Thailand To Discuss Thaksin Extradition In London

[britmaveric]

Less we forget if Mr. T returned to thailand and was able to run - he'd be voted in as PM in a heartbeat.

[Steely Dan]

It took Chile ages to get Pinochet extradited, but the real point is should the UK authorities agree to extradite Thaksin even if he was responsible for embezzling more than Suharto or murdering more than Pinochet? There is the small matter of a right to a fair trial - and that is not something you would expect to get from a junta who afterall subverted the will of the people, true so probably did Thaksin but the realpolitik is that the UK would never grant such a request to a non democratic government seeking to settle old scores. Now when is the election again?

I'm sorry but I must correct you even though you reach the same conclusions as me.We must remind ourselves again and again, because of the lies being propagated by the junta and its friends, that Thaksin though an unsavoury character cannot be compared to Pinochet or Suharto.He neither murdered political prisoners nor embezzled on a vast scale.He can be criticised, even charged perhaps at some point, for altering the rules of the game so that his business interests had an unfair advantage.But he made his vast fortune quite legally.There are those who like to describe Thaksin as evil incarnate not so much for his alleged offences but because wittingly or unwittingly he changed the elite's comfortable status quo where the great mass of Thais are seen as a subordinated amorphous lumpenproletariat.Finally you seem not to understand the meaning of realpolitik:the UK will not hand over Thaksin because of a moral principle which is the opposite of realpolitik.

I was citing the examples of Pinochet and Suharto to make the point that EVEN IF Thaksin was as bad as them (I don't believe he is incidentally) he would still have the right to a fair trial, which would be difficult to argue him receiving from an unelected junta.

As for realpolitik, I have no problem with it's meaning, I would ask you whether sending British troops to Iraq was a moral principle as Tony Blair originally presented it, or realpolitik as it definitely was. Britain can play a straight bat to a request to extradite Thaksin ostensibly on the grounds of moral principle, but the realpolitik is the U.S has leverage and Thailand does not so the pretence of moral principle applies and Britain enhances it's reputation as an upholder of it.

[sriracha john]

Less we forget if Mr. T returned to thailand and was able to run - he'd be voted in as PM in a heartbeat.

whoopsy daisy....

Bangkok Post

June 1, 2007

List of 111 Thai Rak Thai executives who were banned from politics for five years for engaging in electoral fraud.

1.Thaksin Shinawatra

etc.

etc.

etc.

see ya in 2012...

[britmaveric]

I said if he could run...

[younghusband]

It took Chile ages to get Pinochet extradited, but the real point is should the UK authorities agree to extradite Thaksin even if he was responsible for embezzling more than Suharto or murdering more than Pinochet? There is the small matter of a right to a fair trial - and that is not something you would expect to get from a junta who afterall subverted the will of the people, true so probably did Thaksin but the realpolitik is that the UK would never grant such a request to a non democratic government seeking to settle old scores. Now when is the election again?

I'm sorry but I must correct you even though you reach the same conclusions as me.We must remind ourselves again and again, because of the lies being propagated by the junta and its friends, that Thaksin though an unsavoury character cannot be compared to Pinochet or Suharto.He neither murdered political prisoners nor embezzled on a vast scale.He can be criticised, even charged perhaps at some point, for altering the rules of the game so that his business interests had an unfair advantage.But he made his vast fortune quite legally.There are those who like to describe Thaksin as evil incarnate not so much for his alleged offences but because wittingly or unwittingly he changed the elite's comfortable status quo where the great mass of Thais are seen as a subordinated amorphous lumpenproletariat.Finally you seem not to understand the meaning of realpolitik:the UK will not hand over Thaksin because of a moral principle which is the opposite of realpolitik.

I was citing the examples of Pinochet and Suharto to make the point that EVEN IF Thaksin was as bad as them (I don't believe he is incidentally) he would still have the right to a fair trial, which would be difficult to argue him receiving from an unelected junta.

As for realpolitik, I have no problem with it's meaning, I would ask you whether sending British troops to Iraq was a moral principle as Tony Blair originally presented it, or realpolitik as it definitely was. Britain can play a straight bat to a request to extradite Thaksin ostensibly on the grounds of moral principle, but the realpolitik is the U.S has leverage and Thailand does not so the pretence of moral principle applies and Britain enhances it's reputation as an upholder of it.

