As Ileana knows, I was one of the team arguing for the lifting of sanctions. But I realised straight away that supporting such a motion would be problematic. I am in favour of the Western arms embargo. I have no problem with the asset freeze and the visa ban, though they achieve very little.
The problem is to define what we are talking about. To take just the EU, there are five categories of sanctions:
(a) Statutory sanctions approved by the European Council and set out in the Official Journal.
(b) Policy decisions taken by the Council but not requiring statutory implementation, such as the decision in the autumn of 2004 “against extending loans to Burma from international financial institutions” .
(c) Bilateral and multilateral measures not formally agreed as part of the Common Position, such as the suspension of bilateral and multilateral aid 1988-2004. These sanctions are already fraying at the edges because they have no public support.
(d) Measures taken by hard-line EU members held to be consistent with Common Policy such as the discouragement of trade, investment and tourism and the denial of export credits.
(e) Miscellaneous boycotts and political pressures applied such as the summoning of company directors to Whitehall to induce companies to withdraw from Myanmar (Premier Oil, British-American Tobacco).
The sanctions listed at (a) include asset freezes and visa bans, but also numerous measures which have an impact on the population such as targeted, but non-crony SMEs in furniture manufacture and jewellery. (b) and (c) are major sanctions, accounting for some US$ 2 billion in lost ODA and wholly targeted at the population. Excuses given are that Burma is “in arrears” or that the funds “would be misused to support the regime”. (d) are said not to be sanctions at all, but only “recommendations”. (e) likewise.
In the 10 minutes allotted to me, I felt I only scratched the surface of the sanctions debate which raises very complex issues, as this New Mandala discussion shows. In the end, outrage at the regime dominated the debate. Emotion triumphed over reason. I hardly helped by saying I supported some sanctions. Motion lost, and in terms of sheer logic rightly so.
To be more precies, Shaun Ley in Radio 4 this morning quotes David Miliband, (not Braoness Kinnock, sorry):
” David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in Britain, told the House of Commons last month that in his view it wasn’t a question of choosing between all sanctions or lifting no sanctions it was a question of calibrating our response to the situation on the ground. And he went on to say, and this is a direct quote, “I believe that European Union sanctions have helped to send a strong message and that they have had a practical effect without hurting the Zimbabwean people which would have been a sanction too far.”
I was interested to hear on the radio in London today David Miliband (UK Foreign Secretary) being quoted by Baroness Kinnock, Africa Minister, on the recent decision to extend targeted sanctions in Zimbabwe, as saying;
“If sanctions were to harm the people of Zimbabwe, that would of course be a step too far.”
Would that he would apply that principle to Burma!
I agree with Fringer in the sense that the barrier is not set rather low. In fact, it was because of the reasonably high barrier you had to see some judicial gymnastics to pin it in Thaksin for some of the charges. In essence, it was because Thaksin was PM and as PM he oversee the entire government and because TOT amended the concession, Thaksin should have stopped it. It was really a sin by omission. The EXIM bank loan was the different one and where they had direct evidence of Thaksin’s involvement – although not direct evidence of any quid pro quo.* Future politicians need not worry.
*Like the cunning one, BP was surprised they didn’t mention that other companies benefited from the EXIM bank loan, but in the end the court decided not to try to calculate the abnormal gains and just took the entire increase. Asia Sentinel article said there were 15 other companies and the amount that went to Shin was 600 million which differs from the amount Thaksin cites.
Srithanonchai, I find that that being politically sincere towards the people and having never given up his sincerity towards his business interests are mutually exclusive concepts. He went to great trouble to retain ownership and control of his business interests through nominees in the full knowledge that such ownership and control not only represented a dire conflict of interests but was a criminal act. Given the circumstances, it is logical to conclude that Thaksin’s enduring commitment to his business interests was his prime reason for entering politics and that there was never any political sincerity towards the people who were and are just a means to an end for him.
To siammiddlepath: it depends what you mean by successful revolution, initially successful or sustainedly successful. We no longer have a USSR but I can’t help thinking the Bolshevik revolution was successful without the help of a middle class. There are negative aspects of its legacy but also many positive ones which will stay with us.
If nothing else the Thai Reds have history on their side. In my opinion there are too many farang in Thailand who hanker for a return to “the way things were” when maids and drivers were two a penny. Why, if we’re not very careful these unfortunate farang might have to end up doing their own housework!
