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." 

Hugging Fascists - The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand's Fake "Neutrality"

In 2011 one of the UK's most respected journalists was in Bangkok on an assignment. During the course of that assignment he happened to visit Bangkok's well-known Foreign Correspondents' Club Thailand (FCCT).

"This place is nothing to do with journalism," he said. "It's just about PR."

The Spanish Civil War got George Orwell. Bangkok 2014 got Jonathan Head.

Fast-forward a couple of years and Thai journalist, political activist and trade unionist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, has just received a lengthy prison sentence for being the editor of a magazine that contained an article which was deemed to make allegorical references to the Thai King which were also deemed to commit the crime of "lese majeste". 

The FCCT made no statement of condemnation regarding Somyot's imprisonment. In fact, well-known FCCT members took to social media and publicly attacked Somyot stating that he is "not a real journalist" because he is "biased" and has "political affiliations". 

Earlier this year (2014) the FCCT made a further statement about "neutrality" with the clear message that the only "journalists" they consider "bonafide" are the ones that meet their "neutrality" test. It's a truly cowardly and pathetic position to adopt that undoes a very noble history of foreign correspondents - e.g. George Orwell in the Spanish Civil War - opposing the kind of fascism and totalitarianism that is very obviously on the march in Thailand. 

In 2014 the FCCT also elected a new President, the BBC's Jonathan Head, a man who breached any ethical guidelines by admitting he "hugged" an activist of the violent Thai fascist PDRC mob and who also asked questions on behalf of fully-paid up members of the fascist-supporting Thai Democrat Party. When I questioned Mr Head about these matters he then sent me abusive and intimidating emails, something for which his bosses at BBC News were forced to apologise for.

And now, after another attack on Nick Nostitz, one of the few foreign journalists in Bangkok willing to speak out against the rise of fascism in Thailand, the FCCT issue a quite extraordinary response claiming that violent attacks by the PDRC have "not been reported". 

Now, let's be clear, and I'll put this in caps THE ONLY REASON THAT THE VIOLENT ATTACKS BY THE PDRC HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED IS BECAUSE BANGKOK'S FOREIGN MEDIA CORPS HAVE IGNORED THEM. 

Their have been literally hundreds of violent attacks by PDRC thugs on ordinary Bangkokians over the last six months. These attacks have included murder, attempted murder, stabbings, beatings, shootings and arson. They've been very WIDELY REPORTED IN THE THAI PRESS. Yet, strangely enough, they've received scant attention from the Thai English-language press, the foreign media corps in Bangkok and the English blogging and social media community. I've picked up on a few but it gets to feeling like you're banging your head on a brick wall when, as a single lonely blogger, you report this stuff and then get routinely accused of "bias" by the same FCCT members who are now lamenting the "under-reporting" of these violent attacks.

Look, FCCT lackeys, this is simple, read  Martin Niemöller's very famous and well-known "First They Came... " quotation, which I've re-edited into a Bangkok foreign correspondent version below... 

"First they came for the Red Shirts, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Red Shirt.

Then they came for lese majeste victim's Somyot and Da Torpedo, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a lese majeste victim (and wanted to keep my media visa)

Then they came for a poor, "uneducated" Thai voter, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a poor, "uneducated" Thai voter (they make for very good maids though).

Then they came for me - and there was no-one left to speak for me."

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.

Terror, Human Shields, Lies and the BBC

Most people who read this blog or follow me on other social media know that I make my sympathy for Thailand's Red Shirt explicit. I believe that the Red Shirts represent, in the broadest terms, a movement committed to democracy and political rights for all Thais.

What I have no sympathy for whatsoever are acts of terrorism - and the attacks on the PDRC rallies which resulted in the deaths of several children can only be defined as such. 

Thai children on the barricades at a PDRC rally

Regardless of their political affiliation I hope the perpetrators of these vicious acts are arrested and thrown into prison for a very very long time. To equivocate about this reveals no commitment to any kind of progressive or democratic values whatsoever. Firing semi-automatic weapons or grenades into areas where there are unarmed civilians is the kind of thing we've come to expect from Abhisit, Suthep and the Thai Army, not the Red Shirts - one reason why my mind is still very much open as to who committed these acts of terror.

After the terrorist attacks at Ratchaprasong yesterday I tweeted that the PDRC have been using children and families as human shields. I re-emphasised this by stating that the PDRC are using children and families as human shields as a systematic policy. I stand by this.

I was very quickly condemned for tweeting these comments and was accused by persons clearly supportive of the PDRC of colluding with the murder of children. 

Yet it is abundantly clear the PDRC have deliberately and systematically used families and children as "cover" for their rallies, creating events that would attract families into these rallies, wherein the PDRC leaders then engage in routine and repeated hate speech and calls to violence. 

Violent often drunk PDRC guards also patrol the barricades and fringes of these rallies and extort, beat, attack and even torture those whom they deem deserve such treatment. 

After engaging in such actions these "guards" then disappear back into the "family friendly" areas, knowing that the authorities will not risk a fire fight near so many unarmed families and children that may result from pursuing the "guards".

There are literally 100s of photos of children at PDRC protests. There have been images of the children adorned in PDRC regalia sat on the barricades, images of children who've obviously been in the frontline of the protests dealing with the after effects of tear gas, images of children seemingly acting as "close protection" for noted Thai fascist, Suthep Thuagsuban and even video clips of very young Thai children dressed in PDRC garb singing fascist fighting songs.

There is no doubt at all that the PDRC have placed children at the centre of their political struggle. Given Suthep's noted recklessness regarding human life - in 2010 he said that children and Red Shirts who died after troops he'd ordered onto Bangkok's street shot them had "run into the bullets" - I think it is reasonable to assume he has no problem with this. After all Suthep can always run back to one of his luxury hotels when the bullets start flying.

Yesterday UNICEF brought a blast of reason into this terrible series of events and demanded that ALL children be forbidden from attending the PDRC rallies. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Violent fascist rallies are no place for kids - only a dangerous and reckless idiot would think otherwise.

And only someone who is as morally and ethically bankrupt as those terrorists who attacked the PDRC would deny that the PDRC are deliberately placing kids and families in harm's way. 

And for some reason the BBC's Jonathan Head decided to propagate a lie yesterday and claimed, completely falsely, that the children killed at Ratchaprasong were not attending the protest. 

Why he did this - why he failed to do even the most basic work of a journalist and report the facts, however uncomfortable those facts may be - is a question I've asked him but he's refused to answer. Head is shaping up to be a perfect President for the obsequious FCCT.

Let's look at the facts. There's no doubt that the children who died at Ratchaprasong were dressed in PDRC garb and were also behind the rally barricades when they died. There are numerous video clips and photographs that proves that beyond all reasonable doubt (sorry, but I'm not sharing clips of dead children here - you can search and find them yourself).

Yes, to some it may be distasteful to point these facts out. Those same people may also question these facts' relevance to a terrorist attack. 

There may be some basis to that distaste - I understand why someone might find it difficult to read such truths after such a tragedy.

But surely knowingly lying about these tragic events is far far worse.

Those commenting on and analysing Thailand's present crisis must aim for truths however uncomfortable they are. 

There is no place for children at the PDRC rallies. They are not "family friendly" places, there are no "family zones" and to claim these vicious, violent rallies are anything other than fascist hate festivals is a disgraceful and disgusting lie. 

It's time to end the falsehoods about the PDRC rallies that are being circulated by Jonathan Head, PDRC supporting-expats and the PDRC leadership themselves.

Like UNICEF have made clear - the PDRC rallies are not child-friendly places.

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?