P. 1
The Bangkok Massacres: A Call for Accountability

The Bangkok Massacres: A Call for Accountability

Ratings:

5.0

(8)
|Views: 19,128 |Likes:
Published by Robert Amsterdam
A new White Paper outlines the responsibilities of the government of Thailand to hold those responsible to account for the killings of about 90 people during protests in April and May of 2010 The document is authored by lawyer Robert Amsterdam, who is retained by former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as counsel to the legal defense team of UDD protesters and several victims of the crackdown.
A new White Paper outlines the responsibilities of the government of Thailand to hold those responsible to account for the killings of about 90 people during protests in April and May of 2010 The document is authored by lawyer Robert Amsterdam, who is retained by former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as counsel to the legal defense team of UDD protesters and several victims of the crackdown.

More info:

Published by: Robert Amsterdam on Jul 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/13/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 T
HE
B
ANGKOK
M
ASSACRES
:
 
A
 
C
ALL FOR
A
CCOUNTABILITY
A White Paper by Amsterdam & Peroff LLP
 
 2
E
XECUTIVE
S
UMMARY
For four years, the people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic andunrelenting assault on their most fundamental right — the right to self-determinationthrough genuine elections based on the will of the people. The assault againstdemocracy was launched with the planning and execution of a military
coup d’état 
in2006. In collaboration with members of the Privy Council, Thai military generalsoverthrew the popularly elected, democratic government of Prime Minister ThaksinShinawatra, whose Thai Rak Thai party had won three consecutive national elections in2001, 2005 and 2006. The 2006 military coup marked the beginning of an attempt torestore the hegemony of Thailand’s old moneyed elites, military generals, high-rankingcivil servants, and royal advisors (the “Establishment”) through the annihilation of anelectoral force that had come to present a major, historical challenge to their power.The regime put in place by the coup hijacked the institutions of government, dissolvedThai Rak Thai and banned its leaders from political participation for five years.When the successor to Thai Rak Thai managed to win the next national election in late2007, an
ad hoc 
court consisting of judges hand-picked by the coup-makers dissolvedthat party as well, allowing Abhisit Vejjajiva’s rise to the Prime Minister’s office.Abhisit’s administration, however, has since been forced to impose an array of repressive measures to maintain its illegitimate grip and quash the democraticmovement that sprung up as a reaction to the 2006 military coup as well as the 2008“judicial coups.” Among other things, the government blocked some 50,000 web sites,shut down the opposition’s satellite television station, and incarcerated a recordnumber of people under Thailand’s infamous
lèse-majesté 
legislation and the equallydraconian Computer Crimes Act. Confronted with organized mass demonstrations thatchallenged its authority, the government called in the armed forces and suspendedconstitutional freedoms by invoking the Internal Security Act and a still more onerousEmergency Decree. Since April 7, 2010, the country’s new military junta — the Centerfor the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (“CRES”) — rules without any form of accountability, under a purported “state of emergency” that was declared improperly,implemented disproportionately, and continued indefinitely with the purpose of silencing any form of opposition to the unelected regime. Once again, theEstablishment could not deny the Thai people’s demand for self-determination withoutturning to military dictatorship.In March 2010, massive anti-government protests were organized in Bangkok by the“Red Shirts” of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD). The RedShirt rally was sixty-six days old on May 19, 2010, when armored vehicles rolled overmakeshift barricades surrounding Bangkok’s Rachaprasong intersection andpenetrated the Red Shirts’ encampment. Weeks earlier, on April 10, 2010, units hadcarried out a failed attempt to disperse a Red Shirt gathering at the Phan Fa Bridge,resulting in the death of twenty-seven people. At least fifty-five more people died inthe dispersal of the Ratchaprasong rally between May 13 and May 19. By the time thesite of the demonstrations was cleared, several major commercial buildings stood
 
 3smoldering, more than eighty people lay dead, and over fifty alleged UDD leaders facedpossible death sentences on “terrorism” charges. Hundreds of other protesters remaindetained, for violating the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Decree, which theThai authorities wield in an effort to criminalize legitimate political protest.Thailand has obligations under International Law, including treaty obligations underthe International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to investigate allserious human rights violations during the Red Shirts demonstrations and, if applicable, to prosecute members of the military and its civilian chain of command forcrimes such as the summary and arbitrary executions of more than eighty civilians inBangkok in April-May 2010. The facts strongly suggest violations of International Lawthrough a disproportionate use of force by the Thai military, prolonged arbitrarydetention and disappearances, and a repressive system of political persecution thatdenies freedom of political participation and expression to its citizens, including theRed Shirts. There is ample evidence of serious human rights abuses to trigger anindependent and impartial investigation into the facts, so that those who are guilty of international crimes may be brought to justice.Additionally, the use of military force against the Red Shirts in April-May 2010 is thekind of systematic or widespread attack on civilian populations that might rise to thelevel of crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute that created the InternationalCriminal Court in The Hague. While Thailand has not acceded formally to the RomeStatute, these kinds of attacks might warrant consideration for a referral to theInternational Criminal Court if they were carried out knowingly under a policy toacquiesce in or encourage unnecessary loss of life, or if they are designed to target aspecific political group. There is substantial evidence that the four-year campaign of attacks against the Red Shirts is being carried out under a policy approved by theAbhisit government, and that the recent Red Shirt massacres are only the latestmanifestation of that policy.Lastly, the Thai government’s purported investigation into the Red Shirt massacres inApril-May 2010 promises to be neither independent nor objective, as required byInternational Law. While Thailand may be guilty of additional violations of the ICCPRand of customary international law for its failures to ensure a fair and completeinvestigation into the massacre, international pressure is necessary to ensure itscompliance and pre-empt the government’s ongoing attempts to whitewash theincidents.There is no dispute that Thailand must move beyond violence and work towardreconciliation. Reconciliation, however, necessarily begins with the restoration of theThai people’s fundamental right to self-governance; moreover, it requires fullaccountability for serious human rights violations committed in the attempt to repressthat right. International Law mandates nothing less.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->