Bkk Lawyer (7). I interpret “[I]t becomes unnecessary to consider whether, at Preah Vihear, the line as mapped does in fact correspond to the true watershed line in this vicinity, or did so correspond in 1904-1908, or, if not, how the watershed line in fact runs.” as meaning that the border does not have to follow the actual watershed: and that the Court did not care where the watershed was in 1962 or in 1904-1908. You seem to interpret it as meaning that the Court expressly declined to reach a decision on the location of the border. I can’t see how you can make that interpretation, and I leave it to others to attempt it. It is interesting that they appreciated the fact that the watershed is unstable geologically, and is gradually creeping north as the escarpment is eroded.
You quote from the court’s summary of the judgment, which is a separate document not part of the court’s judgment or opinion.
I quoted (from the judgment itself, not the summary) the court’s only decision about the border, which was its decision that the temple “is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.” The court went no further in deciding where the border is.
What the summary apparently means when it says the court “pronounce[d] in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map” is that the court found in favour of the map’s frontier to the extent it decided the temple is on the Cambodian side of the frontier line. The court definitely did not decide on the location of the frontier/border line anywhere else. That is why there is still 4.6 sq km disputed.
May I suggest that before we go down extreme route of calling for a boycott, we first determine whether it deserves to be boycotted or not, i.e. Will they embrace contrarian views or will these be excluded?
In his last response, Nattavud Pimpa only half-answered my question: “Can Nattavud Pimpa provide us with the list of topics that are not open for discussion?”
In the intrests of fairness, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and change my original question to the following: “Will all views, including those contrary to those of the Thai embassy, find free expression at the conference?”
One of the most important factors for me when I decided to be an academic is “ACADEMIC FREEDOM”. To a certain degree, being open-minded to other schools of thought is important. Having read your comments, I start to question your “free and open” thinking claim.
I assume you do not clearly comprehend the nature and type of sponsorship for this important event. I myself attended the Thammasat conference in 2007 and would like to voice different view at this conference. This conference is not ‘my conference’ but for all who are interested in Thailand.
The form of sponsorship is a cocktail reception for business people and young researchers who are interested in business and investment in Thailand and THERE IS NO SINGLE POINT on being politically influenced by the Thai government.
“Even in the unlikely event of Puea Thai winning the election and being able to form a government, I’m pretty sure that either judicial or extra-judicial means would soon be exerted to remove that government.”
Jon Ungpakorn, “Without a settlement, no peace after elections.”
BP, April 20, 2011
“The loyalty or disloyalty problem will continue to haunt the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin himself during the electioneering period and also after the election. Unless this question is resolved to the satisfaction of the establishment, the military in particular, there is a slim chance that Phue Thai will be able to form the government even if it wins the election. Or even if it manages to win more than half of the House seats and form a single-party government, it may have to start a countdown from Day One in the office.”
Veera Prateepchaikul. 2010. “Thaksin puts all his political eggs into his own basket.”
BP, May 2, 2011
Your argument falls down completely in that one side previously achieved power via the ballot box – over and over again. And the other has only ever achieved it via force.
If you want to take a “believe your own eyes” line you should start with that most obvious one & not focus on conspiracy theories and rumours.
Hariri showed that anything is possible in terms of an investigation. It just takes the political will and the involvement of the wider community to make it happen. This nihilistic fatalism, which just panders to the worst aspects of the human spirit rather than the best, leads to one thing only – more death and chaos.
Here is a hazardous attempt to read between the lies of Thai politics. The King has let it be known that he will not sign the necessary paperwork for an election to take place. He has had a gutfull of elections, and has ordered the Constitutional Court to find any attempt to hold an election unconstitutional. Key royalist bureaucrats throughout the country have been ordered to disrupt preparations for an election. If Abhisit refuses to back down, he will be removed.
“UDD have declared openly that they will accept the outcome of the elections – effectively ending any further claims on democracy (the train ends here for UDD/Phue Thai Party). ”
That is not entirely correct. The UDD has stated on many occasions that they will accept the outcome of elections as long as they are free and fair, and as long as there is no fiddling with the outcome or interference by the military. They have also stated that elections is only one leg they are standing on, and that they will continue to protest on the issues of democracy, justice, etc.
“I remember at the last ITSC held at Thammasat Uni in 2007 … But silence or “avoiding the subject” of democracy was noticeable with academic complicity and complacency”
Yet at the same time Handley’s paper on the privy council was presented there as well, even though he could not come in person.
