a hearing in the media. Ergo – we can only “reach the people” by taking to the streets….. which, BTW, we’ll also plaster with billboards accusing the government of things that even we wouldn’t try to make stand up in a serious forum.
I suspect I’m not the only one struck by the jaw-dropping irony of such imaginatively engineered posturing.
phktresident, perhaps this refers to Somsak’s fb page http://www.facebook.com/somsakjeam where he is very prolific, writing about everything from reconciliation to outings with his dog.
If, like me also, you were having trouble keeping up with all the words already, this will not ease your pain 😉
Chris Beale #7 For a long time you have beat the drum about the break up of Thailand. I’m sure I’m not the only NM reader that would appreciate you taking up Nich’s suggestion some time ago to submit your reasoned and researched article supporting this idea. Many of us remain skeptical.
I’m not sure about particular reference to somsak #10; could have been correspondence or in general to his writing on history/monarchy. The question is this Thaksin’s taa-sawaang? (a real shift in strategy or to serve particular purpose, personal, or otherwise?) Everything now depends on whether TRT will pursue their amendments against the direction of the Constitutional Court, and the likely consequences for such a bold defiance…Lets see in the next day or so
Would you be able to share some more details on what the application actually relates too in terms of specific offences or human rights abuses? How is the application progressing? Has a full application been filed? I don’t feel this has been made explicit anywhere. Sorry if it has.
Also, Thongchai said, “But the fact that the case is not thrown out yet after a year and a half, gives some hope.” I didn’t think there was a case yet or any formal investigation. Am I wrong?
“You might find that hard to believe but there are several very credible people (not being paid a bean, not lawyers) who are backing it. More will be revealed, of that there is no doubt.”
I don’t find it hard to believe at all. I’m sure there are many credible and committed people involved who want to see someone finally held to account for at least one of Thailand’s gross human rights abuses. The most recent event makes sense as one to start with. If the case actually comes under the ICC’s remit/jurisdiction then I hope a full, fair and balanced investigation takes place — God knows there are so many questions that need answering. If anyone is found guilty by the ICC then I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law in line with international standards of law and justice.
“Of course, anyone is free to bring a case against Thaksin via the ICC and the Dems could’ve done so when they were in power using Article 12 (3) or signed Thailand up to the ICC as well. Ask them why they didn’t. Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?”
“Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?” I think you’ll find that’s why no Thai government would support an ICC investigation. Remember Thaksin said, in relation to the UN condemnation of extra-judicial killings during his War on Drugs: “The UN is not my father.” Well if the UN is not his father, I’m sure the ICC is little more than a distant relative’s imaginary friend, unless he’s petitioning the ICC to investigate Abhisit that is.
“Article 12 (3) of Rome Statute says that ad hoc arrangements can be made by individual nations to call for ICC investigations. Meaning they don’t have to be member states.”
That’s good to know. But looking at the case in point, it is the fact that if Abhisit is a British citizen as RA claims, then that enables individuals to bring a case against him because the UK is a member state/party to the Treaty of Rome. The fact that Thaksin or Anupong aren’t citizens of a member state means that they cannot be held to account by the ICC, unless the Thai government makes an ad hoc application to the ICC to investigate the crackdown. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
“What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith.”
I’m sure it has been done in good faith, that is with Robert Amsterdam acting in “good faith” to his client, Thaksin Shinawattra.
I’m unconvinced that anything will stick. I do not believe that RA is acting to satisfy a quest for justice and accountability. His job is to represent and lobby for his client. A key part of that process — especially considering Thaksin’s aims to return to Thailand, get his money back and, most likely, return to politics — is to provide his client with significant leverage.
The ICC application does just that. It attempts to show that Dr T is concerned with the May 19 crackdown and wants to see Abhisit held to account for the killing of red shirt protesters. That should help buoy red shirt support for Thaksin. The application will also have seriously rattled Abhisit’s cage (and that of the Dems/Army). Even if there’s little chance of anything coming of it, no one wants to see an ICC application naming them as an alleged human-rights abuser.
I’m interested in how the application process works, though. I’m sure, as you say, there are a lot of independent people working on this, but I would hazard a guess that conducting preliminary investigations, collection of witness statements etc, to support the application is a timely and costly process. I assume that this is being conducted primarily by RA with the process being bankrolled by Thaksin.
If the above is true — it’s only a theory, but one which I think holds water — then could the whole application process be stalled if the financial plug was pulled?
