• 
• 

Published on October 5, 2007

In the case of the Lao Hmong, if it is Thailand's foreign policy to force people to return to a government which has treated them ruthlessly and without mercy, then I think it will only be a few at the top who will smile.

As a researcher who has studied the Hmong situation extensively, I have to say that it's no secret that the people detained at the Immigration Detention Centre at Nong Khai and some of the Hmong in Huay Nam Khao are not mere "illegal migrants", but have escaped Laos to save their lives. There's powerful and undeniable evidence to substantiate it: wounds, first-hand stories, videos, oral reports, and also news reports and photographs by professional journalists that all point to horrendous maltreatment and genocide of Hmong people by Lao forces over the past couple of decades. These gross human rights abuses are not only past history, but also occurred within the year, according to eyewitness reports. This is part of the known history between LPDR Army forces and the Lao Hmong people.

It is difficult to imagine how Thailand can define its role as humane and ethical while collaborating with Laos to send these endangered people back to Laos, and with no assurance of monitoring by human rights observers.  More than a dozen US senators have called on Thailand to protect the Hmong people at this crucial juncture. Third countries have volunteered to take the people at IDC. And although the group had been poised to go earlier this year, their move to new countries was halted by Thailand without valid and substantial reasons. We're told now they will be returned to Laos, despite Thailand's prime minister vowing in January to protect them.

Certainly, if Thailand proposes to engage in such a heinous act in regard to human rights, it is probable that when the leaders' decisions become historically known and commented upon, their actions of the moment will come to characterise the nation long-term. The 'Land of Smiles' may be better known as the 'Land of Sneers'.

As a member of the human rights community, I implore Thailand's leaders to prevent further suffering. Thailand, please honour your word and protect and keep the Hmong within the country. A viable solution is to seek third countries now to take the 8,000 people living at Huay Nam Khao and allow the people at Nong Khai IDC to go to the countries that have offered them refuge. Protect them from continued physical and psychological threat by forcing them to return to a country that has so unconscionably abused them. The process may take time, but 8,000 is not a large number of people, and placing them in a third country is a practical alternative that will keep them alive. 

Please do the right thing, Thailand, and we will all smile with you.

Ann Peters

Bangkok

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

Bureaucrats and diplomats: do something

To: Prime Minister Stephen Harper; HE Lu Shumin, Ambassador of the People's Republic of China to Canada; Robert Wright, Canadian Ambassador to the People's Republic of China; Shawn P Steil, Consul of Canada; Chongqing Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs; David L Emerson, Minister of International Trade.

I am writing to you as a Canadian citizen who is very concerned about the situation in Burma, and in particular the role that China could play in bringing about positive change in that country. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders, Freedom House and the UN Commission on Human Rights have all condemned the military regime that absurdly calls itself the "State Peace and Development Council" for gross human rights violations. Governments around the world have also condemned the regime, with the notable exception of China. China has routinely refused to act on Burma, claiming that it does not wish to interfere in the "internal" problems of its neighbour. Yet China cannot claim disinterest, as it has extensive business interests with the Burmese military regime and has provided them with weapons in the past. While refusing to "interfere" by imposing sanctions, China is happy to continue to do business with a regime that exploits its own people for power and profit. It is not an exaggeration to say that Chinese business interests are effectively propping up the brutal military dictatorship in Burma.

How can China claim to represent the international community as host of the Olympic Games when it refuses to join the international community in condemning, and refusing to do business with, a regime that practices torture and terror as a means of repressing the fundamental human rights of its own people?

I respectfully request that all of you do whatever possible to encourage China to take a more responsible stand on Burma and guarantee basic rights and freedoms for the Burmese people.

Niall MacLachlan

Bangkok

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

Generals crack easily under pressure

So far, Asean's policy of non-interference and constructive engagement to coax Burma into democratic reform has worked no better than Western sanctions. And although the group issued a rare expression of revulsion after last week's violent crackdown, there has been no word on whether it will take any action against Burma. It seems certain that the generals in Burma have been in contact with their brother generals in Thailand to ensure there are no misunderstandings. The Thai generals no doubt understand the terrible strain the poor Burmese generals are under ... beset by monks and ordinary people.

All generals know that sometimes you just have to kill people for their own good.

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

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

If you think it will offend, don't log on

I have just read a report of remarks by Professor Marcel Machill to the 8th Asian-European Editors Forum ("Journalists told to beware Internet"). The professor seems to think journalists are unthinking believers in everything they see and read. 

Surely a skill a journalist needs to have is to be able to detect biased opinion from facts and doctored facts. After recent reports, one of the websites the professor should be warning journalists to be careful of is Wikipedia.com.  Anyone can post information on that site and anyone can modify it. Apparently one of the most frequent correctors of the information in Wikipedia is the CIA.

As for the professor's calls for censorship, I totally disagree. Think of the implications. Censor sites advocating violence? That would mean censoring a large proportion of the websites carrying news of public statements by George Bush because he frequently glorifies the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Unquestionably all wrestling and boxing sites would be blocked because those sports are all about aggression - knock the living daylights out of the other bloke before he does it to you.

I might not agree with these things but I think I have a right to know they are happening. Censoring out pornographic sites I also disagree with. Block children's access, yes, but not adults, with the exception of violent exploitation and paedophilia. There are laws in most countries to deal with such sites and people. If you don't like it, you do not have to visit such sites. Put warning messages against the search results by all means, but do not block them.

I wonder what quoting the proportion of searches which are for pornographic sites is supposed to show. Is it supposed to reflect the proportion of surfers looking for pornography? If so then any search engine blocking such sites would be cutting off a lot of potential users of their service and those people would probably go elsewhere for their other searches as well. But the figure may also be inflated. A user may not want to type in the address of a porn site in their browser, because later users can see where they have been, unless they clear the address bar list. But an almost empty address bar list might look strange to other users.  They could get round it by going to a search engine and typing the required address in the search engine. They know perfectly well where they want to go, but are reducing the amount of evidence of their activities on their machine.

Gareth Clayton

Bangkok

The Nation

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com