I do not understand calls for boycott of the conference, unless presentations by critical academics are not accepted by the organizers (on grounds of being critical, which of course would be scandalous, and be reason for a boycott).
We may very well be creeping towards a civil war scenario, but that does not mean that open and critical academic exchange should not be taking place. Some parts of the state may may want to shut up critical voices, may even intimidate some, like Ajarn Somsak, and you want to comply with the Thai state’s wishes by asking critical academics to stay away?
Sorry, but i just do not get the logic for boycotting this conference – there is an opportunity to “shout out”, in the presence of representatives of the state, and you want academics to chose not to.
SteveCM (5). I guess the Court regarded those parts of the border over which there was no dispute as being the agreed border that supersedes the one shown on the old French map. To establish the border in the disputed area, they went back to what they regarded as the last agreed-upon border location, which was as shown on the inaccurate French map. Now the Court really has to define where this is on the ground (as I see it, giving the Cambodians some or most of what they have claimed). Or will it sit back in embarrassed silence and watch the disaster unfold?
Do you mean another double standard will take place? One day you can do something, the next day you cannot ? People are getting smarter to notice this kind of thing.
Look, we all want an independent, impartial investigation into Thailand’s latest bout of political warfare. Sadly, it ain’t gonna happen. HRW report is admirable but will be plundered for propaganda by both sides. This also seems to be the case on this forum. Why would we expect otherwise?
If you wanna blame the government and soldiers, go ahead. If you wanna blame the UDD – Burn, Bangkok, Burn! – go ahead.
My own experience of reporting on the streets and talking to those who wield power is that all sides are ready to use violence to achieve their political ends. They will also claim to be peaceful and lawful and whatever else sounds noble. But this is Thailand and Thais know that battles are rarely settled peacefully. Definitely not this one. The stakes are too high, and there is too much face to be lost.
Once you accept this, perhaps Amsterdam’s conspiracies and don’t-believe-your-own-eyes arguments of Mr Spooner will be less convincing. Or perhaps not. Ask yourself: have I taken sides in Thailand? It’s hard not to. That is the ugly reality of civil wars.
seems to me the main message out of the HRW report is that an independent formal investigation supported by waiving of all impunities including those claimed by military and state personnel and prosecution of all involved in the incidents is required
It certainly is a main point of the report, being the first of five key recommendations made to the Thai government. There are another three key recommendations made to parties outside of the government. In an ideal world all eight would come about.
Do you think we could now have a general consensus that the report is independent and impartial, and those creating a story outside of it to support their political views clearly do not care for independence or impartiality?
So, while the efforts of the HRW report cannot and should not be dismissed, to accept any weak evidence as “fact”, just because it satisfies a liberal notion of “balance”, is something I just can’t sign up to.
So Andrew, let’s call a spade a spade then. Do you think that the HRW report is unreliable because they have purposely set out to satisfy a liberal notion of “balance”? Does that therefore make the HRW report untruthful in your opinion? Do you apply similar tests to the Robert Amsterdam report which can make no claim to be impartial.
Here’s the problem I have with the propagandists, I can accept the HRW report as being an independent, impartial history of the April/May 2010 protest. I can even accept their timeline of recent Thai political history. I doubt they or anyone else will ever get 100% accuracy, but at least it’s an attempt. For the propagandist it’s another matter altogether. If an independent report clashes with the story they are telling then the report must be a lie, not their story. Then if you can’t find evidence to disprove the report you have to attack the people writing the report.
