wdpress

“Lobby Cretinism” of NGOs over the ASEAN Human Rights Commission

The Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) is made up of Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Singapore, which all have authoritarian sates. It also includes the semi-democratic Malaysia, along with the Philippines and Indonesia, which are more or less democratic. Would anyone expect a gathering of government leaders from these countries to set up a genuine Human Rights Commission? Apparently, some NGOs from the region did think so. They got snubbed. Not only did the governments decided to appoint the Human Rights Commissioners themselves, they also refused to meet with half the NGO delegates, and allowed only Dr Surichai Wangaeo of Chulalongkorn University to speak on behalf of the NGO delegation. Who is Dr Surichai? He supported the 2006 military coup in Thailand and was an appointee to the military junta’s parliament. The Thai NGO team that was involved in so-called “civil society” discussions also included people who supported the military coup.

The Inaugural Ceremony of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was kicked off by a speech from Abhisit Vejjajiva, head of the present military installed government. Abhisit’s government has presided over some of the most draconian censorship seen in Thailand for 40 years, along with the use of an Internal Security law which curtails the right to peaceful protest. His government has imprisoned political opponents under the lese majeste law and it was also responsible for shooting pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok last April. In addition, Abhisit’s Democrat Party has set up a paramilitary Blue Shirt gang to commit acts of violence against government opponents. Yet in his speech, addressed to the King, who wasn’t actually present, he unashamedly said things like: “Human rights is an important component of our people’s lives, and it is important for the people-based community we plan to build.” For the members of civil society, he had this to say: “you should rest assured that you now have a new partner with whom to work.” These lies are no longer shocking, since Abhisit has lied about most of his government policies and about the use of lese majeste.

How could NGO activists go along with all this nonsense? Are they stupid or just plain dishonest opportunists? Or have they been blinded by their lack of politics?

The “lobby NGOs” like to claim that they represent “Civil Society”, despite never being elected by anyone. Some are even against elections and voting. They forget that Civil Society can only increase the democratic space and defend rights if it is organised into mass social movements, which act against authoritarian governments and elite vested interests. Instead of trying to talk to government leaders, it would be better to concentrate energy and resources in building such mass movements or supporting movements which already exist, such as the Red Shirts in Thailand and oppositional movements in other ASEAN countries. Any Human Rights Commission worth its salt must be totally separate and independent from governments and must have the courage to condemn all violations of freedom. The Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong is one good example among many.

After the “collapse of Communism”, much of the NGO movement turned its back on “politics” and the primacy of mass movements and political parties in the 1980s. Instead they embraced “lobby politics” and/or Community Anarchism. Despite the apparent contradiction between lobby politics, which leads NGOs to cooperate with the state, and state-rejecting Community Anarchism, the two go together. This is because they reject any confrontation or competition with the state. Lobbyists cooperate with the state, while Community Anarchists hope to ignore it. They both reject building a big picture political analysis. That is why they can deliberately ignore the fact that most ASEAN countries are run by dictatorships.

Instead of building mass movements or political parties, the NGOs concentrated on single-issue campaigns as part of their attempt to avoid confrontation with the state. They prefer trying to gain invitations to enter the corridors of power, rather than getting rid of elite power. This method of working also dove-tails with grant applications from international funding bodies. It leads to a de-politicisation of the movement.

On Climate Change, the NGOs which met in Bangkok also ignored the fact that governments were unelected. They tried to suck-up to local governments by using a nationalist agenda to blame only the West for Climate Change. This lets local elites off the hook. It also makes alliance-building with movements in the West more difficult. Activists in Europe and the U.S.A. are well aware that Western nations should shoulder the majority of the burden, but the issue is how to tackle the profit-driven market system which destroys the planet and creates great inequalities. ASEAN countries need to invest more in improving the lives of citizens. The rich need to be taxed and military budgets slashed in order to fund such projects. We need modern technology under real democratic control, in order to build solar power station, wind turbines, electrified public transport and efficient housing. On this important point, the NGOs meeting in Thailand were silent, preferring to suggest some kind of de-industrialisation along the lines of the King’s reactionary “Sufficiency Economy”.

The era of NGOs being radical forces in society is long over. For activists who wish to build a better society, the time has come to reassess the past and find a better alternative form of struggle. For those only interested in a career, just stay put and hope the funding doesn’t dry up.

PAD launches "New Party"

The Middle Class Peoples Alliance for Dictatorship (PAD) have launched their new party to fight against future elections. Party Führer, Sonti Limtongkul, said in a newspaper interview that "members of parliament don't have to come from elections, that's not the only way".
His party will defend the Monarchy, until death (not long now). He also boasted that everyone was afraid of him and his party, including the military and the politicians.

PS April came early this year due to Global Warming

Comparing the 6th October 1976 and 19th September 2006
Giles Ji Ungpakorn

People like to say that “history repeats itself, but not in exactly the same way”. In some ways, and not others, the military coup of the 19th September 2006 was a repeat of the bloodbath and coup on 6th October 1976. Circumstances are different, some actors are different and some have changed sides. But there are interesting comparisons to make.

