A DIRTY WAR IN THAILAND

Last month the prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, declared war
on drugs, vowing to rid his country of the scourge within three months. The
goal is ambitious, if not impossible. Human rights groups reportedly
express fear that the campaign has become reckless and dangerous; they
claim that the government has adopted a shoot-to-kill policy. Drugs are a
terrible threat to society, but Thailand must endeavor, as should all
countries, to ensure that the methods it uses to fight crime are not worse
than the evil it confronts.

It is estimated that Thailand has 2.5 million drug users, ranging from glue
sniffers to heroin addicts. Thai police estimate that 800 million to 1
billion methamphetamine tablets enter the country every year, or about 12
tablets for every Thai citizen. Hundreds of thousands of Thais are thought
to be dependent on a drug known locally as "ya ba" ("crazy medicine").

In the antidrug "eye-for-an-eye" operation launched last month, Mr. Thaksin
has declared war on the criminal gangs that smuggle and sell drugs,
demanding that they be given no quarter. His no-compromise approach is in
keeping with his persona of a "can-do" leader. It has also sparked fears
that the government is encouraging a policy of shooting first -- without
asking questions later -- when dealing with those suspected of selling
illegal drugs.

By the end of February, police said 1,035 suspects had been killed and
29,501 arrested. Incredibly, police claim that they shot only 31 people,
all in self-defense; the rest were said to have been killed by gangs to
silence potential informants.

Fears of government-condoned extrajudicial executions have been fueled by
the prime minister's reported statement that "murder is not an unusual fate
for wicked people, and the public should not be alarmed by their death."
International human-rights groups have protested the rising death toll, and
the United Nations has joined the chorus of alarm. The U.N. Commission on
Human Rights is "deeply concerned" about the operation and the "allegations
of excessive use of force resulting in extrajudicial executions."

Mr. Thaksin is unbowed. Not only has he vowed that the government will not
back down, but he also has invited the U.N. to send observers to monitor
the campaign. His government has also established panels to review
complaints of police misconduct -- concerning both involvement in the drug
trade and excessive use of force.

In addition, the government has begun to address the other side of the
problem. Earlier this month, it set up rehabilitation programs for the
country's addicts, about 5 percent of the population of 63 million. The
justice minister promised that no criminal charges would be pressed against
individuals who voluntarily enter those programs.

It is tempting to look the other way when trying to solve intractable
problems. After all, "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." Few
issues are as horrifying or seem to be as insoluble as drug addiction. Yet
it is important to ask how far should a society go in its attempts to fight
evil? At what point does the remedy become worse than the cure? This is not
a question for the Thais alone to consider.

The perennial question about ethics and morality has taken on a new
relevance and urgency in recent months. The international campaign against
terrorism has forced citizens to ask what rights are to be afforded
terrorists and their sympathizers. Is torture justified when innocent lives
hang in the balance? How much should interrogators respect international
conventions when, say, an individual has knowledge of a terrorist attack
that could claim thousands of lives? Do the laws of war apply to
individuals who do not respect those conventions themselves?

To say that desperate times demand desperate measures is not enough; there
are always circumstances that encourage us to bend the laws. Philosophers,
moralists and theologians acknowledge that there are times when those
detours are permitted. The "just war" is one such exception. But it is
essential that citizens -- individuals responsible for the governments that
act on behalf of the people -- recognize that these are exceptions rather
than the rule.

We must hold ourselves to higher standards than those we combat, for that
higher moral standard gives us an edge over our enemies. Tolerance and
understanding is not weakness, but a source of strength. There must be
something more than fear that sustains us. The knowledge and certainty that
we live by a higher ethical and moral standard is just that.