Exiled businessman says law not on govt's side in Thaksin extradition fight

1) The offence (fraudulent filings) for which extradition is currently being proposed is not a crime listed in the 1911 UK-Siam Extradition Treaty in accordance with Thai laws;

2) If the offence is not listed, the conduct defining the offence must amount to crime under the laws of both Thailand and the UK - at the best of times, this is going to be a significant hurdle - and

3) Under UK extradition legislation, there will be no extradition without a credible guarantee that Thaksin, and Khunying Pojaman for that matter, will not be tried for any other offence than that for which extradition is granted - this concept is not valid under Thai laws. (The Thai version of the 1911 UK-Siam Extradition Treaty makes no provision for such a restriction for trial; neither does the Thai Extradition Act.)

 There is also the additional compelling argument that the revoking of the 1997 constitution led to the abandoning of certain key individual rights and procedural safeguards driven by the presumption of innocence; rights and safeguards which are mandated by the relevant international instrument, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which Thailand has signed. However, none of the provisions of the ICCPR have been "domesticated" into Thai law, as Thai law stands today. So any extradition order to Thailand would be in violation of international norms and laws. Assuming that Thaksin's extradition battle is fought in the UK, Thaksin will have access to the European Court; unless Thailand can actually formalise a constitution similar to the 1997 constitution, Thai prosecutors should not even attempt to present their case for international scrutiny.

 As you will gather, Thai prosecutors have a formidable task ahead of them, at least as far as extradition from the UK is concerned. Your average reader is well advised to obtain a copy of the Thai version of the underlying extradition treaty from the Thai gazette or from the public prosecutor's manual to understand the problem with some degree of precision; it is a simple two-to- three-page read.

Rakesh Saxena

Vancouver, Canada

-------------------------------

Shinawatras may yet escape justice at home

Dr John Patterson letter in "Shinawatras being given a free pass by civil servants", (Letters, June 29) rightly points a finger at the government's failure to act on a level playing field, if you pardon the pun, and yes it does diminish efforts of the whole coup and the Assets Examination Committee's work. Now public prosecutors voice concern that Thaksin will most likely escape extradition because his alleged crimes do not constitute an offence under English law. So, English law does not recognise tax evasion and extrajudicial killings. That's news.

Anyway, I vow to forget "Bonnie and Clyde". The man now infecting my country with his wretched ego can just get on with it. I have fought for some redress, but in the end it has been pointless. People these days kowtow to those with money and influence and care less and less about how they got it. It's the unfortunate way of the world. Let karma take its toll.

James Groveway

Bangkok

-------------------------------------

A political career would cost Sonthi his credibility

Re: "Sonthi should stay out of politics", Editorial, June 30.

After nine months of denying he harboured any ambition to seek political office, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin on Monday went back on his words without any trace of discomfiture.

One question remains: did the general lead the Thai military to oust the Thaksin government on September 19 of last year in order to pave the way for himself to assume the premiership in Thaksin's place in the near future?

General Sonthi will not remain acceptable for long, let alone become popular, if he indeed goes against his own words over his political ambitions. The idea of a military leader who turned the tables on democracy seeking a political future in a new democratic environment is laughable. He should fade away as good soldiers are expected to do.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

-------------------------------------

Corrupting lure of power may overwhelm CNS chief

Is General Sonthi Boonyaratglin a man unique among men? Perhaps he is. The dubious reasons given for the coup may be heartfelt by the general. His burden was to free Thailand from a perceived potential dictator. A benevolent despot could cure Thailand's political fighting amongst cantankerous crusaders. And the general was the man to do the job.

But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a heady experience controlling a country. The general grabbed the leadership of Thailand without opposition and with the support of the people.

Unless Sonthi is unique, power is an addicting drug. Holding on to, expanding and increasing power becomes an obsession. Power for the sake of more power becomes the objective. While The Nation's editorial asks Sonthi to stay out of politics, praise is heaped on the general: "Sonthi's current position... is no less significant than any political post. Making his name in history as the only person to hold such a position is in fact just as honourable an achievement as seeking public respect and recognition through a career as a politician."

Comments like this justify a coup that by definition is not democratic or representative of the citizens' desires. Also, these comments can encourage Sonthi to enter politics as they suggest he has been successful, has management abilities, has domestic support and, most importantly, has carried out a legitimate performance. A coup is not a democratic activity. A country governed by a kind, honest, concerned and intelligent leader but appointed by an unelected military is not democracy. Those involved in perpetuating these activities are not deserving of praise. They are not deserving of a vote. They should be considered a short-term self-annulling hiccup in Thailand's inevitable march to true democracy.

Tom Fin

Bangkok

--------------------------------------

Hmong betrayed by their old 'secret-war' partners

The arrests of 11 prominent Hmong leaders leave many Hmong in the US and elsewhere feeling somewhat betrayed by the US government and its law-enforcement agencies. In the 1960s and 1970s, General Vang Pao inspired thousands of Lao Hmong to join the US CIA in its secret war in Laos. After the war, he acted as a military and social leader for Hmong who relocated to the US.

When Laos fell to communism in 1975 and Pao came to the United States, thousands of his soldiers were unable to leave. For three decades, they have remained in the jungle, hiding from the communist government that still seeks to kill them. Several thousand Hmong refugees have escaped and are still languishing in refugee camps in Thailand.

About two weeks ago, the Thai government deported 163 Hmong refugees to Laos for unknown reasons. This action caused international concerns about the Thai government's legal obligations and role in protecting and helping international refugees who are seeking political asylum.

Since 1975, Vang Pao has politically vowed to retake the country and save his soldiers and the civilians who were abandoned there by the US government. To raise funds and other support for that effort, he established Neo Hom, a Lao liberation movement. The US government and its law enforcement agencies have always known about Vang Pao's post-secret war mission. The Lao government is fully aware of Pao's operations and has systematically infiltrated and intercepted his resistance tactics for many years.

Obviously Vang Pao hid nothing from the US government. If US officials are intimately aware of General Pao's resistance activities and have found no serious problem with them for 30 years, why the arrests now? Certainly it is not because these activities pose any foreign policy dilemma.

Even if these men could have violated federal law by plotting the violent overthrow of a foreign government with which the US is at peace, doesn't the US government owe them some political help? The US government should have at the very least informed its former allies about the illegality of such an action against a foreign country rather than knowingly permit the planning of the action for many years.

From 1961 to 1975, the US government trusted Vang Pao to help in its effort to suppress communist expansion in Southeast Asia. When that effort failed, Vang Pao trusted the US promise to protect the Hmong people from imprisonment, torture and murder. Now he is arrested by his former boss, a government that he once fought alongside. Is it any wonder that Hmong see Operation Tarnished Eagles as a betrayal?

Dr Christopher T Vang

Associate Professor

California State University

California