EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Thai Pro-Democracy Leader Jatuporn Prompan on BBC Claims of a Red Shirt "Armed Wing"

There are numerous claims - particularly from the BBC - that armed elements of the Thai pro-democracy Red Shirt movement have been staging violent attacks against the Thai fascist protests and rallies. 

So far these allegations remain only as claims and when pressed on what evidence exists the BBC have offered no primary evidence or source. In fact the BBC's Bangkok correspondent, Jonathan Head, has changed from claiming that third parties close to the armed wing told him who carried out the violence to claiming he has personally met those engaged in the violence. Which is it? He seems very confused.

Yet, despite this very slippery & dubious tertiary and secondary evidence  the BBC's correspondent has gone on to make further claims that "several thousand" armed Red Shirts now exist in a "cell structure."

Of course to operate such an armed cell structure with an explicit political agenda requires discipline, extensive training,  a chain of command and 1000s of weapons and tons of ammunition. The BBC's correspondent has yet to provide one single scintilla of evidence of any of that existing apart from a "source" he has spoken to.

So, I challenge Jonathan Head to put up or shut up.

It should also be noted that Mr Head has yet to provide a space to a single Red Shirt voice to challenge his claims - a clear breach of the BBC's rules on impartiality.

To give some balance to the debate I interviewed the leader of Thailand's pro-democracy UDD/Red Shirt movement, Jatuporn Prompan and asked him about the BBC's claims.

The BBC have stated as fact that an armed cell of the Red Shirts fired the M79 at Ratchaprasong that killed the children - do you have any thoughts on that?

"There is no evidence showing that the Red Shirts carried out this action. There is no point for the Red Shirts to attack civilians and now the case is being investigated by the police. The Red Shirts uphold peaceful means and to carry out such an attack would undermine the mass support we receive. It would also destroy ourselves [our movement].  Therefore I can confirm that none of the Red Shirts will carry out such an attack as it doesn’t benefit the movement. It’s up to the police to find out who carried out this attack."

Another claim from the BBC is that there are "1000s" of organised "armed cells" of Red Shirts - which would make for a very, large, well-organised armed wing - how would you respond to that?

"I can confirm that this is not true. If we have that kind of armed wing with the numbers that the journalists claim then it must be very obvious and easy to see. If there are one to two thousand armed people then there must be some evidence of them being trained. They must also “exist” in evidence - you cannot just say they are there. This is just like 2010 when there was an allegation that 500 Red Shirts were armed. So we responded to the allegation then that there was a lot of foreign and Thai media at Phan Fa and at Ratchaprasong, with no restricted areas. If there was an armed element then where were the pictures? But the fact was that there was no armed element. The story about an armed element existing was issued by the Red Shirt’s enemies in order to justify the killings of the Red Shirts." 

Whilst the army seem unable to act right now - at least in the open - are their threats real?

"The coup in Thailand could happen at any time. No one can confirm when will the ‘last time’ [a coup will be staged]. Thailand’s democracy is so fragile that the overthrow of it could happen at any time. No-one can guarantee when these coups will end. So, at the moment, I believe the PDRC [fascist] movement are trying to create a situation which will lead to a coup d’etat. This is the key goal of the PDRC because they cannot change anything by using other means. Their only option is a coup d’etat." 

How can the Red Shirts and the UDD help secure Thailand's democracy?

"By utilising the struggle of the vast majority of Thailand. They [the Red Shirts] represent the majority. The declaration of democracy will benefit all Thai citizens despite the differences in opinion and, eventually, the Red Shirts’ struggle will lead to change and will bring true democracy by the people. This is the goal of our struggle." 

Debunking the Flawed Thai Succession Crisis Thesis: Part 2

This is my 2nd post on debunking some of the myths that have crept in around the “Succession Crisis” thesis as being determinative of Thailand’s present political problems. 

True to form, after my last piece, the usual suspects launched into quite silly and pointless personal attacks against me on both twitter and Facebook. It’s a shame they can’t engage with debate in an honest and open manner.