Many years ago, when I was still young, a leading British Trotskyist, who at the time I had a lot of respect for, was talking about propaganda. It was accepted by all at the meeting that propaganda was an important tool in a party’s tactics. He said that if you wanted to see an expert in the field and someone to copy just look at how Joseph Goebbels had operated. So let’s take a bit of Goebbels and see if it begins to fit anyone.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
In terms of participation in thai studies conferences supported by the unelected Thai government, to my mind questions should be raised in terms of timing right now. Does anyone know why? The country right now is in a mess. The regime is throwing money left, right and centre: bribing individuals, agencies and interest groups, and coercing citizens through media and military cunning. UDD have declared openly that they will accept the outcome of the elections – effectively ending any further claims on democracy (the train ends here for UDD/Phue Thai Party). The amaat cannot afford to lose this election and want legitimacy and credibility internationally after the massacres last year…Arrangements at the highest institution are complex, as is the issue of 112. We are creeping towards civil war as factors are in place. The appearance given to the world by the regime that everything is normal is frankly disconcerting and mischievous. Now, back to Australia, the second largest country for the thai diaspora after the USA. Does anyone know why financially supporting academic studies at this time is important to the regime? Those who know what is really going on in thailand must pause and reflect. I will not say anything more on this here. But do forms of protest such as avoidance or intellectual sanctions as in this case work? (Arguable if we look at Burma). Participating in state organised events when one decries the regime in power ratifies/legitimises the norms and behaviour of the regime in question. It is a message to the world that here everything is OK. Well, in the end it is an individual choice because it cannot be forced on anyone. I remember at the last ITSC held at Thammasat Uni in 2007 where I wanted to shout out that something was not right (I had been participating as an observer at that time at the early Sanam Luang and Parliament demonstrations). But silence or “avoiding the subject” of democracy was noticeable with academic complicity and complacency. Most academics were still convinced in means end justification in regard to the spin on Thaksin. In relation to the past five years in Thailand, as Martin Luther King once said, “history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people”. We can certainly chose the venues in which to be heard that have effect in promoting sustainable democracy and showing the perpetuators of injustice that enough is enough.
seems to me the main message out of the HRW report is that an independent formal investigation supported by waiving of all impunities including those claimed by military and state personnel and prosecution of all involved in the incidents is required
the rest of the HRW report just records the evidence they have gathered that substantiates their claim that the real investigation and prosecution should be carried out
note that the Thanit of the Thai Truth and Reconciliation committee is on record that they were unable to access military and state people and therefore their investigation essentially stalled
while impunities are in place Thailand continues to suffer the results of unaccountable power….
But will the conference organisers allow contrarian views? I think it’s likely they won’t, if the Thai embassy has anything to do with it. If this is indeed the case, then there may be more to gained from boycotting the event than attending it. I think this was Jim’s point.
First of all, and let’s demolish your “straw man” from the off. No-one is claiming anywhere, least of all myself, that HRW are trying to justify the deaths of anyone. That’s an absurd, inaccurate and outright ridiculous comment to make. However, many many many commentators have used the Men in Black as a convenient excuse to justify the Army’s actions.
Secondly it’s not a question of me “liking” anything in the HRW report but more to do with what they can stand up on the evidence they have.
And they can’t stand up either the cause of the Central World fire or the links between the Reds and the Men in Black. They just don’t have any substantive evidence to do that. It is so thin as to be almost non-existent.
What I would “like” is a proper, thorough, independent inquiry, maybe similar in scope as that which is presently being conducted into the death of Rafic Hariri. Not unsubstantiated proclamations by a human rights’ NGO who repeatedly made half-cocked premature comments about what went on in April/May 2010. That’s before we get onto HRW’s (and AI’s) complete failure to deal with lese majeste and their reasons for this failure. They are both compromised on this issue and they both know it and both refuse to be transparent about it. Until they do so their notion of “balance” is as compromised as anyone elses.
In reply to Superanonymous – just saying stuff, over and over again, doesn’t make it true.
Nor is just “saying stuff” evidence of balance.
Who did fire the M79s down Silom Road? No one can say with any certainty.
Who did kill Romklao? No one can say with any certainty.
Who was commanding the Men in Black? No one can say with any certainty.
Who set-fire to Central World, which was under Army control when the main fire was set? No one can say with certainty.
So, while the efforts of the HRW report cannot and should not be dismissed, to accept any weak evidence as “fact”, just because it satisfies a liberal notion of “balance”, is something I just can’t sign up to.
What is certain, however, is that the Thai Army killed unarmed civilians in large numbers on Bangkok’s streets.
And, at the time when they were shooting nurses, kids and other unarmed civilians, the Army did not capture, kill or apprehend one single MiB. As you state, any arrest was made AFTER the crackdown.
As for the Red Shirt leaders links to the MiB, I interviewed Arisman last year – this is what he said
“What can you tell us about the Black Shirts?
I don’t really have any information about the Black Shirts. I don’t know who they are or where they are from. I believe, though can’t say for certain, that they were either soldiers or police officers who supported our struggle for democracy. I don’t think every soldier or police officer was able to accept the action of the government to attack unarmed civilians. So far, the government has been unable to arrest any Black Shirt. In fact, I want to know who they were.”
