Same Sky page blocked by MICT

Same Sky page blocked (again) by MICT

In Thai govt’s continuing effort to block alleged lese majeste at Same Sky / Fah Diew Kan, Thai ISPs have blocked this page:

http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?s3a582dbb921d57460c9b14e0ef2e75068showtopic=31538

Users return a “404 Page Not Found” error message, “500 Internal Server Error” or “Page Load Error: Address Not Found” error message.

FACTorial: Is Thailand a failed state?

Part 3 – Is Thailand a failed state?

CJ Hinke, FACT

May 20, 2009

The term “failed state” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state> was coined into modern usage by American historian and social activist, Noam Chomsky, ”…to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government.” However, we shall find this definition as imprecise as those for “republicanism” or “democracy”.

Certainly Thailand fits some of the classic criteria for a failed or failing state. Although government still maintains “…a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force… (Max Weber)…”, many citizens would question that legitimacy. A pertinent example is Thailand’s “wars on drugs”. It is more than ironic that a “successful” state is one which effectively uses violence on its citizens!

Furthermore, Thailand has “…armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority…” in the insurgent South and the streets of Bangkok; “…extreme political corruption”, not tackled effectively or transparently by Thai courts; an “…impenetrable bureaucracy” in which there is no accountability, rendering true freedom of information impossible; “judicial ineffectiveness” against the wealthy and elite; and “military interference in politics…”.

Thailand also has a “…legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries…” or at least as far as King Chulalongkorn’s sale to the British of part of the autonomous Kingdom of Patani in 1910 resulting in the growth of a Muslim separatist movement.

“…Atrocities” are regularly “committed with impunity against… groups…singled out by state authorities…for persecution or repression” such as nonviolent demonstrators in May 1992, Southern Muslims and Rohingya refugees. Examples of Thailand’s “institutionalized political exclusion” would include appointed rather than elected Senators and widely-acknowledged vote-buying.

Thailand also has “widespread violation of human rights: an emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated.” This has included the neutering of the National Human Rights Commission.

“Outbreaks of politically inspired…violence against innocent civilians” are nearly too numerous to cite. Black May, four wars on drugs, Krue Se, Tak Bai.

“A rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process” which forces accused to seek Royal pardon for books and Internet discussion.

“Any widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press”, including the Internet, “politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents”, such as disappeared Muslim lawyer Somchai Neelapaichit, “religious or cultural persecution.)[13]”

We have also seen the continuation of “security apparatus as ‘state within a state’”, particularly in the South, “: an emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity.” There has been no single executive, legislative or judicial review which has resulted in effective prosecution of Thai police or military and making precious few examples of corrupt or violent wealthy and elite.

“Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected “enemies,” or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition” such as Chulalongkorn University professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn forced into exile over lese majeste charges.

Thailand also has an “’army within an army’ that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique.” And we are witnessing the “emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces.[14]”

Thailand also is subject to the “rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines”, primarily wealth, breeding and education.

“Use of aggressive nationalistic rhetoric by ruling elites, especially destructive forms of communal irredentism…or communal solidarity (e.g., ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘defending the faith’).[15]” Thai government has consistently encouraged the nationalism of monarchy, religion, nation”  through abuse of lese majeste laws and Internet censorship.

The single greatest failing of the Thai state is the utter lack of accountability of those in power. The laws simply don’t apply to our politicians, bureaucrats, soldiers or police.

In short, unless Thai government employs genuine and respectful discussion, negotiation, compromise and peacemaking, Thailand’s future looks dire. Thai government is constantly assessing how much “democracy” to permit its citizens. However, the real question is how to empower citizens as sovereign.

We need to come up with new and creative solutions for citizen participation in government if we are to avoid becoming a failed state. None of us can leave such an important task solely to government.

We are already far along the failed state road as the recent elite

ochlocracy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy> (“government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities”) bears out.

FACTorial: Or, are you a d/Democrat?

Part 2 – Or, are you a d/Democrat?

CJ Hinke

May 20, 2009

What is democracy? It’s an issue to which I’ve been giving considerable thought. And, once again, I turn to Wikipedia: “The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought…Plato contrasted democracy, the system of ‘rule by the governed’, with the alternative systems of monarchy…, oligarchy…and timocracy.[21]”.