No matter. It certainly wasn’t my intention to get into a slanging match with anyone when I wrote my last piece but it was certainly an attempt to critique some of the rather weak and unsubstantiated strategic arguments - those being that the Succession Crisis defines Thailand’s present political crisis.

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971).

To add to my previous post what I wanted to look at briefly was the rise of democracy in Thailand and how that has presented an epoch-shifting threat to the dominant, authoritarian hegemony that has coalesced itself around the military and the “network” rather than the historical footnote of the royal succession.  

This authoritarian hegemony, which has relied on myths of nation, a militarisation of certain key components of Thai civil society - particularly the academy - a virulently censorious culture that seeks to impose, through use of force, cultural and social homogeneity, and which ultimately relies on Army violence and a politicised judiciary to coerce this onto an increasingly unwilling population, can easily be defined as a political form of Thai fascism. 

Those who seek to maintain this fascistic status quo have historically centred themselves, and sought to dominate and control, the armed forces, the Democrat Party, the majority of the Thai media (and, in particular, the English language Thai media), significant elements in the academy and other educational institutes, the aristocracy, the civil service, the so-called “independent institutions”, cultural and religious bodies and the judiciary & legal professions. Thai fascism has also historically been supported internationally by US governments and the US military in exactly the same manner the US aided and abetted violent, anti-democratic and fascistic regimes in Central and South America.  

I’ve often been criticised for using the term “fascism” too loosely in the Thai context. I would counter that my use of the term is based on an analysis of the evidence as presented by Thailand’s body politic and that, in fact, I’ve only used the term as a factual descriptor not as a throw-away term of abuse. It is my view that Thai politics and culture is so deeply rooted in a virulent form of fascism that it has become naturalised and unconscious. Stepping out and stating “this is fascism” is far more of a “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment than actually stating that the Emperor, himself, is naked, so to speak.

So, in my view, the word “fascism” has been consciously underused to describe the politics of Thailand - hence my need to balance this up by its repeat use. This deliberate avoidance of the term is particularly so with much of the Western media in Bangkok, many of whom end up becoming subsumed into the unconscious ideology of Thai fascism and then personally invest in maintaining this social and economic status quo that they too benefit from individually. They collude with it - Thai-style Lord Haw Haws.

What is being challenged at the moment in Thailand, the real hegemonic crisis if you like and the precise moment where “a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”, is the threat posed to Thai fascism by the emergence of Thai democracy. In a sense a “new” Thailand is being born, a new political and social consciousness is slowly developing (albeit unevenly), and there’s literally nothing that Thai fascism can do to prevent that - unless, of course, it enacts a genocidal-scale massacre upon the Thai population.

The Succession Crisis in this scenario is a mere detail. One could even argue that without a Succession looming that the situation could be more tense and ready to fracture. The possibility of Succession at least gives the illusion of potential for some room for movement in the over-arching crisis. Without that possibility of change attitudes may be even more entrenched and extreme violence and civil war more likely.

The Succession Crisis as definer of the present political crisis is a nice easy hook. It looks perfect on book covers, as a conference title and also provides a nice, neat, easily identifiable backdrop for the lazy Western media corps in Bangkok. It also means that the Western media corps don’t have to explain their connivance with and refusal to report on the spectre of Thai fascism that has cast such a shadow over the “Land of Smiles.” But it needs to be challenged and it needs to attract the right kind of intellectual rigour before it can ever come close to being considered "determinative". Accepting it as a "received" wisdom should not be the position of progressive thinkers on Thai politics however attractive it may look as an oversimplified marketing device.

Debunking the Flawed Thai Succession Crisis Thesis: Part 1

Part 2 of this article can be found here.

Today the BBC's Bangkok correspondent, Jonathan Head, raised the issue of the Succession that will follow the death of Thailand's elderly king as being the determining factor in the present political crisis that is gripping the country. 

I've long thought the idea that the "Succession" issue is determinative of the present Thai political crisis as being based on the kind of lazy analysis which seeks to avoid the tougher questions required by a more complete historical and political investigation.

The main agent in pushing this theory is quite well-known for attacking anyone who dares challenge him on the Succession theory - something he has sought to claim ownership of - and given that most challenges come from the fascistic end of the political spectrum that might be an appropriate response.

However, it is my view that by purely focusing on Succession to such an over-determinative level the debate on the Thai political crisis is being skewed away from a more in-depth analysis and, in fact, actually plays into the hands of the very fascistic/ultra-royalist forces that Succession Crisis-platform claims to oppose.

For a start claiming that the "Succession" is THE determining factor in the present Thai crisis doesn't explain 80years of attacks on Thai democracy, 18 coups, several massacres and many constitutions. Where was the present Succession crisis when Pridi was ran out of Bangkok, when Sarit took power, when the guns were turned on the pro-democracy activists in 1973 and 1976? 

Furthermore does anyone seriously believe once the Succession issue has been resolved - and I mean in either direction - the Army and the billionaires backing the PDRC are just going to allow democracy to flourish unchallenged? Does anyone seriously believe that the USA are going to stop using Thailand as the SE Asian pivot from which to play their  vicious strategic power games? Will the CIA torturers, the arms dealers, the criminals, the gold hoarders just decamp? Will the Thai generals, the Democrat Party fascists and the monarchy network all suddenly embrace democracy and allow accountable civilian rule to take root?

Of course not. And it would only be the most delusional naif who would think that is the case. 

Thailand's present crisis is rooted in a long-term political and historical struggle and can only be analysed via that prism not via the social media marketing strategies of those who want to sell their latest book however well-intentioned they might be.

Arguing that "Succession" is the ultimate crisis in Thailand would be like a bunch of chickens debating the importance of which kind of predator is coming to devour them. Ultimately, the "Succession" crisis is meaningless when the wider context of power is considered. In effect, the real crisis is not a "Succession Crisis" but a "Democracy Crisis".

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers and do believe the Succession is a genuine crisis for certain groups in Thailand but, in my view, believe that pushing the debate into this one determining direction will ultimately deny the opportunity for a wider analysis to take place and for the answers to Thailand's crisis to be found.

Wikileaks Reveals Human Rights Watch As Supporters of Illegal Thai Army Coup

 With the strong smell of a coup or other Thai military engagement wafting through the air in Bangkok it seems apt to remind readers of Human Rights Watch's position on the last coup in Thailand in 2006.

In October 2006 Sunai Phasuk, HRW's Thai researcher, visited the US Embassy and made a number of astonishing comments to the assembled embassy staff which they recorded for posterity and which were then later released by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and Wikileaks.

HRW's secret support for an illegal military coup

In the cable dated October 17th 2006 Phasuk makes clear his support for an illegal military coup which overthrew not only a democratically elected government but also abrogated Thailand's 1997 Constitution (consider the most democratic in Thailand's history) by saying 

As a staunch anti-Thaksin activist [Phasuk] was initially relieved to see the Thaksin administration forced out. 

Reading further into the cable Phasuk also engages in an astonishing and shameless piece of Thai Political Doublespeak by claiming that a military coup designed to terminate democracy was actually an attempt to "restore democracy". 

In addition Phasuk also expresses his loyalty and admiration for the Thai Army - which is extraordinary give the 17 previous coups and massacres they'd been directly involved in, and never mind the massacre at Tak Bai the Thai Army had played a huge part in and which had occurred only two years earlier.

The cable states that Phasuk

emphasized that he was close to many officers and, in fact, taught many of them in his capacity as a guest lecturer at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy and the Royal Thai Air Force Academy.  He said that he had always held the military in high regard for their sense of honor and dedication to the country.

Of course none of Phasuk's secret fawning admiration for the Thai military, his obvious politicisation, his abandonment of the rule of law, his support for those attacking democracy and his bogus claims to being "neutral" have ever been questioned by one single member of Bangkok's international media. 

Yet that same media are more than happy to continue quoting Phasuk as though he is some credible, impartial source rather than the pro-coup phoney that he appears to be.

I guess Bangkok's international media corps prefer an easy life to actually pursuing the truth. Penthouse flats, maids and swimming pools to maintain.

We can only speculate on the latter.