Do we believe him? Personally, I don’t know what to believe. Maybe the MiB were acting under orders of the Red Shirt leadership. Maybe they were agent provocateurs. Maybe they were acting independently of both the Red Shirts and government. And maybe it was a mix of all three.
The “incompetence” argument is also absurd. You don’t “accidentally” shoot someone with a sniper’s rifle. You target and execute them.
The Thai Army have been doing this kind of massacre for over 40years. Or maybe 1973, 1976, 1992, Tak Bai, Rohingya etc etc were all just as a result of “incompetence”?
“Atrocities are only trickling out of the militaries hermetically sealed body bag when some brave soul defies the system.”
Except when the Assassin in Chief goes on TV to brag about having ordered the execution of yet another ‘suspected terrorist’. That’s special treatment, of course, he doesn’t ‘drone’ on about the now near daily toll of people, women and children, assassinated on ‘suspicion’ of ‘terrorism’ at his order by remote control. Our USA has hit the greased skids of moral collapse. We’re cheering assassinations in the streets now, with our President acting the Cheerleader in Chief.
The Army’s propaganda in Thailand covers, for instance, its recent displacement of 50,000 and the dozen or so documented deaths it caused for no reason at all among Thais with its aggression against Cambodia. Who knows the damage to the other side.
The Thai military is busily assuring an endless supply of opponents in the South by dint of its own terrorism under the aegis of the ISOC, as well. The US military is doing the same on a worldwide scale.
The military is the military is the military. Its only ‘tool’ is a gun and everything looks like a target. Using its only ‘tool’ ensures the eternal recurrence of its ‘problem’ and hence the perpetual employment of its ‘tool’, and so the opportunity to do more and more ‘good’.
[…] in clashes with Yellow Shirt protesters. And doubts quickly emerged over the official story. This New Mandala post has an alternative account of events, and a large number of eyewitness accounts also suggest that in late April and May troops were […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
ICJ press release on Cambodia
Bkk Lawyer (7). I interpret “[I]t becomes unnecessary to consider whether, at Preah Vihear, the line as mapped does in fact correspond to the true watershed line in this vicinity, or did so correspond in 1904-1908, or, if not, how the watershed line in fact runs.” as meaning that the border does not have to follow the actual watershed: and that the Court did not care where the watershed was in 1962 or in 1904-1908. You seem to interpret it as meaning that the Court expressly declined to reach a decision on the location of the border. I can’t see how you can make that interpretation, and I leave it to others to attempt it. It is interesting that they appreciated the fact that the watershed is unstable geologically, and is gradually creeping north as the escarpment is eroded.
ICJ press release on Cambodia
R.N. England @4:
You quote from the court’s summary of the judgment, which is a separate document not part of the court’s judgment or opinion.
I quoted (from the judgment itself, not the summary) the court’s only decision about the border, which was its decision that the temple “is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.” The court went no further in deciding where the border is.
What the summary apparently means when it says the court “pronounce[d] in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map” is that the court found in favour of the map’s frontier to the extent it decided the temple is on the Cambodian side of the frontier line. The court definitely did not decide on the location of the frontier/border line anywhere else. That is why there is still 4.6 sq km disputed.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
May I suggest that before we go down extreme route of calling for a boycott, we first determine whether it deserves to be boycotted or not, i.e. Will they embrace contrarian views or will these be excluded?
In his last response, Nattavud Pimpa only half-answered my question: “Can Nattavud Pimpa provide us with the list of topics that are not open for discussion?”
In the intrests of fairness, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and change my original question to the following: “Will all views, including those contrary to those of the Thai embassy, find free expression at the conference?”
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Dear Jim Taylor,
One of the most important factors for me when I decided to be an academic is “ACADEMIC FREEDOM”. To a certain degree, being open-minded to other schools of thought is important. Having read your comments, I start to question your “free and open” thinking claim.
I assume you do not clearly comprehend the nature and type of sponsorship for this important event. I myself attended the Thammasat conference in 2007 and would like to voice different view at this conference. This conference is not ‘my conference’ but for all who are interested in Thailand.
The form of sponsorship is a cocktail reception for business people and young researchers who are interested in business and investment in Thailand and THERE IS NO SINGLE POINT on being politically influenced by the Thai government.
I wish to see you at the conference.
Speculation on Thai election outcomes
“Even in the unlikely event of Puea Thai winning the election and being able to form a government, I’m pretty sure that either judicial or extra-judicial means would soon be exerted to remove that government.”
