Pubdate: Fri,  28 Apr 2003
Source: Japan Times (Japan)
Copyright: 2003 The Japan Times
Contact:  http://www.japantimes.co.jp/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/755

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex