The appointment of Kanit na Nakorn, a former attorney general as the head of the independent fact-finding committee tasked by the government to investigate the two-month long violence in Bangkok, could be seen by most political observers as a good step forward towards bringing out truth surrounding the worst violence that the country has witnessed in three decades. However, since his appointment serious questions concerning the committee's independence and its stated mission have been raised, and many independent observers have called the investigative process flawed and insincere on the part of the Democrat-led government. The crisis in April-May 2010 led to the death of 89 people, a majority of whom were civilians, and at least 2,000 people were injured. Late last month, the Mirror Foundation, which documented cases of disappearances, reported that 39 people have gone missing after the crackdown. Technically speaking, the work of the Khanit committee should have been conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), an agency tasked by the constitution to look into human rights violations committed by the government and non-state actors. The NHRCT has faced much criticism for its lack of expertise in human rights and impartiality. Five members of the sub-committee that have been set up to investigate the violence surrounding the events on April 10, 2010, which resulted in the deaths of 25 people, recently resigned. Sombat Boonngam-anong, a social activist who heads the Mirror Foundation and was one of the five former members of the sub-committee, told the writer early this month that the response so far from the NHRCT is unacceptable as it fails to criticize the use of force by the government. “I feel that by having my name in the subcommittee which so far has just organized one meeting and has not been doing anything else will be a waste of my time. I do not want to associate myself with this agency. The NHRCT has become irrelevant. The ordinary people cannot rely on it anymore as they have to protect our own rights,” Sombat said. For Khanit’s committee, the key question that was raised is to what extent the committee can genuinely be independent and impartial. Also, does it have a mandate to conduct its work in a professional manner akin to international standards, which includes the power to submit the findings to the court to persecute the wrongdoers. The mandate of Khanit’s committee is unclear and arbitrary. This is not to mention that the statement by Khanit earlier this month that the committee will not seek to find out who was right or wrong, but will seek to promote forgiveness is already problematic. The UN, under the tenure of Kofi Annan, had highlighted many times that the success in national reconciliation and post-conflict reconstruction is accompanied with truth and justice. Truth alone with impunity for the wrongdoers, in this case whether they are government officials or militant Redshirts, will not serve the country well in the long-term. Arbitrary arrest and detention of the Redshirt protesters in a non-transparent manner, as the government did, will not bring the country forward, but will create more hatred and anger against the government. During the 14th UN Human Rights Council (HRC) session in Geneva, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom and Spain (on behalf of Spain), had pressed Thailand to establish a committee which will be vested with human rights expertise to investigate whether there had been human rights violations committed by the government and the Redshirts during the two-month long seige violence. Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, the Thai ambassador to the UN, referred to the Khanit commission during his address to the council. However, when we look at the Khanit’s committee, it seems as if it is not vested with a rights-based approach. Khanit, a career lawyer, is not a human rights expert. The independence of this committee has already been jeopardized given that Khanit did not come from a transparent selection process involving academics, human rights groups and the broader civil society, but was appointed by PM Abhisit Vejajiva, who is also seen as one of the key perpetrators in this conflict. What is a good model for a successful committee? Dr.Sriprapha Petchamesree, the representative of Thailand to the Asean Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, in May “requested [Thailand] to allow the fact finding team composed of regional or international members to investigate and constitute the facts and human rights violations during the violence on April 10 and May repression.” Sriprapha also highlighted that any committee “appointed by the government shall not enjoy any credibility.” As a member of the UNHRC, Thailand could show its transparency by requesting the visits of the UN independent experts known as the “special procedures” to investigate the alleged human rights violations during the past two months. The UN has requested for nine special procedures to visit the country. If Thailand is sincere about its commitments, it could accept the requests and allow a fact-finding mission to be conducted by a team of experts, for instance a combination of the mandate holders on rights to freedom of expression, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, and arbitrary detention. It could also seek the assistance of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on this matter. There are also critical conditions that continue to be imposed in Thailand that could jeopardize the functioning of such a fact finding mission. Dr. Tyrell Haberkorn of the School of International, Political and Strategic Studies at Australian National University, has highlighted that “the persistence of media censorship and intimidation of those deemed dissident [is a major concern]. How can there be an independent investigation in a climate in which citizens cannot freely express their views? How can there be an independent investigation while the Emergency Decree is still in force and citizens can be arbitrarily detained without the presentation of evidence?” Abhisit’s government, if it is sincere to solve the current crisis, must effectively and efficiently addressed these concerns. Any committee that is partisan and vested with no power will jeopardize its efforts in addressing justice for all. If the government does not want to change the trends of its methods, which have been largely criticized as being insincere, and allow a truly independent fact finding committee that is acceptable to all sides, it must know that this process of national reconciliation will be labeled a failure and could lead to more mass protests. More importantly, if justice is not provided to the dead, Thailand will surely await a larger crisis than in April-May. |
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org |
No comments:
Post a Comment