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.

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. 

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?

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.