I had to look up timocracy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocracy>. It has a separate Wikipedia entry and is of great interest in its relation to the Thai social structure of krieng jai or respect. “Constitutional theory defines a timocracy as either a state where only property owners may participate in government or a government where rulers are selected and perpetuated based on the degree of honour [my emphasis] they hold relative to others in their society, peer group or class[1]. The more extreme forms of timocracy where power derives from wealth rather than honour, may…become a plutocracy where the wealthy and powerful use their power to entrench their wealth”…These are the classes of 6th century Athens: “…Men of the 500 bushel’, those who produced 500 bushels of produce per year, could serve as generals in the army;…Knights, those who could equip themselves and one cavalry horse for war, valued at 300 bushels per year;…Tillers, owners of at least one pair of beasts of burden, valued at 200 bushels per year…” and “…manual laborers…”

Which brings us, of course, to plutocracy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy>: In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems..The key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of…” different “…systems.” Plutocracy “…indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy…” and the “…disproportionate influence the wealthy are said to have on political process in…society…”.

Which brings us to oligarchy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy>. “An oligarchy is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, family, military or religious hegemony…Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. …Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich…” Interestingly, “…Some authors…believe that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy…Modern democracies should be considered as elected oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an ‘acceptable’ and ‘respectable’ political position, and politicians’ careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites.”

Aha! Now democracy is getting interesting! Our genuine criticism of Thai government as it has been put into practice has absolutely nothing to do with the monarchy! So by which system are we ruled? My own observations point to an oligarchy of an elite plutocracy composed of timocrats or, put simply, fat cats. Following me so far? Seems like a far cry from democracy, doesn’t it?

“Athenian democracy…” had “…two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment…of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[22] and secondarily, the assembly of all the citizens. All the male Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly…; citizenship was not granted to women, or slaves…The island of Arwad (modern day Syria), settled in the early 2nd millennium BC, has been cited[23] as one of the first known examples of a democracy in the world. In Arwad, the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign.” Seems we are getting closer to modern Constituitional monarchy. “…In the 6th century BC…the emperor Darius the Great declared that the best monarchy was better than the best oligarchy or best democracy.[25]…Modern scholars note that..” by “…the third century BC…the word democracy had been degraded and could mean any autonomous state no matter how oligarchic it was.”

In “…the 20th century, transitions to liberal democracy have…variously result[ed] from wars, revolutions, decolonization, religious and economic circumstances…In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties.”And the Wikipedia article’s conclusion is also very telling: “…Currently, there are 123 countries that are democratic, and the trend is increasing[41] (up from 40 in 1972). As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society.” But by what precise definition and employment of “democracy”?

Of course, nearly anyone can cobble excerpts from Wikipedia entries together to press a point. But I now submit to you a few modest but revolutionary proposals for Thailand’s “democratic” future which could well be called “republican”, if we feel like it, and function under a Constitutional monarchy.

1) Development of a “people’s” constitution incorporating a sacrosanct bill of rights, this constitution to be achieved with complete public participation from all levels of society by consensus, not by majority, taking as long as necessary to achieve.

2) Establishment of a public referendum system for all policy decisions of government with ample latitude for citizen education on the issues.

3) All legislative representatives, no matter what we choose to call them, must be elected. The background, ethics and finances of all candidates must be presented to the public in full before nomination for election. No educational requirements should be required.

4) Creation of a system of genuine participatory democracy using the Internet as its tool. All persons may freely participate in any discussion fora anonymously and without fear of censure or repercussions.

What we’ve got now is simply too broke to fix. I’m an international expert in children’s books, not a Constitutional scholar or political scientist. But we need precise definitions in order to communicate.

We’re tired of closed-door power broking, of government in secret, with no transparency or accountability. Don’t expect the political dinosaurs to let go easily; they think they’ve got too much to lose.

Forget them. Let’s try common sense that works for all of us for a change. We’d better learn to let go and try something new or we’re done for. We need to try and work out what Plato meant by “rule by the governed”. Can we not learn to listen to each other?

They may call themselves “D/democrats” or “R/republicans” but the censors are hiding under every rock and bush, waiting under every tree to control your thoughts and your opinions, to prevent your talking freely with your fellow humans.

FACTorial: Are you a R/republican?

Part 1 – Are you a R/republican?

CJ Hinke, FACT

May 18, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

I have been a resident of Thailand for over two decades and care deeply about my adopted country and its people. However, as a foreigner, I, both personally and as FACT’s coordinator, scrupulously avoid commenting on Thai politics. However, all would agree our politics are a shambles.

Recently I have become curious about two terms we use glibly, “republican” and “democracy”. The so-called “Republican” Party in the United States has proven itself a shameless, elitist cabal of government working against its own citizens. Similarly, the so-called “Democrat” Party in Thailand has devolved into governance by damn-ocracy in trying to suppress all public dissent and discussion.

At the 2008 Thai Studies Conference, the question was raised as to whether it was lese majeste in Thailand to merely call oneself a “republican”. After seeing the Electoral Commission’s recent reaction in rejecting registration a Socialist Party, it would surely make a Republican Party illegal.