Jon Ungpakorn, “Without a settlement, no peace after elections.”
BP, April 20, 2011
“The loyalty or disloyalty problem will continue to haunt the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin himself during the electioneering period and also after the election. Unless this question is resolved to the satisfaction of the establishment, the military in particular, there is a slim chance that Phue Thai will be able to form the government even if it wins the election. Or even if it manages to win more than half of the House seats and form a single-party government, it may have to start a countdown from Day One in the office.”
Veera Prateepchaikul. 2010. “Thaksin puts all his political eggs into his own basket.”
BP, May 2, 2011
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Reporter
Your argument falls down completely in that one side previously achieved power via the ballot box – over and over again. And the other has only ever achieved it via force.
If you want to take a “believe your own eyes” line you should start with that most obvious one & not focus on conspiracy theories and rumours.
Hariri showed that anything is possible in terms of an investigation. It just takes the political will and the involvement of the wider community to make it happen. This nihilistic fatalism, which just panders to the worst aspects of the human spirit rather than the best, leads to one thing only – more death and chaos.
Thailand before the poll
Here is a hazardous attempt to read between the lies of Thai politics. The King has let it be known that he will not sign the necessary paperwork for an election to take place. He has had a gutfull of elections, and has ordered the Constitutional Court to find any attempt to hold an election unconstitutional. Key royalist bureaucrats throughout the country have been ordered to disrupt preparations for an election. If Abhisit refuses to back down, he will be removed.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
“Jim Taylor”:
“UDD have declared openly that they will accept the outcome of the elections – effectively ending any further claims on democracy (the train ends here for UDD/Phue Thai Party). ”
That is not entirely correct. The UDD has stated on many occasions that they will accept the outcome of elections as long as they are free and fair, and as long as there is no fiddling with the outcome or interference by the military. They have also stated that elections is only one leg they are standing on, and that they will continue to protest on the issues of democracy, justice, etc.
“I remember at the last ITSC held at Thammasat Uni in 2007 … But silence or “avoiding the subject” of democracy was noticeable with academic complicity and complacency”
Yet at the same time Handley’s paper on the privy council was presented there as well, even though he could not come in person.
I do not understand calls for boycott of the conference, unless presentations by critical academics are not accepted by the organizers (on grounds of being critical, which of course would be scandalous, and be reason for a boycott).
We may very well be creeping towards a civil war scenario, but that does not mean that open and critical academic exchange should not be taking place. Some parts of the state may may want to shut up critical voices, may even intimidate some, like Ajarn Somsak, and you want to comply with the Thai state’s wishes by asking critical academics to stay away?
Sorry, but i just do not get the logic for boycotting this conference – there is an opportunity to “shout out”, in the presence of representatives of the state, and you want academics to chose not to.
Thailand’s benevolent army
I don’t agree with the proposition that media coverage of the army has been systematically biased.
Criticism of recent political sabre rattling by the military has been front page news, and justly so. How did you miss it?
ICJ press release on Cambodia
SteveCM (5). I guess the Court regarded those parts of the border over which there was no dispute as being the agreed border that supersedes the one shown on the old French map. To establish the border in the disputed area, they went back to what they regarded as the last agreed-upon border location, which was as shown on the inaccurate French map. Now the Court really has to define where this is on the ground (as I see it, giving the Cambodians some or most of what they have claimed). Or will it sit back in embarrassed silence and watch the disaster unfold?
Thailand before the poll
Tukkae, # 7
Do you mean another double standard will take place? One day you can do something, the next day you cannot ? People are getting smarter to notice this kind of thing.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Look, we all want an independent, impartial investigation into Thailand’s latest bout of political warfare. Sadly, it ain’t gonna happen. HRW report is admirable but will be plundered for propaganda by both sides. This also seems to be the case on this forum. Why would we expect otherwise?
If you wanna blame the government and soldiers, go ahead. If you wanna blame the UDD – Burn, Bangkok, Burn! – go ahead.
My own experience of reporting on the streets and talking to those who wield power is that all sides are ready to use violence to achieve their political ends. They will also claim to be peaceful and lawful and whatever else sounds noble. But this is Thailand and Thais know that battles are rarely settled peacefully. Definitely not this one. The stakes are too high, and there is too much face to be lost.
