Thailand defends govt’s crackdown on reds
Published: 9/06/2010 at 04:46 PM
Online news: Local News
Thailand has defended international NGOs criticisms on the government’s lethal use of force against demonstrators at the 14th Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday, saying that security officers were confronted with the armed elements among the demonstrators.
Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations in Geneva, strongly defended the Amnesty International (AI) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) joint statement that the use of force during the dispersal of “Red Shirt” protesters in Bangkok between May 13-19 was not in compliance with the Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Mr Sihasak told the Human Rights Council that Thai security officers were faced with a very difficult situation and were confronted with unprovoked attacks by the armed elements infiltrating among the demonstrators.
“Nonetheless, the security officers were instructed to act in strict accordance with international standards and the principles of proportionality and necessity,” said the Thai ambassador to the Geneva panel on Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.
He emphasized that the Thai Government was open to full investigation, including the alleged excessive use of force by the security officers. “All sides must be held accountable, not only the Government but also those who have engaged in criminal acts.”
He informed the Council that the Thai Government has announced the name of the person who would chair the independent commission to investigate the incidents of violence, which would hopefully commence its work soonest.
The London-based AI and Geneva-based ICJ were also concerned about widespread arrests and detention, including arbitrary administrative detention, of protest leaders and suspected Red Shirt sympathisers “pursuant to or in violation of provisions of the Emergency Decree, which is itself incompatible with international legal standards.”
They urged the Thai government to immediately make available verifiable information about all persons detained and imprisoned, including their identities, whereabouts and status; to ensure their access to family members, lawyers and medical attention; and to release from custody those who are not charged with recognizably criminal offences and prosecuted.
Mr Sihasak said the Decree explicitly provided that the detained suspects shall not be treated as accused persons, and shall be detained in a designated place which is not a police station, detention center, penal institution or prison.
There should be concern about arbitrariness as the process was transparent, “So far, 27 persons have been taken into custody under the Emergency Decree, 11 of whom have already been released. Of the 16 persons who remain in custody, public information is readily available as to where they are being detained,” Mr Sihasak said.
However, what Mr Sihasak did not elaborate to Geneva meeting was that there were another 84 detained in Bangkok and other provinces by criminal law and 801 names were placed under criminal arrest warrant –only 240 of this were already arrested, human rights activists in Bangkok argued.
Pipob Udomittipong, one of the human rights critiques, said the government’s appointment of the investigation committee was not impartial as Mr. Kanit Na Nakhon, the proposed chairman, has been known as an arch critic against Thaksin Shinawatra, number one man on the government’s arrest list.
“Without clear impartiality, that person should not be appointed to head the inquiry. Also, the government has so far failed to clarify the representation and mandate of such a committee,” said the Chiang Mai-based activist.
He also challenged the Thai government has yet to explain how all unarmed civilians have died or got injured from stray bullets resulting from indiscriminate shootings.
“People who have suffered from gunshots included not only the demonstrators, but passerby and residents living in the area. None of the bodies lying at the shooting sites were found to have in possession any firearm. How could the rule of engagement, i.e., shooting in self-defence, shooting when the opponents pose an immediate threat, and shooting when the opponents are clearly identified as terrorists, be justified?” said Mr Pipob reflecting the AI And ICJ conclusion such use of force was neither necessary nor proportionate in the circumstances, and may have resulted in extrajudicial executions, in violation of the right to life.
Press and Politics in Thailand 