So I decided to do some research on Wikipedia: “Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by other means than hereditary, often elections. An important element of Republicanism is constitutional law to limit the state’s power over its citizens. Early proponents of Republicanism, such as John Milton, put emphasis on the dangers of corruption and the importance of civic virtues.”

The ancient Greek model of classical republicanism was used with success for governance at Athens and Sparta.

Ancient Rome was also governed as a republic which had both kings and emperors. “In classical meaning, republic was any established political community with government above it. Both Plato and Aristotle saw three basic types of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. However, these philosophers considered mixed government the ideal type. First Plato and Aristotle, and especially Polybius and Cicero developed the notion that the ideal republic is a mixture of these three forms of government and the writers of the Renaissance embraced this notion.” Those three elements in government include all citizens.

Early modern republicanism, sometimes called civic humanism, developed in Renaissance Europe’s city-states previously subject to aristocratic feudalism. The lengthy article goes on to discuss the left-wing radicalism of early, mostly socialist, republicans in Europe and further discusses anti-monarchial opinion as a feature of contemporary republicanism.

“More than being simply a non-monarchy the early modern thinkers developed a vision of the ideal republic…One important notion was that of a mixed government” and “separation of powers in branches of government” (Hmm…public oversight for government’s executive, legislative and judicial branches. Not such a bad idea!)

…And a basis in “virtue” with the pursuit of the common good as being central to good government. Republicanism also developed its own distinct view of liberty…Those Renaissance authors who spoke highly of republics were rarely critical of monarchies. While Niccolò Machiavelli‘s Discourses on Livy is the period’s key work on republics he also wrote The Prince on how to best run a monarchy.”

Athens and Rome were not perfect republics. For one thing, they had slaves! Every society so far has had serfs, peasants and poor people in the majority. But what, if I may be so bold, we need to aim for is a truly egalitarian society in which all Thai people have both voice and responsibility.

In short, I don’t think we need to be afraid of real republicans so long as they are not disguising themselves so as not to be called anti-monarchists. If Thailand were to choose republicanism, our republic could certainly have a Constitutional monarchy, to its benefit. In fact, Thailand’s 1997 “People’s” Constitution went far toward creating our business of government as a republic.

In Thailand, however, we have degenerated into government by aristocracy acting with impunity, in secret from its people and outside the rule of law. All we can say for sure is that our current method of government is clearly not working. The key essence of republicanism we’ve missed is founded upon human rights and liberties and we could certainly use some of that here.

We get only a knee-jerk reaction from Thailand’s conservative establishment whenever “republicanism” is raised. It would seem they have little notion of what makes a “republic”. Why should we not be free to discuss our own future?

Tak Bai: Thai military runs the South-The Nation

[John Francis Lee of FACT comments: 'The Songkhla Provincial Court has cleared security officials of misconduct in connection with the Tak Bai incident in which 85 demonstrators were killed in October of 2004.'

This is the quintessential problem in Thailand. There are two classes of people here : those who make the laws and are immune to them; and those who suffer under them.

The "revolution" of 1932 reduced the Chakri dynasty from absolute to constitutional monarchs but the preeminent power of absolutism, the power arbitrarily to make law while remaining outside of and above the law, was transferred to the military-bureaucratic complex which wields it to this day.

The military especially is above and beyond the reach of the law. The military continues to overturn the government at will, to tear up constitutions written by the people's representatives, to slay the people when they are "in need of" slaying, all with utter impunity.

The bureaucracy is also above and beyond the law. The sternest reprimand alloted is the transfer of a miscreant from one jurisdiction to another.

So it is no surprise that the military and the bureaucracy continue to champion the lèse–majesté laws. For the real beneficiaries of these laws are now themselves.

The laws are now used to draw a curtain of silence around criticism of the military-bureaucratic complex, to keep it above and beyond the law. The constitutional monarch merely provides the pretense of offense, as a mute idol might in a more overtly religious context.

The constitutional monarch is now one of the people, albeit the first and most beloved among the people. But the military-bureaucratic complex lords over all with impunity and struggles now to maintain its position above and beyond the reach of the law.]

Court clears security officials over Tak Bai deaths

The Nation: May 30, 2009

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/topstory/30103943/Court-clears-security-officials-over-Tak-Bai-death

In one of the most controversial verdicts passed in decades, a court yesterday cleared security officials of misconduct in the October 2004 Tak Bai incident in which 85 Malay-Muslim protesters died at the hands of the authorities.

The two-member panel in the post-mortem inquest concluded that Army and police officials had acted according to the law, used sound judgement and done their best given the circumstances.