The Insidious and Dangerous "Neutrality" of Thailand's Foreign Correspondent Club

"When a Western journalist interviews us, however, it is seldom done to render us service. In the war in Algeria, for example, the most liberal-minded French reporters make constant use of ambiguous epithets to portray our struggle. When we reproach them for it, they reply in all sincerity they are being objective. For the colonized subject, objectivity is always directed against him." - Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth

There’s something insidious about Bangkok’s Foreign Correspondent Club Thailand. With its bogus claims of “neutrality/objectivity” and its tacit support of the worst excesses of the Thai establishment it attempts to create a “consensus” of what is “acceptable” and “bonafide” journalism.

The FCCT’s “bonafide” “neutral” journalism, in short, accepted the imprisonment of Thai journalists and activists Somyot Prusakasemsuk and Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul under Thailand’s draconian lese majeste law without so much as raising its voice. This acceptance of one of the most brutal forms of repression in the Thai establishment’s arsenal is, of course, very very far from neutral. It does, in fact, support this repression and sides with the powerful forces that  implement this law’s vicious outcomes. 

Yet, whilst the FCCT’s neutrality is both bogus and ethically suspect its reasoning for doing so is dangerous and actually a direct attack on Thai press and media freedoms.

The reason Somyot and Daranee were abandoned by the FCCT was because they were not considered “bonafide” or “neutral” journalists. They were not considered “neutral” because they held views that were anti-establishment and therefore, according to the FCCT, they were no longer considered “bonafide” journalists.

The FCCT’s faux neutral position is NOTHING to do with journalism or a free press. 

A free press champions a diverse and pluralistic range of opinions, positions and politics.

A free press holds the powerful to account and challenges dominance.

It does not hide behind “neutrality” when press freedoms are threatened in the draconian fashion they are in Thailand. It takes a principled position.

As for “political neutrality” being a requisite for "bonafide journalism" - what on earth does that mean?

One of the greatest journalists and writers of the 20th Century, George Orwell, was very far from “politically neutral” and took up weapons to fight the fascists in Spain.

If Orwell was working in Thailand today and had the misfortune of being imprisoned the “neutral” journalists of the FCCT would abandon him to his fate and, no doubt, claim Mr Orwell wasn’t “bonafide” because he dared to express his political convictions.

According to the FCCT holding and expressing a political view means you are no longer a “bonafide” journalist and, therefore, the establishment is free to do what it wants with you.  

And it gets worse. These days the journalists and members of the FCCT spend their time attacking those bloggers, writers and commentators who suggest that the Thai establishment be held to account. Well-known FCCT members, right up to the executive, have openly embraced expat racists connected to the Thai Army on social media, refusing, point-blank to condemn activities which have included stalking family members of non-FCCT "approved" journalists and commentators. 

The campaign of intimidation and harassment that FCCT members engage in on social media against dissenting voices and the closing down of the debate to a narrow set of “approved” and “bonafide” views shows how little the members and the executive of the FCCT understand what freedom of expression actually means.

There is no pluralism or alternative at the FCCT. There is only “neutrality” which, in the face of some of the worst censorship laws on earth, can only ever be taken as connivance.

Asia Provocateur on the Keiser Report

I was invited onto RT's Keiser Report this week to talk about the protests in Thailand.

Watch the following video from about 12mins 45secs to see me. 

Gone Missing – the failures of Western media reporting of the 2013 Thai Crisis

As some of my readers know I’ve long been critical of the Western media’s reporting of the ongoing Thai political crisis. Yesterday I blogged a piece outlining some of the Doublespeak terms usually produced by Abhisit Vejjajiva and the other elements of the “Democrat” Party-led anti-democracy movement. It’s my view that the Western media use some of these terms without investigation, analysis or critique thereby presenting and distributing a codified form of language that gravitates towards a Democrat Party-led narrative on some of the key issues affecting Thailand’s political crisis.

This post is an attempt to further unpack some of the other assumed “neutral” positions of the Western media and also some of the events and news items editorialised out by the journalists and reporters working for the Western media in Bangkok.

As this is just a first draft and I’m quite busy I’ll be adding in weblinks later on that relate to each matter listed here. I should also add that if people have sources that contradict my comments please let me know.