Both the 6th October and the 19th September were actions which destroyed Democracy because the conservative elites felt that “too much Democracy” would lead to “too much equality”. In 1976, students, intellectuals, workers and farmers were talking of socialism, redistribution of wealth and a Welfare State. In 2006, Taksin’s TRT government was providing village funds and had set up a universal health care system. His popularity as a result of these genuine pro-poor policies, threatened the conservatives. In both cases the conservatives claimed that welfare would make people lazy and that pro-poor policies were threatening to destroy the country.

The 19th September coup claimed legitimacy from the King, although it is very unlikely that the King ordered the coup. But following the coup he praised the soldiers. After the Democrats were manoeuvred into power by the Army, there was a regime of draconian censorship. Government opponents were persecuted, killed and put in prison, even though the number of deaths has been small compared to 1976. Events surrounding the 19th September coup coincided with the creation of semi-fascist armed gangs. First we had the PAD’s “guard”. They carried and used guns, knives, bombs and sticks in the streets and attacked Red Shirts and the police with impunity. Then the Democrats and Newin Chitchorp set up the paramilitary “Blue Shirts”. The pro-coup side had their own rabid media, ASTV, which continues to churn out lies about their opponents.

The conservative elites were a loose coalition between the Army, the PAD, conservative civil servants, academics, the Palace and the NGO movement. They agreed on the need for a coup but squabble over their own self-interests. PAD leader Sonti was shot by someone in the Army. The Blue Shirts were set up to counter the PAD. The squabbles continue.

The 6th October 1976 blood bath also claimed legitimacy from the King. The soldiers were too tainted with the Sarit and Tanom dictatorships and were totally lacking in legitimacy as a result of the successful 1973 uprising. So they used the paramilitary Border Patrol Police from Hua Hin, near the King’s palace, instead. These were the armed forces that attacked and killed the students inside Thammasart University. The King and Queen visited the ex-dictator Tanom at Wat Baworniwet, days before the blood bath. Outside the university, on the 6th October, the paramilitary and semi-fascist Village Scouts, Krating Daeng and Nawapon beat, hung and burnt students. The village Scouts were under Royal Patronage, the Krating Daeng were unemployed technical college students organised by the Army and the Nawapon were “the army of number 9”, out of uniform soldiers. It is believed that Chamlong Srimuang had a role in the killings at Thammasart. Later in 1992 he led an uprising against a military dictator. Now he is with the PAD.

The entire conservative elite were united in the need for a bloody crack down in 1976 against the socialists and all those who believed in Democracy. Yet they were divided in factions around key figures in the armed forces and key politicians such as Chartchai Choonhawan in the Chart Thai Party. Violence and intimidation, plus provocations, were organised in the run up to 1976 and three separate groups tried to stage a coup. Only one faction was successful, the one led by Admiral Sangat Chaloryu . The King blessed the new Prime Minister, Tanin Kraiwichien, giving it a Royal hue. His extreme right-wing government, with Samak Sundarawej as Interior Minister, set about using draconian censorship and burning books. By 2006 Samak was in with Taksin and Thai Rak Thai. A year after the 6th October coup, Tanin’s government was overthrown by another coup. The soldiers felt his extremism was counter productive. So much for his Royal credentials!

In 1976, the conservatives had their rabid media: Dao Sayam newspaper and the Tank Corps radio station. They lied that the students had held a play with a mock hanging of the Crown Prince. A photo of the play was reproduced from the Bangkok Post. That paper, conservative as ever, did not refute the false allegation against the students. After the blood bath, the Crown Prince visited the Village Scouts at the Royal Plaza to thank them for their work.

Because no soldier, policeman or government official has ever been punished for the 6th October blood bath, other soldiers and politicians have been able to abuse human rights with impunity. Suchinda Kaprayoon and Surayut Chulanon are guilty of crimes against pro-democracy demonstrators in 1992. Taksin and the 4th Army Chief are guilty of crimes at Takbai. Taksin is also guilty of crimes in the War on Drugs. This war was also supported by Prem Tinsulanon and the King. There are other examples. But by repeating the claim that “no one knows what happened on 6th October”, the mainstream Thai media reinforce the tradition of immunity from human rights abuses. There are no big secrets about what happened in 1976 and the entire ruling elite have blood on their hands. Even the Democrat Party, which was in government at the time, despite being powerless, failed to condemn or even raise any opposition to the blood bath. They were weak and indecisive, as always, but they agreed with the need to “deal with” the students and the Left.

The 6th October 1976 blood bath resulted in a civil war. Thousands joined the Communist Party of Thailand to fight against the elites. Thousands held the Monarchy in contempt. Yet the armed struggle and Maoism was a failure. The 19th September 2006 has stimulated the growth of the pro-Democracy Red Shirts. The Monarchy is once again being seriously questioned. But this time, we have a mass movement in the cities and in the countryside. It is led by ordinary people and is becoming increasingly politicised.