Of the 85 victims, 78 died from suffocation after security officials stacked them on top of each other in the back of military trucks.

Judge Yingyut Tanor-Rachin, who sat with judge Jutarath Santisevee, said the officials had had compelling reasons to transport more than 1,000 detained demonstrators from the protest site to the Ingkhayuthaborihan Army camp in Pattani.

Reading out the ruling in a packed courtroom at the Songkhla Provincial Court, Yingyut said a quick decision had needed to be taken because of security concerns. He pointed to the fact that the demonstration site had been on the Malaysian border and not far from the Taksin Ratchanivej Palace.

On October 25, 2004, more than 1,500 people demonstrated in front of the Tak Bai police station in Narathiwat demanding the release of six village defence volunteers whom the police had accused of collaborating with insurgents by giving them government-issued shotguns.

The police never came up with evidence to support their claims and refused to give in to the demands of the protesters.

After the demonstrators had gathered in front of the police station and clamoured against officialdom for several hours, police, soldiers and rangers moved in and fired tear gas at them. Live ammunition and blank rounds were fired into the crowd, killing seven.

Nearly 1,300 men were then separated from the women and ordered to lie face down on the ground, where many of them were seen being beaten and kicked by security officials before being forced into the back of military trucks.

The National Human Rights Commission said those detained had been beaten with batons, kicked and punched, some whilst lying on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs.

The incident left a big scar in the Malay-speaking South and drove a wedge between the restive region and the predominantly Buddhist state.

It has since been a point of political tension and drawn comment from prime ministers, including Samak Sundaravej, who once attributed the protesters’ deaths to the fact that they had been fasting during Ramadan.

During his term in office, Surayud Chulanont apologised to the victims’ families for the Tak Bai massacre and other “atrocities committed by the state” against the Malays of Patani.

Family members of the victims appeared shocked at yesterday’s verdict and expressed sadness at what they viewed as obviously unfair treatment by government security officials.

Thai military cleared in Tak Bai murders-Bangkok Post

[FACT comments: This decision calls the fairness and impartiality of Thailand’s judiciary into question. Blatant human rights violations and no one is to blame?!? These were racist revenge killings and ramped up Southern violence thousands-fold.]

Court clears military in Tak Bai case

Security forces were ‘just doing their duty’

Bangkok Post: May 30, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/17583/court-clears-military-in-tak-bai-case

The Songkhla Provincial Court has cleared security officials of misconduct in connection with the Tak Bai incident in which 85 demonstrators were killed in October of 2004.

The court ruled that members of the military were just carrying out their duty and could not be blamed for what had happened.

Seven people were killed in a mosque during the crackdown and another 78 demonstrators suffocated to death while they were being transported on trucks taking them to an army camp for detention in neighbouring Pattani province.

More than 1,000 people rallied outside the Tak Bai police station in Narathiwat to demand the release of six village defence volunteers they believed were unfairly detained. The suspects were suspected of having lied to police to protect those involved in a firearms robbery in which state weapons were stolen.

The court said there was no evidence to support the theory that some men in uniform who allegedly assaulted the demonstrators were acting on the orders of their superiors in charge of the crackdown.

Judge Yingyut Tanor-Rachin, who sat with Judge Jutarath Santisevee, said the officials were carrying out their duties and had compelling reasons to transport over 1,000 detained demonstrators from Tak Bai at the Thai-Malaysia border to Ingkayuthaborihaan Army Camp in Pattani on Oct 25, 2004.

Basing its ruling on a post-mortem inquest into the deaths, the court noted that members of the security forces were acting under an emergency law at the time which protected them from civil, criminal or disciplinary liabilities arising from their actions while performing their duty.

On Oct 25, 2004, soldiers cracked down on thousands of demonstrators rallying outside the Tak Bai police station with tear gas, water cannon and batons.

Some 1,292 persons were arrested and detained by the authorities. According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), those detained were beaten with batons, kicked and punched, some whilst lying on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs.

The detained persons were then loaded into a trucks where they were piled up in many layers and transferred to Ingkayuthaborihaan army camp in Pattani, a journey which took several hours. A total of 78 people were found dead in the trucks in the incident that occurred during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

“The relatives of the victims are not satisfied with the court ruling,” said Angkhana Neelaphaijit, chairwoman of the Working Group for Justice and Peace.

“But they can’t do anything. All they can do is walk away,” she said, adding that some were expected to appeal the verdict.

Human rights advocates following up on the Tak Bai case were also present in the court yesterday.

Many of the relatives who travelled hundreds of kilometres from their hometowns to hear the court decision said they were shocked by the outcome of the trial.

