Thailand: Act to Bring Justice for 2010 Violence

Independent Commission Finds Both Sides Responsible, Urges Accountability

(New York, September 22, 2012) – The Thai government should act on the findings of an independent inquiry and prosecute all those responsible for rights abuses during the 2010 political violence, Human Rights Watch said today.

The report of the independent Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) is Thailand’s first ever independent inquiry of political violence that detailed violence and abuses committed by state security forces and opposition “Red Shirts.”

The TRCT report, released on September 17, 2012, concluded that excessive and unnecessary lethal force by the Thai army and armed elements among the protesters were responsible for at least 90 deaths and more than 2,000 injuries during political confrontations from March to May 2010. Human Rights Watch found in its May 2011 report “Descent into Chaos” that both government security officials and elements of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), including the “Black Shirts,” were responsible for the violence, though the government forces were responsible for the large majority of deaths and injuries. The TRCT urged the government to “address legal violations of all parties through [the] justice system, which must be fair and impartial.”

“The TRCT report should end once and for all the denials by all sides about who was responsible for the deaths and destruction of property during the 2010 political violence,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It is clear that high-ranking figures on each side were to blame, and now it is up to the government to prosecute all those responsible, regardless of political affiliation or position.”

The police and the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) found strong evidence that soldiers were implicated in at least 36 of the 92 deaths during the 2010 political violence. On September 17, 2012, the Bangkok Criminal Court ruled in a post-mortem inquest that UDD supporter Phan Khamkong was shot and killed by soldiers during a military operation near Bangkok’s Ratchaprarop Airport Link station on the night of May 14, 2010.

While failing to provide the names of those responsible for abuses, the commission presented substantive findings backed by forensic evidence and testimonies of witnesses and victims showing that high numbers of casualties among unarmed demonstrators, volunteer medics, reporters, photographers, and bystanders occurred in the government’s designated “live fire zones” around the protest sites in Bangkok.

The commission said that the joint civilian-military Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) – established by then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and chaired by then Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban – authorized security forces to use war weapons and live ammunition in military operations to contain and disperse the protests without sufficient measures to monitor and control the use of lethal force.

The TRCT also found that heavily armed “Black Shirt” elements connected to the UDD were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians. The findings, however, did not provide details about the identity and command structure of these militants. In addition, the commission examined incidents in which “Red Shirt” guards and supporters committed violence. The report also found some UDD leaders incited violence with inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, including urging their supporters to riot, carry out arson attacks, and loot.

Under domestic and international pressure, Abhisit’s government established the TRCT in July 2010 to investigate the causes and consequences of the political violence and make recommendations for action. The current government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has repeatedly and publicly vowed support for the TRCT and promised to consider its findings.

However, both governments have politicized the justice process, Human Rights Watch said. The Abhisit government summarily charged hundreds of UDD protesters with serious criminal offenses, but at the same time failed to file charges against any government officials or military personnel.

The Yingluck government, which has the backing of the UDD, has taken a similarly one-sided approach, focusing criminal investigations primarily on cases in which soldiers were implicated while dismissing evidence of violence by the “Black Shirts.”

Immediately after the release of the TRCT report, the UDD leadership and their supporters, including those holding positions in the government and the parliament, emerged in large numbers to dismiss the TRCT findings and assert that there were no armed elements within the UDD. These assertions were made despite the fact that incidents of “Black Shirt” violence, and violence committed by some UDD protesters, were captured on videotape and in photos and widely reported at the time by witnesses.

On August 16, 2012, the army commander-in-chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha told the DSI to stop accusing soldiers of having killed UDD protesters and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Rather than order General Prayuth to end his interference in the criminal investigations, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung announced on the same day that soldiers would be treated as witnesses in the investigations and that they would be fully protected from criminal prosecution. Under pressure, this position has since been adopted by the DSI.

“While politicians and military officers involved in the 2010 violence spend their time trying to ensure they are immune from prosecution, the victims and their families are denied justice,” said Adams.

For decades in Thailand, the concept of “reconciliation” has been promoted not to bring communities together, but to protect powerful politicians and military leaders from being held accountable for wrongdoing. In the name of “reconciliation” there were no independent investigations into the crackdowns on students and pro-democracy protesters in 1973 and 1976, which led to the deaths of well over 100 people. The complete findings of a government inquiry into the bloody 1992 repression of protesters calling for an end to military rule have never been released. In each of these cases, in the name of “reconciliation,” amnesty was given to those responsible for abuses.