If so, then this brings us back to the issue of leverage. RA/Thaksin would have the power to stall the application, so assuming there was a reasonable chance of Abhisit being prosecuted, they could prevent that from happening. I’m sure Thaksin is still bruised from Abhisit’s government cancelling his passport etc, and I’m sure he wants to get even with as many people as possible over the seizing of his money; Abhisit would be a good place to start. But if you fire your only magic bullet, then you essentially lose your leverage (not to say the agreements/deals with the army would be forfeit).
So if the ICC application is more than a mere smokescreen and could be something that lead to a full investigation, trial and prosecution; would Thaksin benefit more from seeing the entire process through to prosecution, or would he get more from pulling the financial plug, at least temporarily? One could argue convincingly that he would benefit more from keeping the wildcard in the pack. What better mechanism to ensure the “amart” holds to there side of the bargain than the proverbial sword of Damocles in the form of a tangible ICC prosecution?
Finally, you said: “What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith.”
How do you “know” that? Have you met RA and discussed the matter with him? If so, how many times? As a journalist, and someone who says they think Thaksin himself should be held to account for his alleged human rights abuses, I’m sure you asked many searching questions on this matter. How did he convince you that he was working in “good faith”?
I was made aware by a friend that Sean Crispin was very angry about my comment about him in this article.
I apologize to Sean if this has hurt his feelings – it was only meant as a lighthearted joke, nothing else.
“The same thing goes for those such as Thaskin, as I don’t think ICC jurisdiction also covers Montenegro…”
Incorrect.
“Montenegro
Ratification and Implementation Status:
On 23 October 2006, Montenegro confirmed ratification of the Rome Statute. The Statute became effective for Montenegro on 3 June 2006, the date of State succession. “
“I have read Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s article/s”: can someone help with a reference please. So many players these days, so many words, I can’t keep it all straight.
I didn’t say “a blogger”, nor did I specify one. I said, “apologists for Thaksin and Amsterdam”…… But if Andrew Spooner is comfortable voluntarily answering to that description, then then that is fine…
I agree with Andrew Spooner #24 and 26 about the ICC.
It is not a mere PR. It has been done in good faith. But it is extremely difficult and a very long shot.
But the fact that the case is not thrown out yet after a year and a half, gives some hope.
I think the victims/ families understand the little chance of sucess. But for them, it is worth trying because the Thai justice system cannot be trusted. It is part of how impunity has been instutionalised in the country.
Even an investigation by the ICC, regardless of its findings and decision in this particular case, would have huge impacts on the “institutinalized impunity” in Thailand.
Is it normal procedure for courts to accept cases without any evidence? Is it normal procedure for constitutional courts to decide on the intent of a parliament before any law has even been passed?
Thank you for your responses and I am quite happy to hold my hands up that I misunderstood which company you were talking about. Even if they are 15 months old, both articles are horrendous.
There’s a world of difference between the implied state-sanctioned intimidation of the Dems and a blogger writing a few words of criticism. Or are the foreign media in Thailand so thin-skinned they can’t handle someone like myself having a pop now and then?
Article 12 (3) of Rome Statute says that ad hoc arrangements can be made by individual nations to call for ICC investigations. Meaning they don’t have to be member states.
I think everything back to 1973 (and possibly earlier) needs to have some form of investigation including, of course, War on Drugs, Tak Bai, Krue Se. I don’t think this can be done internally in Thailand due to “sensitivities”.
And I agree, if it was only Abhisit this time it wouldn’t be enough but it would send shockwaves through Thailand of that there is no doubt.
Of course, anyone is free to bring a case against Thaksin via the ICC and the Dems could’ve done so when they were in power using Article 12 (3) or signed Thailand up to the ICC as well. Ask them why they didn’t. Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?
I aslo think the ICC would have the independence to get beneath the surface of how much Thaksin was actually involved in setting off the violence. If they did investigate the presence of the “Black Shirts” it would probably make up a huge part of Mark’s defence so would have to be investigated further than anyone has yet managed.
I don’t buy that the Red Shirts wanted a massive “death toll” otherwise they’d have stayed and died some more. I would also say that all the evidence points to Thailand being a “coup-happy paternalistic state.” If Thaksin is a “victim” is a moot point. Thai democracy and the Thai people are the real victims of any coup.
What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith. You might find that hard to believe but there are several very credible people (not being paid a bean, not lawyers) who are backing it. More will be revealed, of that there is no doubt.
I still think the ICC accepting the case is a long shot, but as I said above it has been done in good faith. If nothing else it informs those people in Thailand, of whatever political persuasion, that any kind of massacre or slaughter, even of small numbers, could see them in The Hague at some future point.
“absorbed as i was with my thesis that in the home village of every historical Indochinese thug/despot/odiousfigure, you always find a Catholic church.”