The case was moved to Songkhla province after the families of the victims and the authorities agreed that the trial should be held outside of Narathiwat and Pattani for security reasons.

Meanwhile, a local leader was shot dead in broad daylight in Pattani’s Muang district yesterday.

Waedolor Hayee Sorhor, deputy chairman of the Tanyonglulor tambon administration organisation (TAO) in Pattani, was gunned down in front of his house shortly after returning from a mosque. He was attacked by four motorcycle riders. Two schoolboys passing by the area sustained minor injuries in the attack.

Thai govt censors-Bangkok Post

HOME REVIEW

They’ve got the power

Bangkok Post Database: May 27, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/techscoop/17437/they-ve-got-the-power

The National Telecommunications Commission said it needs the power to censor and close down all satellite TV stations and all community radio stations and it needs it now; otherwise, the commissioners explained to a sympathetic and compliant government, some of those stations might broadcast incendiary content, whatever that is; Prime Minister’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey promised the regulations would be passed immediately, because the country certainly can trust the government and NTC only to censor bad broadcasts, and do it fairly; like the commission, Mr Sathit was unable to say what was meant by “incendiary” as opposed to, say, incitement to violence or violent revolution which is already illegal and doesn’t require a new censorship body.

Police accused in teens’ drug war murders-Bangkok Post

Police urged to accept murder cases

Kalasin teens’ kin think they died in drugs war

King-oua Laohong

Bangkok Post: May 30, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/17576/police-urged-to-accept-murder-cases

Eight more Kalasin families yesterday urged police to speed up the acceptance of their relatives’ murders as special cases to be investigated as possible extra-judicial killings carried out in the Thaksin administration’s 2004 war on drugs.

The representatives from the families of eight murdered teenaged males appealed to Thawee Sodsong, chief of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), to investigate their claims that the youths were victims of extra-judicial killings carried out by the police.

They were taken to see the DSI chief by Angkhana Neelaphaijit and Metha Martkhao from the Campaign Committee for Human Rights, and Pikul Promchan, a relative of 17-year-old Kiattisak Thitbunkrong whose death in 2004 was allegedly the result of an extra-judicial killing.

The DSI accepted Kiattisak’s case as a special case in 2005.

The department would immediately accept them as special cases if the complaints lodged by the families prove to be well-grounded, Pol Col Thawee said.

The law was recently amended to allow the DSI to take over the investigation of any cases involving wrongdoings allegedly committed by administrative officers or senior government officers, he said.

But a major problem in investigating such cases is that most witnesses would not dare to testify against the suspects.

Pol Col Thawee admitted his department’s investigation into Kiattisak’s death was rather slow.

Mrs Angkhana, chairperson of the Working Group on Justice for Peace, a human rights non-governmental organisation, said her group recently forwarded cases of missing people in the three southernmost provinces, and the hanging of teenagers in Kalasin to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances as extra-judicial involuntary disappearance cases.

The UN working group is considering whether to accept the cases, she said.

The WGJP also asked Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya to allow the UN working group’s special rapporteurs to enter Thailand to investigate the alleged cases of torture and extra-judicial killing cases.

Mr Kasit agreed to allow the rapporteurs to enter the country, Mrs Angkhana said.

Five of the eight murder victims, whose relatives called on Pol Col Thawee yesterday, are new cases that have only just been lodged with the DSI. The new complaints lift the total number of cases involving alleged extra-judicial killings in Kalasin’s Muang district to 21.

The eight murdered teenagers were Prawit Sarawut, Thong Chanphanphi, Namfon Dolrasmi, Samarn Meetham, Oi-napa Sukprasong, Wanthana Thaksima, Wan Yubunchoo, and Sommai Yubunchoo.

Mrs Angkhana yesterday also asked Pol Col Thawee about the progress of the DSI investigation into the case of her missing husband lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, who is believed to have been killed by security forces

Hmong caught in repatriation trap-Asia Times

Hmong caught in repatriation trap

Brian McCartan

Asia Times: May 30, 2009

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KE30Ae01.html

The pullout under protest of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) from the Huay Nam Khao refugee camp in Petchabun in Thailand is a slap in the face to Thailand and Laos, both of which claim their repatriation of Hmong refugees is voluntary. To be sure, many of the refugees are actually economic migrants, but without a transparent screening process it is impossible to tell refugees with serious concerns for their safety from migrants.

MSF’s departure is another human-rights embarrassment for Thailand’s Abhisit Vejjajiva government which earlier this year came under intense international criticism over revelations its military had pushed Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar back out to sea. Thailand’s military, however, appears undeterred and has announced a September 30 date for closing the camp. Critics allege the date was set to make sure all the Hmong were repatriated well before the start of the 2009 Southeast Asia Games in Vientiane, Laos, in December.

