Amnesty, National Human Rights Commission to Put Spotlight on Human Rights

Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, was in Bangkok last week. She minced no words. After a week-long stay, she said Thailand could have done more to protect human rights defenders and place human rights at the heart of government works.

Although she criticised the government for its failure to give protection to human rights defenders, its handling of the drugs war and the extrajudicial killings and violence in southern Thailand since January, she said Amnesty was willing to listen and take note of the views of government officials.

As the first woman to head the organisation, she has shown sensitivity and yet been firm in her attitude towards the human rights problems in Thailand. She reiterated during a press conference last week that Amnesty is not a foreign human rights organisation; it is an international organisation. In this sense, she said, Amnesty was not coming to Thailand and imposing its values and views; as an international human rights organisation with national chapters, it expected the highest international human rights standards to be practised by any government.

In a nine-page memorandum to the Thai government, which will be made public in October, Amnesty has placed a lot of emphasis on Thailand’s regional role in promoting human rights and the engagement of civil society. Interestingly, Amnesty thinks Thailand can encourage the governments of Southeast Asia, especially Burma, to promote and protect human rights both domestically and regionally.

She hopes the Thai government will respond to the memo, as Amnesty considers “indigenous response” as valuable input, and pivotal to the overall assessment of a country’s human rights status.

One of the possible roles for Thailand that Amnesty highlighted was to push for the establishment of an “Asean human rights mechanism”. Before the current government took power in early 2001, Thailand was actively promoting human rights and democracy, as these values were central to the country’s foreign policy. Amnesty’s suggestions, if adopted, would certainly help get government policy back on the right track.

After more than a decade of recalcitrance, the Asean foreign ministers recently agreed in Jakarta to look for ways to establish a regional human rights institute. Somehow, it was a bit of a mismatch for the present government. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Cabinet members have not treated the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) with any respect. The NHRC has been in place since 2001, but the government has completely ignored its work and requests. When subpoenas were sent to officials, especially those related to the nation’s security apparatus, they were ignored. Government officials have not cooperated fully with the commission. Often, they have held condescending views of the NHRC.

One might ask: Can a country that does not respect its own citizens’ rights through the NHRC meet the commitments set forth in an international human rights instrument? Thailand is a good case in point. Of late, its commitments under international accords have been slipping. The Thai government’s annual human rights report to the UN High Commission on Human Rights does not show any progress in the 34 cases of “disappearances” since 1992. So far, the government has tolerated the activities of the NHRC because the agency lacks the necessary teeth to bite into the culture of impunity.

The NHRC has already completed its human rights report, which will be made public in early August, covering the past three years. This is an unprecedented development in the human rights field: for the first time, Thailand has its own referential material and standards related to human rights.

Under Thaksin, Thailand is no longer a country that is serious about human rights. Issues related to human rights and civil engagement have been all but disregarded. Look at the state of human rights, civil society participation and freedom of expression – they are all on shaky ground.

Khan’s call to Thailand to create a “white list” of human rights defenders was a good one because the government and its security apparatus continue to ignore the rule of law by producing endless “blacklists”. These blacklists are used as a basis for intimidation and arrests.

Amnesty has also recommended to the Interior Ministry that a joint committee made up of representatives from Amnesty, civil society organisations and the host government be established to protect the lives of human rights defenders. It is thought that 16 human rights defenders have been killed in Thailand in recent years. Indeed, Thailand has a great opportunity to play a regional role precisely because all the greatest abuses and human rights violations, following the toppling of the Thanom-Prapas regime in 1973, occurred in the past three and a half years. Playing a constructive regional role would demonstrate a real change of course.

At the press conference, repeated questions were focused on the lack of Amnesty action. That was reflected in Khan’s presentation and articulation. As an Asian, she must show enough sense and sensibility in dealing with human rights issues. She said it was important to give credit where credit was due. In that sense, she also renders credit to the government’s promises and claims.

Amnesty welcomes Thailand’s plan to accede to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. But in reality, Thailand has not kept its promises in many cases. For instance, the country has not yet ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice, after the government promised to do so in 2002.

After years of using a Thai translation of its name, Amnesty International has now reverted to its original name in English. Comments were made that the Thai version could have been misread as “protection of wrongdoers”.

Doubtless, the NHRC report in conjunction with Amnesty’s findings will provide a serious barometer of Thailand’s human rights situation.