“The fact that Thaksin’s companies did benefit suggests corruption, doesn’t it?” >> I can’t quite follow this logic. By the way, even in the reporting on the verdict, The Nation still keeps the line of “Thaksin gave Burma 4 billion baht so that Burma would use this money to buy services from SHIN.” Before the verdict, some reports, and, of course, Thaksin’s own statement, said that SHIN benefitted to the tune of about 340 million baht (or so). In order to form a judgment, I would like to know what the facts actually are.
#5
You merely paraphrase what I said. In this context, do you think that TOT and CAT are positive players in this policy field, or rather more useless rent seekers?
Portman:
“It is obviously indefensible for a prime minister to be simultaneously holding effective management control of one of his nation’s largest telcos.” >> More than that: it is illegal. Thaksin might have well been politically sincere towards the people, but he had also never given up his sincerity towards his own business interests. And all the lies following from the necessity to conceal the latter were just disgusting.
Some interested parties have been arguing that everybody should accept this verdict and move on. This is wrong. The most urgent task now is to get a thorough analysis of the verdict, covering the legal aspects, the policy issues (were the telecom policies seen as “policy corruption” in fact good policies?), and the value (unusual wealth)problem (if the stock market gains in value, and if this includes the Shin shares, how then can this increase be the result of corrupt practices, the implicit assumption being that, without Thaksin’s policies, the Shin share value would have remained static, while the share value of all other companies substantially increased).
I like the take at Political Prisoners in Thailand (http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/only-the-beginning/). Legal, moral or otherwise the judges did what was required in the “battle” – note the king has now gone home – and far more is to come as the challengers/opposition is ground down to defeat what the palace and military (and their government) see as an on-going battle to defeat their enemies.
Re AnonC’s point, yes, it seems like Thaksin was making a technical defense against a moral case, and the question is which trumps which? Did the prosecutors really establish, in a technical sense, that Thaksin and wife were the beneficial owners of the shares under discussion? The five cases (at least one of which seems pretty strong) hinge on that.
More disturbing _ and here’s where Thaksin’s side turns the tables and takes the moral approach _ is why the prosecution of Thaksin involved legal processes established after the coup (which were explicitly validated by the court). And the judges rather breezily dismissed the idea that appointing at least three high-profile critics of Thaksin to the AEC was no problem — which is a little hard to swallow when one takes into account the sweeping functions of the body.
On the analysis of the ruling, Nathakorn Devakula (Pleum), has provided the most interesting comments from the stock-market/financial perspective. You can watch his comments from UDD station and the AIS funded internet site, VoiceTV.
However, I personally view that this is a “moral verdict”. Did the judges pass their ruling out of their moral or ethical conscience? There seems to be a terrain between the legality and the questions over morality and ethics. Perhaps a philosopher out there can enlighten us?
Exactly. This is why politicians are required to set up blind trusts in many countries so they have no way to know whether their policies are enriching themselves. Thaksin simply moved his shares to his kids. Then cut deals to benefit his company. Then sold his company tax free.
It’s pretty clear whose side the Wiki writer is on.
The Dick Cheney example is interesting. There may have never been a more corrupt public official in the US than him. The fact that he hasn’t been prosecuted for war crimes and his other malfeasance is a scandal. But there is plenty of other corruption to go around in the U.S. However, that doesn’t really have anything to do with Thailand.
Les Abbey seems to be so blatantly anti Thaksin, that he would ignore the economic facts relating to the verdict – much like the “appointed judges”
Let me point Les to just one such fact:
“Shin Corp shares increased from 38 to 104 baht (an increase of 173 per cent) while the stock price of Shin Satellite fell. In the same period, the Stock Exchange of Thailand index rose 161 per cent.”
Given that Telecommunication shares in other bourses in developing countries grew more than their index, should we say that Thaksin actually lost out and not gain. (161% vs 104%)
The fact that the entire Thai economy and stock rose during his tenure was completely ignored. Is Les saying that, Thaksin’s companies should not benefit at all from the Thai economic growth, just because he was PM. I would be very suspicious of Thaksin if that was the case!!!
Just looking at some figures, I notice that when calling thai mobile over Voip this costs me тВм0.01 a minute, while calling dutch mobile phones for instance costs me тВм0.25 a minute. In general Thai telecom costs are one of the lowest in the world. I’m not even going into the forced ‘price plans’ and differing minute charges which make the western european telecom sector a non-transparent and hugely profitable industry.