Human Rights Watch warned that the push for a new National Reconciliation Bill by the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners may become a convenient device for denying justice to victims of human rights abuses. Early drafts of that bill contain a proposal for a broad amnesty for leaders and supporters of all political movements, politicians, government officials, and members of the security forces involved in the 2010 violence.

The TRCT report warned that amnesty should not be rushed and should not be the ultimate objective of reconciliation. It concluded that the principle of justice must be taken into account to address the needs of victims and affected persons, accountability of perpetrators, and encouragement that perpetrators provide reparations and publicly take responsibility for their actions.

“Impunity has long been institutionalized in Thailand, with each side protecting their own while paying little regard for justice,” said Adams. ”The TRCT findings should serve as an important encouragement for the victims of violence and their families to oppose attempts by politicians and military leaders to whitewash deadly abuses.”

Comments

Part 1 HRW have refused to

Part 1

HRW have refused to have their own evidence scrutinised and in their original report relied solely on accounts from the army and CRES as "evidence" of the existence of the "Men in Black."

For example their account of events on April 10th doesn't contain any evidence from the Red Shirts or protesters. This alone should render HRW questionable at the very least.

At one point the HRW report also contains accounts that are more than dubious. In one statement used by HRW a foreign journalist who witnessed the "Men in Black" in action in April/May 2010 says "I was too far back to see the Black Shirts." Yet somehow he also claims "The Black Shirts were ahead of them, attacking".

It's laughable and wouldn't get past a high-school student never mind a court.

Then we have the HRW's claims of links between the UDD and the Men in Black. There is no evidence at all to prove this. Just a few photos and the kinds of statements from witnesses who don't actually see any Men in Black. Once again it would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high.

HRW's statements that one only side are being prosecuted is also accurate. But so inept and so politicised are HRW they couldn't even name it correctly.

There was only one side subjected to mass arrest, beatings and torture in April/May 2010 and it wasn't the Army. For HRW to fail to mention this is simply astonishing.

HRW, to their great shame, continue to come up increasingly convoluted lies about what happened in 2010.

I accuse them, directly, of being part of a cover-up of the deaths of unarmed civilians.

Part 2 I also call HRW out on

Part 2

I also call HRW out on their evidence - why does it ignore all the accounts, several by foreign journalists, that state, explicitly, that the Red Shirts were completely unarmed? Some of these accounts also state, explicitly, that UDD guards were desperately trying to avoid violence and marshall the protesters in peaceful ways. Why have TRCT and HRW never referred to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDPwpwr9G0&list=PL76C7CCDE06271998&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ooqoMSX3uc&feature=related

I can 100% guarantee HRW will never answer any questions about their evidence nor submit any of it to cross examination even by a mere blogger such as myself because they know, 100%, it would fall down within 5minutes.

They prefer to hide behind their "organisational reputation" like cowards refusing transparency and accountability.

It should be clearer to many now that HRW in Thailand are a part of the human rights problem.

Finally, what HRW, me, Pheu Thai or some politicised TRCT report believe is reconciliation is completely irrelevant.

The strongest voices to reject the TRCT report are the victims - without taking them into account, as HRW have arrogantly done here, will only lead to more conflict. There is no reconciliation process without them.

As an additional note to my

As an additional note to my comments above, it is utterly incredible that HRW fail to even note that the lead persons at the head of the TRCT report are avowed anti-Thaksinites, pro-yellow and deeply politicised. HRW also fail, completely, to mention that the TRCT's politicisation even extended to the use of PAD guards as evidence gatherers for the report.

But given how HRW staffers themselves, such as Sunai Phasuk, have previously, and secretly, supported the 2006 coup, expressed that they are "committed anti-Thaksin activists" and been linked, on several occasions, to the yellow shirts, it is no real surprise they fail to take into account the TRCT's obvious and flagrant lack of impartiality.

HRW's own falsely contrived impartiality is very very questionable in and of itself.

It's my view that anyone who is serious about human rights in Thailand must utterly reject HRW and call for the immediate resignation of Sunai Phasuk, Phil Robertson and Brad Adams, all of whom have lied about 2010 and who are participating in a cover-up of the murder of 90+ unarmed civilians.

