THAILAND'S 'BANG-BANG FEVER' SYNDROME

As the death toll of drug suspects continues to rise throughout Thailand,
so does the country's dilemma in the international arena become more
obvious. When the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in Geneva starts its
session on March 17, Thailand will be the target of the world's criticism.
In past years, its human-rights record has been debated by CHR members
regarding inhumane treatment of foreign inmates and illegal migrants. That
was a small matter.

This time debate will be for a different reason. The gangland-style
executions - popularly known as "bang-bang fever" - of over three hundred
drug suspects over the past 17 days following the government's anti-drug
campaign has rattled the international community, which had witnessed a
steady improvement in respect for human rights and the rule of law in
Thailand over the last decade.

Leading human-rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch have expressed concern over the government's drug war. They
say that extrajudicial police executions are a violation of human rights.
There is also growing concern within the country that innocent people may
have been killed, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to prove their
innocence in court.

Lest Thais are caught by surprise, every human-rights reports abroad has
highlighted dubious killings here for years. The Thai National Commission
on Human Rights, which is preparing its annual report, is recording these
fatal incidents and seeking an explanation from the government. The
commission fears that Thai society is becoming indifferent to the use of force.

Thailand is currently serving the last year of its three-year CHR
membership. Previously the country had distinguished itself from other
developing countries by a foreign policy of respect for human rights and by
democracy as the pillar of its diplomacy. The government was hopeful it
could bridge the different approaches to human rights of the West and the East.

Thailand joined the CHR in 2000 to promote human rights in the
international environment - not to defend its own human-rights record as
other countries have done. For a developing country this was a very
ambitious task, but it was worth trying.

Gone obviously are the days of euphoria when the Thai government was proud
of its human-rights record. A different mood prevails now. The government
of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will have to decide soon whether to
reapply for CHR membership. One thing is certain: the Thai representatives
to the United Nations in Geneva will have to answer international enquiries
about its gross violation of human rights in the form of extrajudicial
killings.

The standard answer will be that the police just performed their duty and
killed suspected drug dealers in self-defence. Another answer will be that
drug suspects killed each other to avoid mutual exposure. The government
has admitted there were a dozen cases of so-called no-red-tape killing
involving the plainclothes police shooting at blacklisted drug dealers.

Under Thaksin, the government is paying attention to the demands of the
community, especially those related to the drug menace, but the campaign
has been detrimental to individual and group rights. The government has
failed to point out which person or group in authority is going to
interpret those rights.

The carte-blanche order by Thaksin to all law-enforcers and the country's
77 governors to meet targets set by the anti-drug campaign can easily lead
to gross violations of human rights.

Given the country's reputation now, some policy-makers strongly recommend
that Thailand just let its CHR term lapse. As early as 2001 the government
planned to pull out of the CHR but subsequently changed it mind. After all,
it argued, Thailand has overexposed itself and made more enemies in the
process by taking part in the CHR. It has been subjected to foreign pressure.

The latest was in the case of Libya, which was chosen as president of the
CHR. The US, which has made a comeback at the CHR this year, did not wish
to see Libya in that position and tried unsuccessfully to lobby other CHR
members for another candidate country. Washington urged Bangkok to vote
against Libya, but Bangkok did not comply.

Proponents of continued CHR membership reason that it would serve the
country's interest. After all, Thailand is a democratic country with a more
decent human-rights record than many other CHR members. It says the
shoot-to-kill policy is a necessary measure to halt drug proliferation
during the three-month campaign. Policy-makers who back CHR membership view
the move as pivotal for Thailand's reputation, for all it has been
tarnished recently. The country needs international support and cannot live
in isolation, even though from time to time the government likes to whip up
nationalism.

It is ironic while the government is trying to accede to more international
instruments of human rights, it has chosen to ignore the same fundamental
rights at home.