In this light, terms like ‘abnormal gains’ and ‘corruption’ might better be applied to western telecom companies. From a consumer/price point of view, Thaksin did an excellent job for Thai society.
If Thaksin was sincere in entering politics, he would have sold his telecoms interests to non-related parties before assuming public office and put the proceeds into a genuinely blind trust. It is obviously indefensible for a prime minister to be simultaneously holding effective management control of one of his nation’s largest telcos. His complaints about injustice are in fact complaints that he was unable to remain above the law indefinitely, as he believed he would. The judges did a commendable job in the face of threats from Thaksin’s goons and allegations of bribery.
Thaksin’s threats to take the case to the International Court of Justice are hilarious. If he could get a Schengen visa and pitch up in The Hague, the court would probably be more interested in prosecuting him for complicity in the murders of over 2,000 people in his infamous war against drugs. However, Thailand, since Thailand has never ratified the Rome statute, it is hard to see how any cases involving Thailand could be heard by the court. In any event the court can only hear cases the party state has been unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute which could hardly be said of Thaksin’s assets case, even if Thailand were a party state.
Srithanonchai – “In essence, the court seems to say that Thaksin should not have devised and implemented any telecom policy while in office (or never entered office, in the first place), and that TOT, as a state enterprise, is a holy cow that nobody much ever touch.”
Maybe as prime minister, he should not have owned a telecom company that would benefit when he changed telecom policies. Moreover maybe he shouldn’t have devised policies that would benefit his telecom company while decreasing the income of the TOT, a publically owned company.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
As Ileana knows, I was one of the team arguing for the lifting of sanctions. But I realised straight away that supporting such a motion would be problematic. I am in favour of the Western arms embargo. I have no problem with the asset freeze and the visa ban, though they achieve very little.
The problem is to define what we are talking about. To take just the EU, there are five categories of sanctions:
(a) Statutory sanctions approved by the European Council and set out in the Official Journal.
(b) Policy decisions taken by the Council but not requiring statutory implementation, such as the decision in the autumn of 2004 “against extending loans to Burma from international financial institutions” .
(c) Bilateral and multilateral measures not formally agreed as part of the Common Position, such as the suspension of bilateral and multilateral aid 1988-2004. These sanctions are already fraying at the edges because they have no public support.
(d) Measures taken by hard-line EU members held to be consistent with Common Policy such as the discouragement of trade, investment and tourism and the denial of export credits.
(e) Miscellaneous boycotts and political pressures applied such as the summoning of company directors to Whitehall to induce companies to withdraw from Myanmar (Premier Oil, British-American Tobacco).
The sanctions listed at (a) include asset freezes and visa bans, but also numerous measures which have an impact on the population such as targeted, but non-crony SMEs in furniture manufacture and jewellery. (b) and (c) are major sanctions, accounting for some US$ 2 billion in lost ODA and wholly targeted at the population. Excuses given are that Burma is “in arrears” or that the funds “would be misused to support the regime”. (d) are said not to be sanctions at all, but only “recommendations”. (e) likewise.
In the 10 minutes allotted to me, I felt I only scratched the surface of the sanctions debate which raises very complex issues, as this New Mandala discussion shows. In the end, outrage at the regime dominated the debate. Emotion triumphed over reason. I hardly helped by saying I supported some sanctions. Motion lost, and in terms of sheer logic rightly so.
Making sense of the verdict
Fringer, thanks for the clarification.
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
To be more precies, Shaun Ley in Radio 4 this morning quotes David Miliband, (not Braoness Kinnock, sorry):
” David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in Britain, told the House of Commons last month that in his view it wasn’t a question of choosing between all sanctions or lifting no sanctions it was a question of calibrating our response to the situation on the ground. And he went on to say, and this is a direct quote, “I believe that European Union sanctions have helped to send a strong message and that they have had a practical effect without hurting the Zimbabwean people which would have been a sanction too far.”
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
I was interested to hear on the radio in London today David Miliband (UK Foreign Secretary) being quoted by Baroness Kinnock, Africa Minister, on the recent decision to extend targeted sanctions in Zimbabwe, as saying;
“If sanctions were to harm the people of Zimbabwe, that would of course be a step too far.”
Would that he would apply that principle to Burma!
Making sense of the verdict
I agree with Fringer in the sense that the barrier is not set rather low. In fact, it was because of the reasonably high barrier you had to see some judicial gymnastics to pin it in Thaksin for some of the charges. In essence, it was because Thaksin was PM and as PM he oversee the entire government and because TOT amended the concession, Thaksin should have stopped it. It was really a sin by omission. The EXIM bank loan was the different one and where they had direct evidence of Thaksin’s involvement – although not direct evidence of any quid pro quo.* Future politicians need not worry.
*Like the cunning one, BP was surprised they didn’t mention that other companies benefited from the EXIM bank loan, but in the end the court decided not to try to calculate the abnormal gains and just took the entire increase. Asia Sentinel article said there were 15 other companies and the amount that went to Shin was 600 million which differs from the amount Thaksin cites.
Making sense of the verdict
Srithanonchai, I find that that being politically sincere towards the people and having never given up his sincerity towards his business interests are mutually exclusive concepts. He went to great trouble to retain ownership and control of his business interests through nominees in the full knowledge that such ownership and control not only represented a dire conflict of interests but was a criminal act. Given the circumstances, it is logical to conclude that Thaksin’s enduring commitment to his business interests was his prime reason for entering politics and that there was never any political sincerity towards the people who were and are just a means to an end for him.
Elephants in the room: Part 1
For anyone who reads German, there is a review of this series of articles at http://th.schoenes-thailand.de/news/meinung/george-orwell-1984-in-thailand-2010-2.html
Thitinan on the looming verdict
To siammiddlepath: it depends what you mean by successful revolution, initially successful or sustainedly successful. We no longer have a USSR but I can’t help thinking the Bolshevik revolution was successful without the help of a middle class. There are negative aspects of its legacy but also many positive ones which will stay with us.
If nothing else the Thai Reds have history on their side. In my opinion there are too many farang in Thailand who hanker for a return to “the way things were” when maids and drivers were two a penny. Why, if we’re not very careful these unfortunate farang might have to end up doing their own housework!
Making sense of the verdict
LA #4
“The fact that Thaksin’s companies did benefit suggests corruption, doesn’t it?” >> I can’t quite follow this logic. By the way, even in the reporting on the verdict, The Nation still keeps the line of “Thaksin gave Burma 4 billion baht so that Burma would use this money to buy services from SHIN.” Before the verdict, some reports, and, of course, Thaksin’s own statement, said that SHIN benefitted to the tune of about 340 million baht (or so). In order to form a judgment, I would like to know what the facts actually are.
#5
You merely paraphrase what I said. In this context, do you think that TOT and CAT are positive players in this policy field, or rather more useless rent seekers?
Portman:
“It is obviously indefensible for a prime minister to be simultaneously holding effective management control of one of his nation’s largest telcos.” >> More than that: it is illegal. Thaksin might have well been politically sincere towards the people, but he had also never given up his sincerity towards his own business interests. And all the lies following from the necessity to conceal the latter were just disgusting.
Some interested parties have been arguing that everybody should accept this verdict and move on. This is wrong. The most urgent task now is to get a thorough analysis of the verdict, covering the legal aspects, the policy issues (were the telecom policies seen as “policy corruption” in fact good policies?), and the value (unusual wealth)problem (if the stock market gains in value, and if this includes the Shin shares, how then can this increase be the result of corrupt practices, the implicit assumption being that, without Thaksin’s policies, the Shin share value would have remained static, while the share value of all other companies substantially increased).
Making sense of the verdict
I like the take at Political Prisoners in Thailand (http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/only-the-beginning/). Legal, moral or otherwise the judges did what was required in the “battle” – note the king has now gone home – and far more is to come as the challengers/opposition is ground down to defeat what the palace and military (and their government) see as an on-going battle to defeat their enemies.
Making sense of the verdict
Re AnonC’s point, yes, it seems like Thaksin was making a technical defense against a moral case, and the question is which trumps which? Did the prosecutors really establish, in a technical sense, that Thaksin and wife were the beneficial owners of the shares under discussion? The five cases (at least one of which seems pretty strong) hinge on that.
More disturbing _ and here’s where Thaksin’s side turns the tables and takes the moral approach _ is why the prosecution of Thaksin involved legal processes established after the coup (which were explicitly validated by the court). And the judges rather breezily dismissed the idea that appointing at least three high-profile critics of Thaksin to the AEC was no problem — which is a little hard to swallow when one takes into account the sweeping functions of the body.