Huay Nam Khao camp was set up in 2005 after several thousand Hmong began arriving in Thailand in 2004 claiming persecution from the Lao government. MSF began working in the camp in 2005 providing food and medical relief. The original refugees were later joined by others and the camp population eventually reached a peak of 7,800 people. Thailand had believed the Lao refugee situation had ended with the closure of the last camps in the late 1990s and the agreement of the United States in 2003 to accept remaining Hmong refugees sheltering at Tham Krabok monastery in Saraburi province.

MSF, which remained the single independent non-governmental organization working in the camp, announced their pullout on May 20 at the same time they released a report detailing their reasons for their actions. In their report, MSF alleges that the Thai military is using increasing restrictions and coercive methods to pressure some 4,700 ethnic Hmong refugees to renounce their claims of protection and return to Laos.

Among the tactics MSF alleges the military is using against the refugees are the arbitrary imprisonment of leaders to pressure other refugees to “volunteer” to return, temporary halts in food distribution and the forcing of refugees to pass through a military checkpoint before entering the MSF clinic. The checkpoint, the MSF report says, intimidates refugees and restricts access to health care. These claims are echoed by US-based Hmong human rights organizations including the Hmong International Human Rights Watch and independent researchers who have been documenting the situation of the refugees for several years.

Heightened anxiety, psychological distress and fear among the refugee population as a result of these measures were noted by MSF in their report. Increasing desperation among the refugees has resulted in hunger strikes, self mutilation and arson in attempts to call attention to their plight.

In June 2008, some 800 people were forcibly returned to Laos after around 5,000 camp residents staged a protest march to bring attention to their plight. Among those repatriated were MSF staff members and several Hmong leaders who disappeared until an October 2008 Human Rights Watch report critical of their detention resulted in their release by the Lao authorities.

Repatriation of Hmong increased this year with approximately 200 being sent back per month with a peak of 500 in March. Over 1,500 Hmong have been forcibly repatriated since December 2005.

Although the Lao government claims it is providing for the returnees and documents their trips home on the Internet image hosting site Flickr, several have been arbitrarily detained and human-rights groups say there are credible reports of torture. Many Hmong cite the disappearance in 2005 of a group of young boys and girls sent back by the Thai authorities as a major source of their fears. The girls later resurfaced with stories of being detained and sexually abused while in custody – the boys have still not been heard from.

Lao Army Deputy Chief of Staff Brigadier General Buaxieng Champaphan announced this year that no criminal charges will be brought against returning Hmong. Laos who have left the country illegally to seek work in Thailand have in the past been detained by Lao authorities on their return.

Hmong refugees say that they will be punished and even executed should they be returned because the Lao government is still angry with them for siding with the US during the “Secret War” in Laos in the 1960s and early 1970s. They claim that while Hmong who sided with the communists live free, those who supported the US are discriminated against, arbitrarily arrested and sometimes executed. Some Hmong have chosen to continue the fight against the government living on the run in the jungle-clad mountains of northern Laos. They have become known as the “jungle Hmong”.

The Lao and Thai governments maintain that the refugees are economic migrants and as such have no real fears. The Lao government further claims that Huay Nam Khao camp acts as a magnet for Hmong who have heard that by claiming persecution they will be allowed to resettle in the United States. Many advocates for the Hmong agree that there are many in the camp who never fought for the US, are connected with anyone who did or where ever “jungle Hmong”.

A spokesman for the Lao government showed this correspondent last year dossiers collected on some of the returnees indicating that they were not Hmong and that at least one woman came from a coastal region in Vietnam. They are believed to have been persuaded to come to the camp by brokers who arrange for a fee to go to the camp promising that a stay there will lead to a good life in the US. Others have been convinced to go to the camp by relatives already in America.

Although many may be simply seeking a way out of poverty, others have credible stories of persecution which have been backed up by reports from international human-rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as independent journalists. According to the MSF report, many of the refugees tell related stories of “fleeing violent attacks and persecution, witnessing the murder of family members, suffering rape, surviving bullet and shrapnel wounds and enduring malnutrition and disease”.

To back up their claims, refugees have displayed scars from bullet and shrapnel wounds and MSF says they have documented at least 181 refugees with physical scars. The aid group says their mental health program admitted 286 patients, most of whom talked of witnessing the death of a family member or friend, suffering torture and enduring starvation in the mountains.

Various estimates put the number of Hmong still on the run in the mountains of Laos at between several hundred and a thousand. Researchers and journalists who have been able to visit the groups say that they have been reduced to living on whatever can be scavenged in the forest including insects, tree bark and roots.