Beg pardon Jon…. and Hail Mary of course….. And Indochinese despots did tend to hail from Indochina on the whole and the French did tend to knock these things up willy nilly along with a Post Office and a local prison… There are a few corkers scattered about…. KR blew up the big one in Phnom Penh of course…. Do you know when the one in Kompong Thom dates back to?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Comments, comments, comments
> “we have the luxury of “hand moderating” our comments”
It’s not a luxury, it’s a straight choice. Because you hand-moderate the comments, the discussion is held up, and you can go on hand-moderating.
I’m not sure if the fixing a particular act is the main priority when the Thai legal system is simply medieval. Jiew was locked up until she coughed up 300,000 baht bail money and had her life on hold for many months. A foreigner facing the same charges might even have been denied any opportunity for bail while waiting for the court to deliberate on “the least cowardly option”.
Nich, you and Andrew might not be affected by Thai laws, unless you get the rotten luck of an overflight developing engine trouble, but unfortunately anyone involved with asiapacific.anu.edu.au could find themselves facing charges on their next visit to Thailand. Again, not a particular problem with this law – the Thais have demonstrated their will to apply any law on their books to crimes committed ‘abroad’.
Reconciliation games
I join others in thanking/congratulating Nick for once again providing an invaluable visual and verbal commentary largely absent elsewhere.
One aspect caught my eye particularly – though it seems to have attracted little attention in comments so far.
“The real surprise of the day, and a completely new development in the ongoing conflict scenario, took place in front of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, where the Democrat Party held a rally with about 2000 protesters with the light blue headbands that appeared first a few days before under [‘among’, presumably] the Mulicolored on 30 May 2012. The new protest group is named ‘Sai Loh Fah’ – the lightening rod. The Democrat Party has now made the transition into directly commanding their own street protest group.”
There was a suggestion* that the Dems bussed in supporters from the south to bolster PAD numbers in BKK – though nothing to substantiate it. The reference above to “Sai Loh Fah” adherents being among the “multi-coloured” (themselves usually viewed as an adjunct of the PAD main body) now does seem to lend credibility to the suggestion – or, at least, that new-minted Dem-sponsored protesters are now actively joining the (previously) usual suspects.
“One of the party’s senior politicians explained to me the reasons for this change in strategy is that all media is closed to them now, that inside parliament they are not allowed to finish their speeches, and that they needed a channel to reach the people. Several Democrat MPs said that they intend to continue and build up this street protest group.”
That a senior Dem could (presumably with a straight face?) claim “that all media is closed to them now” is truly astounding – even by established Dem-speak standards. Both the Post and Nation groups’ publications (English and Thai language) routinely act as Dem cheerleaders and apologists – to say nothing of much of the rest of the Thai language media. Add to this that the Dems have now set up** a “media monitoring group” and you start to get a very clear picture of a Dem party that, while a] portraying a Parliament no longer under their control as being pretty much a pointless exercise, now b] claims (despite all the plentiful evidence to the contrary) that they simply can’t get a hearing in the media. Ergo – we can only “reach the people” by taking to the streets….. which, BTW, we’ll also plaster with billboards accusing the government of things that even we wouldn’t try to make stand up in a serious forum.
I suspect I’m not the only one struck by the jaw-dropping irony of such imaginatively engineered posturing.
* https://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/politics-yellow-shirts-protesters-says-reconciliation-bill-destroys-thai-king-power/
** http://asiancorrespondent.com/83758/thailands-democrat-party-to-monitor-media/
Thaksin, reform and political crisis
Thanks Pete S.,
Good memory. The offer to Chris Beale still stands. Readers curious about this offer, which goes back to March 2010, will find details here.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Thaksin, reform and political crisis
phktresident, perhaps this refers to Somsak’s fb page http://www.facebook.com/somsakjeam where he is very prolific, writing about everything from reconciliation to outings with his dog.
If, like me also, you were having trouble keeping up with all the words already, this will not ease your pain 😉
Chris Beale #7 For a long time you have beat the drum about the break up of Thailand. I’m sure I’m not the only NM reader that would appreciate you taking up Nich’s suggestion some time ago to submit your reasoned and researched article supporting this idea. Many of us remain skeptical.
Reconciliation games
Thanks Steve. My mistake.
Thaksin, reform and political crisis
I’m not sure about particular reference to somsak #10; could have been correspondence or in general to his writing on history/monarchy. The question is this Thaksin’s taa-sawaang? (a real shift in strategy or to serve particular purpose, personal, or otherwise?) Everything now depends on whether TRT will pursue their amendments against the direction of the Constitutional Court, and the likely consequences for such a bold defiance…Lets see in the next day or so
Reconciliation games
Thanks for the response Andrew
Would you be able to share some more details on what the application actually relates too in terms of specific offences or human rights abuses? How is the application progressing? Has a full application been filed? I don’t feel this has been made explicit anywhere. Sorry if it has.