Totally agree with Andrew's

Totally agree with Andrew's comments.Furthermore an obvious question arises when HRW ask: "ACT TO BRING JUSTICE FOR 2010 VIOLENCE" --- HOW !!! Because wasn't it Brad Adams who said "the military were backed by the palace" and who everyone knows had enjoyed inpunity for a long time.Then there is the BBC documentry that informed us that senior DSI investigators were being told to "blame the redshirts" on any death they could not prove was the fault of the army.But the real problem with HRW "call for justice" is how can you deliver justice when even HRW must admit there is a totally politicised judiciary waiting in in the wings,and aligned with the anti-red movement.HRW have got to come up with something better than this.

HRW are also attempting to

HRW are also attempting to marginalise any critical comment of the TRCT by stating

"Immediately after the release of the TRCT report, the UDD leadership and their supporters, including those holding positions in the government and the parliament, emerged in large numbers to dismiss the TRCT findings."

No, it is not just "UDD supporters" but the families of victims, commentators, academics etc etc.

To just dismiss criticism of the TRCT in this manner is disgraceful and reveals that HRW now see themselves as being in opposition to the UDD and the Red Shirts.

What they should've said was that they recognise cogent and well-founded criticisms of the TRCT exist within the Red Shirt movement, amongst the families of the dead and a wider audience rather that just dismissing any criticism out of hand.

HRW are stooges and part of the Yellow State Apparatus.

HRW have refused to have

HRW have refused to have their own evidence scrutinised and in their original report relied solely on accounts from the redshirts as "evidence" that the army killed redshirts.

For example their account of events on April 10th doesn't contain any evidence from the military or the persons that got killed. This alone should render HRW questionable at the very least.

_____________________________________________

Sometimes I think that the greatest enemy of progress towards equal rights in Thailand isn't the elites (like Thaksin et al). They just keep doing what they always have.

The greatest enemy today might well be the parochialism of many of the followers of the various factions. Who, in his right mind, can't but laugh at the bigots? This is what stalls progress.

And it is so so sad. As Thailand desperately needs to evolve and break free from the dark ages of feudalism and one-sided propaganda that never truly leads anywhere.

I think HRW is pretty much right on the money with their stand.

Buzz Wikileaks reveal that

Buzz

Wikileaks reveal that HRW secretly supported the 2006 coup, backed the generals, sought to advise the coup makers and also refused to help a trade unionist facing a possible LM charge because "it might infringe their ability to work as human rights' defenders".

So, yeah, you can carry on supporting that if you wish.

But don't claim it's in any way, shape or form a progressive or pro-democracy position.

Oh, as a pro democracy and

Oh, as a pro democracy and pro equal rights supporter I wholeheartedly support Sunais efforts.

The HRW were absolutely right in supporting Thaksins ousting.
And just as right in supporting a quick restoration of democracy.

Where they failed was in their judgment of the military.

The military (or rather.. the council) sees it as it's obligation to protect the country and it's protectors (it self). Therefore they consider it necessary to ensure that the military is above the law and that the military can control the political process.

This obviously contravenes the principles of democracy and one might criticize Sunai for being a bit naive.
And he was naive. As were some of the coup leaders that expected a different turnout.

Just as the Thaksinistas notorious hijack of democracy for a personal agenda - the instigators of the coup seemed to have hijacked the sentiments of the "back to democracy"-movement prior to the coup. Also for a different agenda then furthering the powers of the people.

But that doesn't mean that Sunais efforts and intentions were bad. They were quite the contrary it seems.

Buzz I don't have much

Buzz

I don't have much problem with Thaksin being removed from power.

But it has to be done democratically.

That option wasn't even considered or even attempted by the anti-Thaksin bloc in 2006. They wanted a coup.

And it's not that Sunai/HRW supported the coup. It's that they did so secretly. Publicly they said they didn't support it whilst, behind closed doors, they were even offering advice to the coup-makers.

Only sometimes hopefully

Only sometimes hopefully Buzz,..cause often the cause is those bullets they run into...

http://m.smh.com.au/world/is-

http://m.smh.com.au/world/is-it-ok-to-shoot-foreigners-and-journalists-20100521-w1ur.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html
From these witness accounts, unless we believe that these international journalists are deliberately making up articles, it is clear that:
(1) Elements of the red shirts were heavily armed and instigated violence against military and civilians.
(2) The military used snipers to eliminate suspected armed red shirts.