Photos show many of them dressed in little better than rags and carrying weapons that are leftovers from the “Secret War”. They have kept fighting partly for survival, but also at the behest of Hmong groups in the US and elsewhere who encourage them while living comfortably in exile. Critics within the Hmong community note with irony that the jungle Hmong have been provided satellite phones to report their situation to supporters in the US, but yet are bedraggled, sick, malnourished and fighting a struggle they cannot hope to win. No one has told them to stop.

Until recently, the US government has largely looked the other way and allowed the situation to happen. A change only occurred in June 2007 when agents from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested former Hmong guerrilla leader General Vang Pao and several of his associates along with a former US Army colonel on charges of conspiracy to overthrow the government of Laos. Vang Pao’s defense team, former Central Intelligence Agency officers who fought with the Hmong and the American-Hmong community have come together to denounce the charges claiming they are a budget justification tactic by an agency that at the time was finding it difficult to locate real terrorist conspiracies.

Human-rights groups and MSF say that there is no way to tell Hmong with legitimate fears of persecution apart from economic migrants without a transparent screening process overseen by a third party. The Thai and Lao governments have refused to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or any other independent third party to assess refugee protection claims in Huay Nam Khao camp. Instead they have said that the Hmong should go back to Laos and apply for resettlement from there.

An advocate for the Hmong says that at least 414 Hmong originally from the camp were recognized by the UNHCR as refugees in 2005-2006, but only after making the risky move of leaving the camp and coming to Bangkok. Other cases, he says, have been registered, but Thai pressure has meant no final decisions have been made.

Screening processes conducted by the Thai government in December 2007 and January 2008 were closed and, despite repeated requests, the UNHCR was not permitted to monitor the process. Under international norms, the repatriation of refugees should be voluntary and cannot be forced on people fearing for their safety. There must also be guarantees of safety on their return. MSF and human-rights groups say that neither the Lao nor Thai governments have followed these standards and violate the standards of non-refoulment where in individuals fleeing persecution must not be sent back to countries where their lives or freedom is threatened.

In an attempt to ease international fears, the Lao government has arranged several trips by foreign diplomats and UN officials to a village it has set up for returnees at Phalak near Kasi in northern Vientiane province. Critics say the visits are stage managed by the government and do not accurately reflect the situation. Other than these visits the Lao government has not permitted independent monitoring of returnees by the UNHCR or any other organization leaving it open to accusations of disappearances and persecution.

The group with the clearest claims to refugee status is the 158 Hmong locked up in an immigration detention center in Nong Khai in Thailand across from Vientiane. The refugees had previously been granted “person of concern” status from the UNHCR prior to being arrested and shipped to the center.

In April, Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya announced that Thailand would assist the Hmong in Nong Khai to be resettled in third countries. Thailand earlier promised to resettle these refugees in 2006 after the US, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands had agreed to accept them only to later renege on the agreement. This time was no different. After Lao protests, Kasit was forced to backtrack on his statement and announced that the Hmong would first have to go back to Laos and then apply for resettlement in another country.

In its report, MSF accused the UN and Western governments of inaction over the Hmong refugee situation. “Despite more than two years of efforts by MSF, the UN, US, France and other regional powers have failed to take any concrete steps to ensure the protection of the traumatized and vulnerable refugee population confined in Huai Nam Khao camp.” It requested that countries such as the US and France which have already resettled Hmong refugees or have said they are willing to should offer alternatives in accordance with international laws to repatriation.

Indeed the US, France and other Western nations have kept strangely quiet about the Hmong issue although they were very vocal in protest over the Rohingyas. Sources close to the situation say that there are some behind-the-scenes negotiations, but they caution that since there is no overt public pressure being placed on either the Thai or Lao governments, little is likely to be achieved. Many believe the US has some responsibility to refugees from a conflict it helped create and whom it promised to protect.

The Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees (COERR) agreed this week to replace MSF in the camp. The Thai and Lao governments have made it clear that the Hmong will be repatriated no matter what, a situation that will leave COERR in the role of simply ensuring that the returnees are as healthy as possible for an unsure future back in Laos.

Brian McCartan is a Chiang Mai-based freelance journalist. He may be reached at brianpm@comcast.net.

Hmong forge a home like home-NY Times

[FACT comments: War is, of course, nothing more than human censorship. Over money, resources, race, language, religion and often just for power. However, occasionally there are some winners. We found this a very positive message in comparison to Thailand's forced repatriation of Hmong to Laos.]

CACAO JOURNAL

From a Hinterland, Hmong Forge a Home

Simon Romero

The New York Times: December 21, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/world/americas/22guiana.html?_r=3&hp

CACAO, French Guiana — Ly Dao Ly gazed at the jungle beyond his groves of tropical fruit trees, rambutan and cupuaçu, on a recent afternoon. Under the equatorial sun, his thoughts drifted to the setting for the secret war in Southeast Asia that forced him to flee to this remote French outpost decades ago.