Also, Thongchai said, “But the fact that the case is not thrown out yet after a year and a half, gives some hope.” I didn’t think there was a case yet or any formal investigation. Am I wrong?
“You might find that hard to believe but there are several very credible people (not being paid a bean, not lawyers) who are backing it. More will be revealed, of that there is no doubt.”
I don’t find it hard to believe at all. I’m sure there are many credible and committed people involved who want to see someone finally held to account for at least one of Thailand’s gross human rights abuses. The most recent event makes sense as one to start with. If the case actually comes under the ICC’s remit/jurisdiction then I hope a full, fair and balanced investigation takes place — God knows there are so many questions that need answering. If anyone is found guilty by the ICC then I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law in line with international standards of law and justice.
“Of course, anyone is free to bring a case against Thaksin via the ICC and the Dems could’ve done so when they were in power using Article 12 (3) or signed Thailand up to the ICC as well. Ask them why they didn’t. Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?”
“Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?” I think you’ll find that’s why no Thai government would support an ICC investigation. Remember Thaksin said, in relation to the UN condemnation of extra-judicial killings during his War on Drugs: “The UN is not my father.” Well if the UN is not his father, I’m sure the ICC is little more than a distant relative’s imaginary friend, unless he’s petitioning the ICC to investigate Abhisit that is.
“Article 12 (3) of Rome Statute says that ad hoc arrangements can be made by individual nations to call for ICC investigations. Meaning they don’t have to be member states.”
That’s good to know. But looking at the case in point, it is the fact that if Abhisit is a British citizen as RA claims, then that enables individuals to bring a case against him because the UK is a member state/party to the Treaty of Rome. The fact that Thaksin or Anupong aren’t citizens of a member state means that they cannot be held to account by the ICC, unless the Thai government makes an ad hoc application to the ICC to investigate the crackdown. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
“What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith.”
I’m sure it has been done in good faith, that is with Robert Amsterdam acting in “good faith” to his client, Thaksin Shinawattra.
I’m unconvinced that anything will stick. I do not believe that RA is acting to satisfy a quest for justice and accountability. His job is to represent and lobby for his client. A key part of that process — especially considering Thaksin’s aims to return to Thailand, get his money back and, most likely, return to politics — is to provide his client with significant leverage.
The ICC application does just that. It attempts to show that Dr T is concerned with the May 19 crackdown and wants to see Abhisit held to account for the killing of red shirt protesters. That should help buoy red shirt support for Thaksin. The application will also have seriously rattled Abhisit’s cage (and that of the Dems/Army). Even if there’s little chance of anything coming of it, no one wants to see an ICC application naming them as an alleged human-rights abuser.
I’m interested in how the application process works, though. I’m sure, as you say, there are a lot of independent people working on this, but I would hazard a guess that conducting preliminary investigations, collection of witness statements etc, to support the application is a timely and costly process. I assume that this is being conducted primarily by RA with the process being bankrolled by Thaksin.
If the above is true — it’s only a theory, but one which I think holds water — then could the whole application process be stalled if the financial plug was pulled?
If so, then this brings us back to the issue of leverage. RA/Thaksin would have the power to stall the application, so assuming there was a reasonable chance of Abhisit being prosecuted, they could prevent that from happening. I’m sure Thaksin is still bruised from Abhisit’s government cancelling his passport etc, and I’m sure he wants to get even with as many people as possible over the seizing of his money; Abhisit would be a good place to start. But if you fire your only magic bullet, then you essentially lose your leverage (not to say the agreements/deals with the army would be forfeit).
So if the ICC application is more than a mere smokescreen and could be something that lead to a full investigation, trial and prosecution; would Thaksin benefit more from seeing the entire process through to prosecution, or would he get more from pulling the financial plug, at least temporarily? One could argue convincingly that he would benefit more from keeping the wildcard in the pack. What better mechanism to ensure the “amart” holds to there side of the bargain than the proverbial sword of Damocles in the form of a tangible ICC prosecution?
Finally, you said: “What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith.”
How do you “know” that? Have you met RA and discussed the matter with him? If so, how many times? As a journalist, and someone who says they think Thaksin himself should be held to account for his alleged human rights abuses, I’m sure you asked many searching questions on this matter. How did he convince you that he was working in “good faith”?
Reconciliation games
I was made aware by a friend that Sean Crispin was very angry about my comment about him in this article.