This is about Thaksin versus the Bangkok elites.

Such an oversimplified analysis that fails to take into account decades of political struggle, a pro-democracy movement stretching back to the 1930s and its subsequent brutal suppression supported, almost without equivocation, by the USA and other foreign governments. Thaksin’s rise is a very recent phenomena yet the ever-present are the Bangkok elites/networks and their allies in the Thai Army. This simplistic analysis also avoids recognising and evaluating the agency of ordinary Thai people.

This is just about anti-government protesters versus pro-government supporters.

I find this analysis not only simplistic but an insidious use of language that is encoded with a subtext of “resistance” to authority that is not really present in this instance. The better description would be, in my view, anti-democracy agitators or rioters versus pro-democracy activists. Whilst the Red Shirts – the group clumsily termed “pro-government” by the Western media – are broadly supportive of the democratically elected Pheu Thai government and Thaksin Shinawatra that support is very clearly conditional. For example the amnesty bill that supposedly sparked the recent Democrat Party-led riots was widely attacked and derided by the Red Shirts including many of their leading figures.

Yingluck’s 11year old son being harassed by Democrat Partysupporters.

As far as I’m aware not one single Western media source has given this any attention. It’s hard to fathom out why this isn’t newsworthy as it has been widely covered in the Thai language media and confirmed by the school itself. Very poor.

The disappearance of Thai fascist leader Suthep Thagsuban’s past.

Some reports, most notably by the Guardian’s Kate Hodal, appeared to conveniently forget that Suthep has been implicated in several corruption scandals, was disbarred from being an MP and has been charged with the murder of unarmed pro-democracy Red Shirt protesters in 2010. I found it simply astonishing that Hodal wasn’t able to avail herself of the most rudimentary facts regarding Suthep’s past and it appeared that the omission of these prominent facts was an effort to mislead the Guardian’s readership.

Almost complete failure to report very violent night-timeattack on 2nd December by Democrat Party supporters and Thai Blackshirts on Government House.

Our monitoring on that evening seemed to suggest there was not ONE Western journalist during this night-time attack which was possibly the most violent riot instigated by the Democrat Party Blackshirts since the protest began. [After receiving an email from Swedish journalist, Michael Topffer, it transpires he was there during these riots but he also appears to confirm that no other major international media outlet had a presence there - see Addendum below.] Also our monitoring revealed that there was a strong likelihood that Democrat Party activists were on the ground organising the riots. A complete failure by the Western media on this occasion.

That of the 5 reported deaths so far 4 are at the hands of the Democrat’s violent and fascistic Blackshirts and include 3 pro-democracy activists and one completely innocent 17year old burned to death in a bus.

The lack of reporting of this seems wilful and deliberately misleading. It’s simply astonishing the Western media have failed to report this adequately.

In the run up to the riots over the weekend of the 30th November/1^st December  there were a number of well-documented and very violent attacks on single pro-democracy Red Shirt activists by gangs of Democrat Party Blackshirts.

We monitored the reports being put out by the Western media up to the weekend of the 30th November/1^st December and could find no reference to ANY of the attacks by gangs of Democrat Party Blackshirts on pro-democracy activists despite there being more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation by journalists and reporters. These attacks included stabbings, beatings and very sinister cases of vigilantism where Democrat Party fanatics intimidated and threatened ordinary Red Shirts making them strip their clothing off and swear allegiance to certain persons. This is all missing from Western media reports.

The “students” attacking the pro-democracy activists were clearly infiltrated and mobilised by Democrat Party Blackshirt thugs with many of the “students” openly aligning themselves with the Blackshirts.

There was an attempt to portray the “students” as some de-politicised force inadvertently caught up in the protest. That was and is a complete fabrication. 