“Sometimes I imagine that I am seeing the mountains of Laos in those green hills,” said Mr. Ly, 50, a farmer and baker who was born into the Hmong, the mountain tribe that waged a C.I.A.-backed guerrilla war against the Communist Pathet Lao in Laos in the 1960s and 1970s.

Made into cold-war castoffs when the Communists won that proxy war in 1975, more than 100,000 Hmong (pronounced MONG) refugees were resettled around the world in places like St. Paul; Fresno, Calif.; Thailand; France; Australia; and — quietly, but successfully — this former prison colony on South America’s northeastern hump.

Since arriving more than 30 years ago, the Hmong, who account for only about 1.5 percent of French Guiana’s 210,000 people, have thrived. Once penniless, the refugees and their families produce up to 80 percent of the fruit and vegetables sold in this overseas French department, which must import other food at a high cost from mainland France or Brazil.

“If it were not for the Hmong, we joke that we would starve in this strange place,” said Mariangela Bragance, a former municipal council member for Kourou, a nearby city kept afloat by the satellite-launching activities at the Guiana Space Center.

Long viewed as outcasts in Laos and other parts of Southeast Asia, the Hmong here are known for their success, on display in their large homes with new Peugeot and Toyota pickup trucks parked outside. Their nearly homogenous enclaves in Cacao and two other villages, Javouhey and Régina, are unlike anywhere else on this continent.

Walking Cacao’s dirt roads one hears mostly Hmong, interspersed with a bit of French. Some women wear sarongs. Merchants sell tapestries depicting the saga that led them to this jungle, after treks in the mid-1970s to Thai refugee camps from their mountain homeland in Laos, a former French colony.

“Our philosophy was to use our human capacity to support ourselves,” said Ly Chao, 62, a Hmong agronomist who was one of the founders of the settlements here in the 1970s.

France gambled that the Hmong refugees, some of whom were living in French cities, could successfully develop a hinterland that had repelled earlier colonization efforts. “The gamble worked because after all the years of war we were ready to do something else,” said Mr. Ly, the agronomist. “We were even ready to work the soil.”

The first Hmong arrived from France in 1977 and were greeted with protests from the Creoles, an ethnic group descended from African slaves, who chafed at what was viewed as preferential treatment for a new ethnic group in an impoverished area. French authorities initially gave each Hmong a few dozen francs a day on which to survive.

The settlers pooled those payments to buy fertilizer and tractors. Slowly, after years of labor, the Hmong became self-sufficient. They now grow large quantities of previously scarce vegetables, like lettuce, and tropical varieties of fruit like cupuaçu, which is oblong, has a white pulp and is found in the Amazon basin.

Eventually, the tensions subsided. “The Hmong largely kept to themselves and were allowed to acculturate on their own terms,” said Patrick Clarkin, an anthropologist at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, who studies the Hmong of French Guiana.

While the Hmong maintain ties with relatives abroad, they emphasize their own place in the diaspora. For instance, they refer to Hmong in the United States as Vang Pao Hmong, a nod to the influence wielded there by Vang Pao, 79, the exiled general in California who is facing charges in the United States of plotting to overthrow the Laotian government.

And academic studies have shown the Hmong here to have more robust physical health and less pessimism about their circumstances than their brethren in the United States, where some Hmong communities have had difficulty adapting to cities or suburbs and have been plagued by suicides and health problems.

“We miss Laos, of course, and I have a brother who says it is pleasant to live in Omaha,” said Ly May Ha, 50, Ly Dao Ly’s wife. Together they bake croissants and baguettes for sale in Cacao as the sun rises over the village each day. Later, they tend their orchards and pens filled with peccaries, a wild pig-like animal that is a delicacy here.

“Our life is in this place,” she said, “where we are free to be ourselves.”

The rhythms of existence here seem far removed from the cities where many Hmong have settled in the United States or France. On the weekends, young Hmong play pétanque, a game that, like bocce, consists of pitching metal balls at a target. Older men, sipping bottles of Heineken, boast of jungle hunts for peccaries and tapirs.

As in any small village, some younger Hmong complain of boredom and isolation. Hmong Lee, 40, who moved to mainland France for 10 years before returning, decided to settle for something between the farm founded by his parents and the bustle of a European city. He now works at a furniture store in the capital, Cayenne.

“This isn’t Paris,” he said, speaking about this obscure corner of South America. “But then again, who wants Paris when the sun shines here and we’re free to be Hmong?”