I apologize to Sean if this has hurt his feelings – it was only meant as a lighthearted joke, nothing else.
Reconciliation games
c25
“The same thing goes for those such as Thaskin, as I don’t think ICC jurisdiction also covers Montenegro…”
Incorrect.
“Montenegro
Ratification and Implementation Status:
On 23 October 2006, Montenegro confirmed ratification of the Rome Statute. The Statute became effective for Montenegro on 3 June 2006, the date of State succession. “
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/Eastern+European+States/Montenegro.htm
Thant Myint-U on Yangon
Another update. Australian FM Bob Carr has announced funding for the Yangon Heritage Trust:
http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=758430&vId=
Thaksin, reform and political crisis
“I have read Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s article/s”: can someone help with a reference please. So many players these days, so many words, I can’t keep it all straight.
The end, the beginning
#78 Anonymouse
“and a blogger writing a few words of criticism.”
I didn’t say “a blogger”, nor did I specify one. I said, “apologists for Thaksin and Amsterdam”…… But if Andrew Spooner is comfortable voluntarily answering to that description, then then that is fine…
Reconciliation games
I agree with Andrew Spooner #24 and 26 about the ICC.
It is not a mere PR. It has been done in good faith. But it is extremely difficult and a very long shot.
But the fact that the case is not thrown out yet after a year and a half, gives some hope.
I think the victims/ families understand the little chance of sucess. But for them, it is worth trying because the Thai justice system cannot be trusted. It is part of how impunity has been instutionalised in the country.
Even an investigation by the ICC, regardless of its findings and decision in this particular case, would have huge impacts on the “institutinalized impunity” in Thailand.
Surprise? A CPP victory
Oops, sorry, OWWB….
Surprise? A CPP victory
Dan: Ralph who?
The end, the beginning
Is it normal procedure for courts to accept cases without any evidence? Is it normal procedure for constitutional courts to decide on the intent of a parliament before any law has even been passed?
The end, the beginning
Andrew Spooner – 55 &59
Thank you for your responses and I am quite happy to hold my hands up that I misunderstood which company you were talking about. Even if they are 15 months old, both articles are horrendous.
The end, the beginning
Dan
There’s a world of difference between the implied state-sanctioned intimidation of the Dems and a blogger writing a few words of criticism. Or are the foreign media in Thailand so thin-skinned they can’t handle someone like myself having a pop now and then?
Reconciliation games
Greg
Article 12 (3) of Rome Statute says that ad hoc arrangements can be made by individual nations to call for ICC investigations. Meaning they don’t have to be member states.
I think everything back to 1973 (and possibly earlier) needs to have some form of investigation including, of course, War on Drugs, Tak Bai, Krue Se. I don’t think this can be done internally in Thailand due to “sensitivities”.
And I agree, if it was only Abhisit this time it wouldn’t be enough but it would send shockwaves through Thailand of that there is no doubt.
Of course, anyone is free to bring a case against Thaksin via the ICC and the Dems could’ve done so when they were in power using Article 12 (3) or signed Thailand up to the ICC as well. Ask them why they didn’t. Maybe they know the ICC is a court they have no control over?
I aslo think the ICC would have the independence to get beneath the surface of how much Thaksin was actually involved in setting off the violence. If they did investigate the presence of the “Black Shirts” it would probably make up a huge part of Mark’s defence so would have to be investigated further than anyone has yet managed.
I don’t buy that the Red Shirts wanted a massive “death toll” otherwise they’d have stayed and died some more. I would also say that all the evidence points to Thailand being a “coup-happy paternalistic state.” If Thaksin is a “victim” is a moot point. Thai democracy and the Thai people are the real victims of any coup.
What I do know about Amsterdam’s ICC application is that it has been done in good faith. You might find that hard to believe but there are several very credible people (not being paid a bean, not lawyers) who are backing it. More will be revealed, of that there is no doubt.
I still think the ICC accepting the case is a long shot, but as I said above it has been done in good faith. If nothing else it informs those people in Thailand, of whatever political persuasion, that any kind of massacre or slaughter, even of small numbers, could see them in The Hague at some future point.
Surprise? A CPP victory
#17 Jon
“absorbed as i was with my thesis that in the home village of every historical Indochinese thug/despot/odiousfigure, you always find a Catholic church.”
Beg pardon Jon…. and Hail Mary of course….. And Indochinese despots did tend to hail from Indochina on the whole and the French did tend to knock these things up willy nilly along with a Post Office and a local prison… There are a few corkers scattered about…. KR blew up the big one in Phnom Penh of course…. Do you know when the one in Kompong Thom dates back to?