Addendum 

I received this email from Michael Topffer, a Bangkok-based Swedish reporter. I thought it was important to add his comments. I'll happily add any other response from any other Western journalist is they email me at asiaprovocateur@gmail.com

Hi, I saw your blogpost about failures of Western Media on Thai crisis
If you include Sweden in your view of the Western media I can say this:
Regarding the night of Dec 2nd, I was there, covering this for my paper Expressen. As far as I know, I was the only Western reporter there. BBC was there until around 10pm, I was there until 1am. It was exteremly violent. I gave a live report for our web-tv at 00:30 and had an article about the attack in the next day's paper.
Regarding Suthep's dubious past, I have reported it on many occasions, both for Expressen and for Swedish Public Radio, to which I contribute.
Regarding the whistleblowers at Yingluck's son, there were many conflicting reports as to what had happened, and by the time it was confiremd it was - in my view - already old. Besides, this was just a very small detail. I probably wouldn't have reported it anyway. After all, they were just blowing whistles.
I can't recall ever simplifying the crisis down to claiming that this is about Thaksin vs Elite.
Cheers,
Michael TopfferCorrespondent, ExpressenBangkok

Human Rights Watch Thailand - confused or lying for Abhisit?

Yesterday the inquest into the death of Italian photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi - which happened during the Bangkok Massacre 2010 - concluded and found that he’d been shot by military bullets fired from positions then occupied by the Thai Army.

The inquest stopped short of actually naming the Thai Army as Fabio’s murderers – something which seems a bit bizarre given that on the balance of probability it clearly points to Thai Army involvement.

The Bangkok Post also published a piece on the inquest’s findings and gave a quote from Human Rights’ Watch Thai researcher and representative, Sunai Phasuk, where he seemed to be defending the Abhisit-led regime which had ordered the troops onto Bangkok’s streets in 2010, actions which ultimately led to Fabio's death.

Sunai is quoted as saying

According to Human Rights Watch's research, there was no order given to shoot unarmed civilians

Yet, strangely, only 12 days earlier on May 17th, Human Rights Watch published a lengthy report entitled Thailand: Deliver Justice for 2010 Political Violence where they state, in paragraph 6

 It is unknown what orders were given by political authorities to the army

 I’ve since written to Sunai and asked him to explain this very obvious contradiction. No doubt he won’t as he is unaccountable and sees no reason to ever explain his actions.

But he has been clearly caught out on this occasion.

So which is it? Is Sunai lying for Abhisit or is he just a bit confused?

Abhisit Vejjajiva - proving once again he leads the political wing of the Thai Army

Abhisit Vejjajiva recently gave a rambling, bizarre interview to the Bangkok Post. His interviewer, the incomprehensible arch-Democrat Party stooge, Voranai Vanijaka - a writer who opined during the violence of 2010 that "this rebellion" must be put "crushed" and who has voiced support for Thailand's lese majeste laws - fails to ask too much of his hero and fails to question Abhisit's obvious lies, mis-truths and obfuscations. If you read the interview you would think Abhisit wasn't even in Bangkok when he gave the orders for the Thai Army to open fire on unarmed civilians, such is his abdication of any kind of responsibility. 

But the pick of the bunch of Abhisit's very obvious lies was this 

The military has always acted according to the rulings of the court and under the constitution, just as they did in all actions carried out in 2010.

 Does Abhisit take everyone for idiots? Has he forgotten that the Thai Army has engaged in several massacres over the years, that they've done so with complete impunity, that they've abrogated constitution after constitution and expelled Thailand's democratically chosen leaders via illegal coup d'etats time after time? Has he also forgotten the big pile of dead Thai civilians in 2010, including unarmed women, children and medical staff like Nurse Kade, most of whom were almost certainly shot by the Thai Army, and all entirely innocent? 

Maybe Abhisit lives on a different planet to the rest of us. Maybe he has become so confused and bewildered by his own concoction of lies that he no longer has any meaningful grip of reality. And maybe stooge journalists like Voranai and the rag he writes for - the Democrat Party/Abhisit-family-linked Bangkok Post - are still bewitched by the fading good looks of the Butcher of Bangkok and the tales he tells. 

Luckily the Thai people have enough good sense to see through Abhisit's lies. That's why they will continue to reject him and his party at the ballot box no matter how much PR Voranai and the Bangkok Post engage in. 

