[continued from above]

This incident, on civil society’s side, had nothing to do with ‘closed doors and secret handshakes’, as Awzar Thi claims.

The APF representatives were not ‘rights diplomats [who] fear to speak out because they might step on officials’ toes or risk their status with fellow diplomats’. They were representatives who were ready to speak but prevented from doing so.

Nor was there any question, with respect to this incident, of ‘a pattern in the selectiveness and omission of issues to fight for’ that could lead to charges of ‘bias and partiality’ as Acharn Thongchai notes.

Awzar Thi is correct in saying that the APF was ‘suckered’ in that they attempted to operate by principles of openness and transparency and their supposed interlocutors did not. Awzar Thi argues that this deserves no sympathy; Danthong Breen thinks their choice of action is to be respected even if he does not agree with it.