Thailand must ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) without delay.
Published on April 14, 2008
All the past unsound arguments surrounding the monarchy related to the ICC have been proven false. Countries with similar institutions have ratified the ICC including Britain (2001), Japan (2007) and Cambodia (2002). Their consciences were clear and they realised that their monarchies would never engage in crimes against humanity, or issue a command for others to do so. It is that simple.
In 2000, former prime minister Chuan Leekpai acceded to the ICC. At that time, Thailand was an ideal nation, wanting to join the world's liberal community. Bangkok aspired to promote international peace and stability and adhered to UN norms and standards. Right after the Chuan government took power in 1997, Bangkok signed the landmark anti-landmine treaty in Ottawa.
Eight years have elapsed without any progress. Subsequent governments have pledged to ratify Thailand's accession to the ICC, but so far none has. Speculation is rife as to why they continue to drag their feet. The most quoted reasons relate to the government in power and questions surrounding the status of the royal institution.
The Foreign Ministry has said time and again that Thailand is ready to ratify the ICC, but unfortunately the current government is reticent to go ahead. The same attitude prevailed when the Thaksin government was in power and promised to ratify the ICC, including the UN Convention Against Torture. Even though the government spun the news with heavy publicity in 2005, it failed to carry through.
At the time the government feared that ratifying the ICC could lead to the indictments of senior Thai officials including Thaksin for human-rights violation in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, as well as the anti-drugs campaign. Under the provisions of the Rome Statute, the ICC has no authority to try previous crimes, especially those committed before July 2002.
Ironically, the coup-appointed government of General Surayud Chulanont had enough courage to ratify the convention outlawing all forms of torture inside Thailand. This augured well with his efforts to reform the Royal Thai Police, which continue to hold the country's worst record of human-rights violations. Unfortunately, the argument against ratifying the ICC still prevailed strongly within the Surayud government.
In years to come, domestic human-rights violations are likely to increase given the audacity of the government's pronouncements on policies related to the three southern provinces and its anti-drug campaign - both reruns of Thaksin-era policies. Ratifying the ICC now would counter such an inclination.
Thailand has developed more of a phobia concerning ratifying international treaties than we would like to admit. The country's judicial experience in 1962 at the World Court in the Hague over the fate of the Preah Vihear Temple, a ruling which favoured Cambodia, still haunts officials dealing with treaties and protocols.
On the ICC, concerned officials would like to maintain the status quo regardless of changes in global governance and thinking. For instance, successive Thai governments over five decades have stubbornly refused to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention because of the unfounded fear that it would encourage an influx of refugees from neighbouring countries. The Interior Ministry and security agencies continue to use this outdated argument without doing any soul-searching.
With its geographical location and level of economic development, an influx of migrant workers and refugees from conflicts elsewhere into Thailand is to be expected. Signing the Refugee Convention would help Thailand deal with the issue professionally and in a transparent manner - something which Thailand has refused to do.
Just take a close look at the porous Thai border and the pathetic way the government has handled the Hmong, Karen and other ethnic groups. It has seriously undermined the country's reputation and brought both humiliation and condemnation from the international community. This week the fate of Hmong refugees continues to be headlined news internationally.
Ratifying the refugee convention would provide Thailand with an international instrument with which it could reposition itself over such a vexing issue. At the moment, every measure or policy is subject to an ad-hoc arrangement or oversight by persons who have very narrow views of the world and do not appreciate the country's value as the host over 3 million refugees in the past.
In the case of ICC, Bangkok would be able to strengthen the international justice system, including the rejection of violence and show Thailand's respect for fundamental human rights, which are guaranteed by the Thai Constitution. Apart from the argument surrounding the monarchy, Thailand has yet to come clean on its own criminal justice system. Our national courts still lack standards and creditability.
To overcome the labyrinth of amendments to domestic laws that would be required for ICC ratification, a new legislature, focused exclusively on the ICC, should be enacted. This would enable Thailand to move on the fast track to join other countries that have ratified the ICC.
Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation
Published on April 14, 2008
All the past unsound arguments surrounding the monarchy related to the ICC have been proven false. Countries with similar institutions have ratified the ICC including Britain (2001), Japan (2007) and Cambodia (2002). Their consciences were clear and they realised that their monarchies would never engage in crimes against humanity, or issue a command for others to do so. It is that simple.
In 2000, former prime minister Chuan Leekpai acceded to the ICC. At that time, Thailand was an ideal nation, wanting to join the world's liberal community. Bangkok aspired to promote international peace and stability and adhered to UN norms and standards. Right after the Chuan government took power in 1997, Bangkok signed the landmark anti-landmine treaty in Ottawa.
Eight years have elapsed without any progress. Subsequent governments have pledged to ratify Thailand's accession to the ICC, but so far none has. Speculation is rife as to why they continue to drag their feet. The most quoted reasons relate to the government in power and questions surrounding the status of the royal institution.
The Foreign Ministry has said time and again that Thailand is ready to ratify the ICC, but unfortunately the current government is reticent to go ahead. The same attitude prevailed when the Thaksin government was in power and promised to ratify the ICC, including the UN Convention Against Torture. Even though the government spun the news with heavy publicity in 2005, it failed to carry through.
At the time the government feared that ratifying the ICC could lead to the indictments of senior Thai officials including Thaksin for human-rights violation in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, as well as the anti-drugs campaign. Under the provisions of the Rome Statute, the ICC has no authority to try previous crimes, especially those committed before July 2002.
Ironically, the coup-appointed government of General Surayud Chulanont had enough courage to ratify the convention outlawing all forms of torture inside Thailand. This augured well with his efforts to reform the Royal Thai Police, which continue to hold the country's worst record of human-rights violations. Unfortunately, the argument against ratifying the ICC still prevailed strongly within the Surayud government.
In years to come, domestic human-rights violations are likely to increase given the audacity of the government's pronouncements on policies related to the three southern provinces and its anti-drug campaign - both reruns of Thaksin-era policies. Ratifying the ICC now would counter such an inclination.
Thailand has developed more of a phobia concerning ratifying international treaties than we would like to admit. The country's judicial experience in 1962 at the World Court in the Hague over the fate of the Preah Vihear Temple, a ruling which favoured Cambodia, still haunts officials dealing with treaties and protocols.
On the ICC, concerned officials would like to maintain the status quo regardless of changes in global governance and thinking. For instance, successive Thai governments over five decades have stubbornly refused to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention because of the unfounded fear that it would encourage an influx of refugees from neighbouring countries. The Interior Ministry and security agencies continue to use this outdated argument without doing any soul-searching.
With its geographical location and level of economic development, an influx of migrant workers and refugees from conflicts elsewhere into Thailand is to be expected. Signing the Refugee Convention would help Thailand deal with the issue professionally and in a transparent manner - something which Thailand has refused to do.
Just take a close look at the porous Thai border and the pathetic way the government has handled the Hmong, Karen and other ethnic groups. It has seriously undermined the country's reputation and brought both humiliation and condemnation from the international community. This week the fate of Hmong refugees continues to be headlined news internationally.
Ratifying the refugee convention would provide Thailand with an international instrument with which it could reposition itself over such a vexing issue. At the moment, every measure or policy is subject to an ad-hoc arrangement or oversight by persons who have very narrow views of the world and do not appreciate the country's value as the host over 3 million refugees in the past.
In the case of ICC, Bangkok would be able to strengthen the international justice system, including the rejection of violence and show Thailand's respect for fundamental human rights, which are guaranteed by the Thai Constitution. Apart from the argument surrounding the monarchy, Thailand has yet to come clean on its own criminal justice system. Our national courts still lack standards and creditability.
To overcome the labyrinth of amendments to domestic laws that would be required for ICC ratification, a new legislature, focused exclusively on the ICC, should be enacted. This would enable Thailand to move on the fast track to join other countries that have ratified the ICC.
Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation
No comments:
Post a Comment