Coup talk update as Thai fascists launch the “Thai Spring” to overthrow democracy

In the days since Thai PM Yingluck made her impressive commitment to democracy in her recent speech at the Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia the reaction of the Thai extreme-rightwing and neo-fascists has reached new heights of hysterical absurdity. 

Led by prominent Thai fascist, Vasit Dejkunjorn - a man noted for his violent opposition to democracy – a new group has emerged calling themselves “Thai Spring”. Thai Spring's "position" is that the massively popular PM Yingluck, who won a huge landslide general election victory in 2011 is "not a responsible representative of the Thai people at all". It’s not certain what the group will amount to but they have launched an online petition that, so far, has attracted support from 0.028% of the Thai population. If they can’t even get people to turn out online it’s hard to view them as any other than a farcical joke. 

That’s not to say Vasit’s group don’t represent dangerous anti-democratic undercurrents in Thailand. Of that we can be certain. 

A well-placed government source recently told this blog that serious elements in the Thai Army have made substantial coup-preparations. However, these preparations have stalled on two counts. The first is a failure to identify credible political leadership within the military who could lead a post-coup junta government. The second is that the army are also concerned that they will meet serious resistance from the Thai population – something that could easily escalate very quickly. 

The generals are also concerned by the likely reaction of the international community. Abhisit, who is clearly chomping at the bit to be “returned” to his previous undemocratically assumed position of Thai PM, is now a busted flush internationally with most media commentators seeing through the Butcher of Bangkok’s carefully contrived act. The military leadership would likely maintain other concerns regarding the International Criminal Court and the fact that their counterparts in places like Argentina are now dying in prison. 

With the army likely to remain in the barracks for now my sources tell me that the government are more worried about an attempt to stage a "judicial coup" wherein the Constitutional Court dissolve the democratically elected party of government and ban its leaders. Such a strategy by the Thai elite is likely to be met with very stiff resistance from the Thai population equal to that which might be staged should the military attempt a take-over.

So, in summary, no Army coup for now but the military still view themselves as beyond normal democratic control. The rule of law isn’t staying their hand but the simple fact that this time they might actually lose. And badly. They may, however, attempt to enforce the decisions of the Constitutional Court should the democratically elected government choose to ignore them. Such a situation would be tantamount to a military coup in all but name. 

Why did Human Rights Watch in Thailand pass my details to the US authorities?

Back in 2011 I had preview access to an as yet unreleased Wikileaks cable that included reference to a Human Rights Watch staff member making possible lese majeste comments.

At that time I had been critical of a number of things HRW had done, including Brad Adams' appalling claims at a meeting at the UK Parliament, but felt I was still sympathetic to their work in Thailand. I therefore privately warned Human Rights Watch about this matter as I felt it may leave their staff member open to possible legal threat.

What I also discovered in that cable was that Human Rights Watch made a statement that indicated they had refused to defend Thai trade unionist, Jittra Kotchadet, against lese majeste charges.

Screen grab of email from HRW admitting they passed my details to US Embassy

Whilst making it very clear that I would not be making any of the contents of the cable public - something that I never did with Wikileaks themselves putting all the cables in the public domain later in 2011 - I asked HRW to explain why they were adopting a public stance of condemning lese majeste but then taking another position in secret.

Despite several emails and phone calls to HRW staff members they never responded and never clarified the discrepancy between their public and private positions.

I was then astonished to find, several months later, that my questions to HRW regarding lese majeste were being circulated by a Bangkok Post journalist after they had received information from a US Embassy staffer that basically amounted to a smear campaign against me.

I contacted HRW's head office in the USA and asked them to explain. In response I received an accusatory, aggressive and threatening phone call from HRW's rather unpleasant legal advisor, Dinah Pokempnor.

Yet even Ms Pokempnor knew I had caught HRW and she sent me a mealy-mouthed and quite pathetic excuse as to why HRW breached all the rules of confidentiality and passed my details to the US Embassy.

Upon being notified by you that unredacted US Embassy cables leaked to Wikileaks mentioned one of our researchers, we contacted the  embassy to ask if we could ascertain the contents of these cables. The embassy asked us how we knew that there were such cables, and we told them you had alerted us.  