Once you accept this, perhaps Amsterdam’s conspiracies and don’t-believe-your-own-eyes arguments of Mr Spooner will be less convincing. Or perhaps not. Ask yourself: have I taken sides in Thailand? It’s hard not to. That is the ugly reality of civil wars.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
David Brown – 79
seems to me the main message out of the HRW report is that an independent formal investigation supported by waiving of all impunities including those claimed by military and state personnel and prosecution of all involved in the incidents is required
It certainly is a main point of the report, being the first of five key recommendations made to the Thai government. There are another three key recommendations made to parties outside of the government. In an ideal world all eight would come about.
Do you think we could now have a general consensus that the report is independent and impartial, and those creating a story outside of it to support their political views clearly do not care for independence or impartiality?
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Andrew Spooner – 78
So, while the efforts of the HRW report cannot and should not be dismissed, to accept any weak evidence as “fact”, just because it satisfies a liberal notion of “balance”, is something I just can’t sign up to.
So Andrew, let’s call a spade a spade then. Do you think that the HRW report is unreliable because they have purposely set out to satisfy a liberal notion of “balance”? Does that therefore make the HRW report untruthful in your opinion? Do you apply similar tests to the Robert Amsterdam report which can make no claim to be impartial.
Here’s the problem I have with the propagandists, I can accept the HRW report as being an independent, impartial history of the April/May 2010 protest. I can even accept their timeline of recent Thai political history. I doubt they or anyone else will ever get 100% accuracy, but at least it’s an attempt. For the propagandist it’s another matter altogether. If an independent report clashes with the story they are telling then the report must be a lie, not their story. Then if you can’t find evidence to disprove the report you have to attack the people writing the report.
Many years ago, when I was still young, a leading British Trotskyist, who at the time I had a lot of respect for, was talking about propaganda. It was accepted by all at the meeting that propaganda was an important tool in a party’s tactics. He said that if you wanted to see an expert in the field and someone to copy just look at how Joseph Goebbels had operated. So let’s take a bit of Goebbels and see if it begins to fit anyone.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
In terms of participation in thai studies conferences supported by the unelected Thai government, to my mind questions should be raised in terms of timing right now. Does anyone know why? The country right now is in a mess. The regime is throwing money left, right and centre: bribing individuals, agencies and interest groups, and coercing citizens through media and military cunning. UDD have declared openly that they will accept the outcome of the elections – effectively ending any further claims on democracy (the train ends here for UDD/Phue Thai Party). The amaat cannot afford to lose this election and want legitimacy and credibility internationally after the massacres last year…Arrangements at the highest institution are complex, as is the issue of 112. We are creeping towards civil war as factors are in place. The appearance given to the world by the regime that everything is normal is frankly disconcerting and mischievous. Now, back to Australia, the second largest country for the thai diaspora after the USA. Does anyone know why financially supporting academic studies at this time is important to the regime? Those who know what is really going on in thailand must pause and reflect. I will not say anything more on this here. But do forms of protest such as avoidance or intellectual sanctions as in this case work? (Arguable if we look at Burma). Participating in state organised events when one decries the regime in power ratifies/legitimises the norms and behaviour of the regime in question. It is a message to the world that here everything is OK. Well, in the end it is an individual choice because it cannot be forced on anyone. I remember at the last ITSC held at Thammasat Uni in 2007 where I wanted to shout out that something was not right (I had been participating as an observer at that time at the early Sanam Luang and Parliament demonstrations). But silence or “avoiding the subject” of democracy was noticeable with academic complicity and complacency. Most academics were still convinced in means end justification in regard to the spin on Thaksin. In relation to the past five years in Thailand, as Martin Luther King once said, “history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people”. We can certainly chose the venues in which to be heard that have effect in promoting sustainable democracy and showing the perpetuators of injustice that enough is enough.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
seems to me the main message out of the HRW report is that an independent formal investigation supported by waiving of all impunities including those claimed by military and state personnel and prosecution of all involved in the incidents is required
the rest of the HRW report just records the evidence they have gathered that substantiates their claim that the real investigation and prosecution should be carried out
note that the Thanit of the Thai Truth and Reconciliation committee is on record that they were unable to access military and state people and therefore their investigation essentially stalled
while impunities are in place Thailand continues to suffer the results of unaccountable power….
“absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
billyd
But will the conference organisers allow contrarian views? I think it’s likely they won’t, if the Thai embassy has anything to do with it. If this is indeed the case, then there may be more to gained from boycotting the event than attending it. I think this was Jim’s point.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Les
First of all, and let’s demolish your “straw man” from the off. No-one is claiming anywhere, least of all myself, that HRW are trying to justify the deaths of anyone. That’s an absurd, inaccurate and outright ridiculous comment to make. However, many many many commentators have used the Men in Black as a convenient excuse to justify the Army’s actions.
Secondly it’s not a question of me “liking” anything in the HRW report but more to do with what they can stand up on the evidence they have.
And they can’t stand up either the cause of the Central World fire or the links between the Reds and the Men in Black. They just don’t have any substantive evidence to do that. It is so thin as to be almost non-existent.
What I would “like” is a proper, thorough, independent inquiry, maybe similar in scope as that which is presently being conducted into the death of Rafic Hariri. Not unsubstantiated proclamations by a human rights’ NGO who repeatedly made half-cocked premature comments about what went on in April/May 2010. That’s before we get onto HRW’s (and AI’s) complete failure to deal with lese majeste and their reasons for this failure. They are both compromised on this issue and they both know it and both refuse to be transparent about it. Until they do so their notion of “balance” is as compromised as anyone elses.
In reply to Superanonymous – just saying stuff, over and over again, doesn’t make it true.
Nor is just “saying stuff” evidence of balance.
Who did fire the M79s down Silom Road? No one can say with any certainty.
Who did kill Romklao? No one can say with any certainty.
Who was commanding the Men in Black? No one can say with any certainty.
Who set-fire to Central World, which was under Army control when the main fire was set? No one can say with certainty.
So, while the efforts of the HRW report cannot and should not be dismissed, to accept any weak evidence as “fact”, just because it satisfies a liberal notion of “balance”, is something I just can’t sign up to.
What is certain, however, is that the Thai Army killed unarmed civilians in large numbers on Bangkok’s streets.
And, at the time when they were shooting nurses, kids and other unarmed civilians, the Army did not capture, kill or apprehend one single MiB. As you state, any arrest was made AFTER the crackdown.
As for the Red Shirt leaders links to the MiB, I interviewed Arisman last year – this is what he said
“What can you tell us about the Black Shirts?
I don’t really have any information about the Black Shirts. I don’t know who they are or where they are from. I believe, though can’t say for certain, that they were either soldiers or police officers who supported our struggle for democracy. I don’t think every soldier or police officer was able to accept the action of the government to attack unarmed civilians. So far, the government has been unable to arrest any Black Shirt. In fact, I want to know who they were.”
Do we believe him? Personally, I don’t know what to believe. Maybe the MiB were acting under orders of the Red Shirt leadership. Maybe they were agent provocateurs. Maybe they were acting independently of both the Red Shirts and government. And maybe it was a mix of all three.
The “incompetence” argument is also absurd. You don’t “accidentally” shoot someone with a sniper’s rifle. You target and execute them.
The Thai Army have been doing this kind of massacre for over 40years. Or maybe 1973, 1976, 1992, Tak Bai, Rohingya etc etc were all just as a result of “incompetence”?
Thailand’s benevolent army
“Atrocities are only trickling out of the militaries hermetically sealed body bag when some brave soul defies the system.”
Except when the Assassin in Chief goes on TV to brag about having ordered the execution of yet another ‘suspected terrorist’. That’s special treatment, of course, he doesn’t ‘drone’ on about the now near daily toll of people, women and children, assassinated on ‘suspicion’ of ‘terrorism’ at his order by remote control. Our USA has hit the greased skids of moral collapse. We’re cheering assassinations in the streets now, with our President acting the Cheerleader in Chief.
The Army’s propaganda in Thailand covers, for instance, its recent displacement of 50,000 and the dozen or so documented deaths it caused for no reason at all among Thais with its aggression against Cambodia. Who knows the damage to the other side.
The Thai military is busily assuring an endless supply of opponents in the South by dint of its own terrorism under the aegis of the ISOC, as well. The US military is doing the same on a worldwide scale.
The military is the military is the military. Its only ‘tool’ is a gun and everything looks like a target. Using its only ‘tool’ ensures the eternal recurrence of its ‘problem’ and hence the perpetual employment of its ‘tool’, and so the opportunity to do more and more ‘good’.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
[…] in clashes with Yellow Shirt protesters. And doubts quickly emerged over the official story. This New Mandala post has an alternative account of events, and a large number of eyewitness accounts also suggest that in late April and May troops were […]