Making sense of the verdict
hclau are you arguing over the amount the court took or whether it should have taken the money at all?
I see this morning that Thaksin is using the share price to argue the former.
Making sense of the verdict
Glen, regarding Dick Cheney, it is pretty clear which side of the political aisle you’re on, left or right.
Making sense of the verdict
On the analysis of the ruling, Nathakorn Devakula (Pleum), has provided the most interesting comments from the stock-market/financial perspective. You can watch his comments from UDD station and the AIS funded internet site, VoiceTV.
However, I personally view that this is a “moral verdict”. Did the judges pass their ruling out of their moral or ethical conscience? There seems to be a terrain between the legality and the questions over morality and ethics. Perhaps a philosopher out there can enlighten us?
Making sense of the verdict
Exactly. This is why politicians are required to set up blind trusts in many countries so they have no way to know whether their policies are enriching themselves. Thaksin simply moved his shares to his kids. Then cut deals to benefit his company. Then sold his company tax free.
It’s pretty clear whose side the Wiki writer is on.
The Dick Cheney example is interesting. There may have never been a more corrupt public official in the US than him. The fact that he hasn’t been prosecuted for war crimes and his other malfeasance is a scandal. But there is plenty of other corruption to go around in the U.S. However, that doesn’t really have anything to do with Thailand.
Making sense of the verdict
Fringer: Care to explain further why Abhisit or Korn’s family could not make abnormal gains as a result of something they did in government?
btw, all the talk of the legal merits or otherwise of the verdict don’t mean much when others are above the law – untouchable!
Making sense of the verdict
Les Abbey seems to be so blatantly anti Thaksin, that he would ignore the economic facts relating to the verdict – much like the “appointed judges”
Let me point Les to just one such fact:
“Shin Corp shares increased from 38 to 104 baht (an increase of 173 per cent) while the stock price of Shin Satellite fell. In the same period, the Stock Exchange of Thailand index rose 161 per cent.”
Given that Telecommunication shares in other bourses in developing countries grew more than their index, should we say that Thaksin actually lost out and not gain. (161% vs 104%)
The fact that the entire Thai economy and stock rose during his tenure was completely ignored. Is Les saying that, Thaksin’s companies should not benefit at all from the Thai economic growth, just because he was PM. I would be very suspicious of Thaksin if that was the case!!!
Making sense of the verdict
Just looking at some figures, I notice that when calling thai mobile over Voip this costs me тВм0.01 a minute, while calling dutch mobile phones for instance costs me тВм0.25 a minute. In general Thai telecom costs are one of the lowest in the world. I’m not even going into the forced ‘price plans’ and differing minute charges which make the western european telecom sector a non-transparent and hugely profitable industry.
In this light, terms like ‘abnormal gains’ and ‘corruption’ might better be applied to western telecom companies. From a consumer/price point of view, Thaksin did an excellent job for Thai society.
Making sense of the verdict
If Thaksin was sincere in entering politics, he would have sold his telecoms interests to non-related parties before assuming public office and put the proceeds into a genuinely blind trust. It is obviously indefensible for a prime minister to be simultaneously holding effective management control of one of his nation’s largest telcos. His complaints about injustice are in fact complaints that he was unable to remain above the law indefinitely, as he believed he would. The judges did a commendable job in the face of threats from Thaksin’s goons and allegations of bribery.
Thaksin’s threats to take the case to the International Court of Justice are hilarious. If he could get a Schengen visa and pitch up in The Hague, the court would probably be more interested in prosecuting him for complicity in the murders of over 2,000 people in his infamous war against drugs. However, Thailand, since Thailand has never ratified the Rome statute, it is hard to see how any cases involving Thailand could be heard by the court. In any event the court can only hear cases the party state has been unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute which could hardly be said of Thaksin’s assets case, even if Thailand were a party state.
Making sense of the verdict
Srithanonchai – “In essence, the court seems to say that Thaksin should not have devised and implemented any telecom policy while in office (or never entered office, in the first place), and that TOT, as a state enterprise, is a holy cow that nobody much ever touch.”
Maybe as prime minister, he should not have owned a telecom company that would benefit when he changed telecom policies. Moreover maybe he shouldn’t have devised policies that would benefit his telecom company while decreasing the income of the TOT, a publically owned company.