 Anyone coming into contact with HRW people in Bangkok, staff members such as Sunai Phasuk, Brad Adams or Phil Robertson,  should be warned - they cannot be trusted and may pass on your details to state agencies and other authorities with links to the Thai military without your knowledge or your permission. 

Did Brad Adams and Human Rights Watch in Thailand lie about the Red Shirts?

This following article was originally published by Asia Sentinel but was censored by them.

In early 2011, less than a year after the terrible violence that shook Bangkok - violence which occurred after the unelected Thai PM, Abhisit Vejjajiva, sent armed soldiers against unarmed pro-democracy Red Shirt protesters - Human Rights Watch Asia Director, Brad Adams, popped up at a meeting held in the UK Parliament.

There Adams accused the Red Shirts of starting the fires that engulfed small parts of downtown Bangkok – many of which began only after the Thai Army had moved into and secured the areas where the fires occurred.

Adams was emphatic as he spoke to British lawmakers stating, without equivocation, that

 “There was a plan to burn Bangkok and that was executed by the Red Shirts”

(see this youtube clip from 1min 35secs - the date at the beginning is wrong, it should say 2011 not 2001).

HRW Brad Adams speaking at meeting at UK Parliament

 Yet, as has since transpired, Adams had no firm evidence to back up his claims and that he deliberately distorted the truth in order to keep in place what appears to have been HRW’s own, secret, anti-Thaksin – and by proxy – anti-Red Shirt agenda. Of course the consequences of Adams’ misrepresentations had a real-life impact on the human rights of ordinary, innocent Thais who’d only been attempting to secure the kind of democratic rights Adams himself enjoys in his home country, the USA.

 As yet, despite almost three years of investigation and 100s of arrests, not one single Red Shirt has been found guilty of setting fire to any buildings in Bangkok (some Red Shirts, based on flimsy evidence, have been found guilty of arson by single judge, no jury, courts in other parts of Thailand - but these cases are now under appeal) and, more recently, two Red Shirts accused of setting the largest of the fires at the Central World shopping centre have been found completely innocent of all charges related to that act. These individuals were, however, held in prison for almost 3years, stripped of their basic dignity and rights and their families suffered great hardship as a result.

 So why the silence from Adams? Surely he should now apologise directly to the accused given that he had publicly attempted to pass off unsubstantiated unproven allegations as fact, thereby abusing his position as a trusted source on human rights matters? Why wasn’t Adams able to allow the Red Shirts to be judged solely on the actual evidence placed before a court? Has he never heard of sub-judice and prejudice? Or does a right to have a trial free from such prejudice only apply to those Adams deems fit? Adams false comments  to the British parliament must go down as an appalling abuse of office by an international human rights director and he must be held accountable for that. Or, at the bare minimum, exposed to the full glaring light of the truth.

 HRW’s record in Thailand is questionable at best and disgraceful at worst. The Wikileaks cables revealed HRW’s Thai staff to be self-confessed anti-Thaksin activists, who supported the illegal 2006 coup and who refused to support Thai trade unionists being harassed with Thailand’s draconian lese majeste laws. Wikileaks also revealed the close contact between the US mission in Thailand and HRW (the US have long supported, armed and provided intelligence and training to the most extreme rightwing elements of the coup/massacre-loving Thai Army) with HRW staffers visiting the US embassy on over 60 occasions.   

 When you add in Adams’ disingenuous and deliberate misrepresentations then you have to question why Adams is still in post. He, ultimately, is also responsible for the shameful behaviour of HRW in Thailand and given that his actions have been part of the mood music that diminished the basic human rights of ordinary Thais the only honourable thing is for Adams to resign. That, however, is doubtful - Adams is more likely to have further falsehoods to distribute and trials to prejudice in the future. In the meantime those interested in protecting human rights in Thailand and Asia would do well to be suspicious of the motives of HRW's regional director.

In the video of Adams speaking at the UK Parliament he states that "we should go after everybody and not take sides". Unfortunately the Wikileaks cables reveal that HRW almost certainly DID take sides and that's why, ultimately, anyone seeking the truth must go after HRW as well. It was in this spirit that this article was written.