Hmmm. Maybe. Maybe

Hmmm. Maybe. Maybe not.

Reference item 1) Use of the word 'instigated' means that the red-shirts acted first, and yet there were apparently no soldier deaths apart from the few attributed to friendly fire. According to Prayuth, none of the 200,000-odd bullets fired by the army actually hit anyone, which is just bizarre and he should be ashamed for repeatedly claiming that. According to Suthep, the reds were stupid enough to run into the bullets that the army fired innocently into the air. Well. Either the reds must have pretty good eyesight or Suthep must be a liar and a moron. Personally I'll go with the latter as a working hypothesis.

My own experience of being in Bangkok at the time, is that the reds were overwhelmingly peaceful though angry. I never saw any weapons, men in black or hostility during several visits to Rajprasong. Again a pesonal opinion, but one for which there is some evidence, I believe that the so-called 'black shirts' were army, other agents provocateur or opposing factions. There is also evidence that at least some of the soldiers dressed in red shirts.

Reference item 2) With respect, this is just nonsense. No arms were recovered from dead redshirts and the video and anecdotal evidence that the army were targeting unarmed and peaceful people (eg sheltering at the wat), is overwhelming.

None so blind as those who decide not to see, and quoting articles that clearly fly in the face of the copious amounts of evidence to the contrary is just perverse and smacks of a cynical convenience.

Well Tom,I've looked at your

Well Tom,I've looked at your links for evidence and only got this: "They let us inside their secret world on one condition: if we took any pictures ,they would kill us."...So I really would have to see a bit more substantial evidence regarding a definate connection between the redshirts and men in black.Over the past two years we have seen similar posts to yours sharing a dozen links,then claiming this to be proof of redshirts and MIB,and most times I've clicked on them there has been dead links.Yes I've seen the BBC "gun fight",but also read that the military had already taken this area by that time.You know I could be wrong,so let me make it clear,I don't discount any theory,but I'm more inclined to believe that factions within the military may have took it upon themselves to hitch along with the redshirt movement.I don't know of these journalist's (Oliver Sarbill and Kenneth Todd Ruiz) and Asia Times reputation.Who they are backed by ect... but I have seen a growing number of vdo's and photo's of men wearing redshirts acting alongside the militatry,and even play-fighting for the cameras.I think it amazing Puea Thai can employ some extremely unsavory politicians,and therefore think anything is possible.But it still can not excuse Abhisit setting up a "life fire zone" and slaughtering totally innocent protesters then lying that "they only fired in self defence".

Let me add some more

Let me add some more hopefully interesting observations: A few months before the Ratchaprasong massacre,the Thai military visted Sri Lanka and returned singing the praises of how well the Sri Lankan government there dealt with their "insurgent problem".Asian Correspondent reported on this and asked if the Thai military were planning to use similar plans for the south of Thailand.As everyone now knows,what the Thai generals were praising was the efficiency of a massacre that was able (until Channel4 doc) to keep a massacre of 40,000 tamils relatively quiet and hidden from outside the country.The tactics they used (and what the Thai military were studying) involved the use of agent provocateurs and press dis-information,similar to what you saw in the Thai military report describing how the RTA sucessfully planted seeds of doubt in the publics mind with misinformation and covert operations.That is the context why I remain suspicious of each and every report the Abhisit/elite use as "proof".

For more context please read

For more context please read this: http://worldpress.org/Asia/3559.cfm

Tom Asia Times is owned by

Tom

Asia Times is owned by PAD leader Sondhi Lim.

That article is absolute garbage and is not even cited by PAD dems anymore.

I am aware of the ATimes.com

I am aware of the ATimes.com - Sonthi connection. But these journalists look real:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesgrandesoreilles.com%2Fmise-a-jour-le-photoreporter-olivier-sarbil-blesse-a-syrte-est-arrive-en-france-25049

http://search.wn.com/?results_type=videos&language_id=1&search_type=expression&search_string=reporterinexile&sort_type=-pub-datetime&template=cheetah-search-adv%2Findex.txt&action=search&corpus=current

http://www.jackpicone.com/index.php#mi=1&pt=0&pi=2&s=0&p=0&a=0&at=0