Interesting Iraq point that you make.Since you ask, I think the motivation was a mix of moral principle (misguided but little doubt Blair saw it that way) and realpolitik ( keeping influence through supporting the US).That's just the British take of course and there was on the London side almost none of the neocon fantasy of transforming the Middle East.The trouble with a skilled politician like Blair is that he manages to entangle both moral principle and realpolitik so that in some instances it was quite hard to work out the motivation.

On the Thaksin extradition you are right to imply that the matter is not a very important one for the British government, particularly as all parties concerned know it's just political theatre and never going to happen.But it's worth remembering in the end the matter will be decided in the courts which, for those only experienced in the corrupt and flawed Thai system. means the government can't influence the outcome or interfere with whatever decision is handed down.

[John K]

I said if he could run...

Laws and rulings never seemed to bother him in the past, why start now.

[HappyDave35]

I can only conclude this is an exercise in saving face on the part of the Thai government and that doubtless they will announce some reason why they could not or should not go down the extradition route at some point in the future. I would guess that virtually anyone who knows even the tiniest bit about UK law will already know this is a time consuming process that will take many years to exhaust. Given that the request for extradition (if it is made) comes from a military junta and Thaksin was democratically elected, the words snowballs and hel_l spring to mind. In the meantime, nice little junket to the UK for the legal lads and lots of positive press for the current government.

Indeed. We all know they are no more interested in bringing Thaksin to justice than they were in serving the Thai people's best interests when they ousted him in the first place.

Mr Tud - as always quick to leap in there with your anti-coup rhetoric, with the pro-Thaksin undertones.

In future though can you refrain from use of the pronoun "we" - you certainly don't speak for me.

Errrrrrrrrr! which planet are you on Rixalex?

[HappyDave35]

It took Chile ages to get Pinochet extradited, but the real point is should the UK authorities agree to extradite Thaksin even if he was responsible for embezzling more than Suharto or murdering more than Pinochet? There is the small matter of a right to a fair trial - and that is not something you would expect to get from a junta who afterall subverted the will of the people, true so probably did Thaksin but the realpolitik is that the UK would never grant such a request to a non democratic government seeking to settle old scores. Now when is the election again?

I'm sorry but I must correct you even though you reach the same conclusions as me.We must remind ourselves again and again, because of the lies being propagated by the junta and its friends, that Thaksin though an unsavoury character cannot be compared to Pinochet or Suharto.He neither murdered political prisoners nor embezzled on a vast scale.He can be criticised, even charged perhaps at some point, for altering the rules of the game so that his business interests had an unfair advantage.But he made his vast fortune quite legally.There are those who like to describe Thaksin as evil incarnate not so much for his alleged offences but because wittingly or unwittingly he changed the elite's comfortable status quo where the great mass of Thais are seen as a subordinated amorphous lumpenproletariat.Finally you seem not to understand the meaning of realpolitik:the UK will not hand over Thaksin because of a moral principle which is the opposite of realpolitik.

Eggzakley !

[No beleeeeve!]

Aren't they charging his kids with tax evasion? Shouldn't his wife take the hit for that land deal if it was done in her name? Where is Toxin's lovely wife? Why not extradite her if she did the crime and they cannot get him anyway?

[jackspratt]

Aren't they charging his kids with tax evasion? Shouldn't his wife take the hit for that land deal if it was done in her name? Where is Toxin's lovely wife? Why not extradite her if she did the crime and they cannot get him anyway?

Quite simple really - some posters seem to believe that because many others have been corrupt, it is OK for Thaksin and his family to also be corrupt.

And given that it is yet very early days in the (hopefully successful) extradition process, it would be well into the term of the new government before he was bought back to face the music. The British government would then be in a better position to make the judgment on whether or not he was likely to receive a fair trial.

Mind you, that government does have recent form on making political decisions on what should be a legal issue eg the dropping of the investigation into the massive BAE bribes of the Saudi royal family to secure large defence contracts.

[Plus]

:the UK will not hand over Thaksin because of a moral principle

What kind of moral principle is that?

They'd look extremely naive arguing that "he won't get a fair trial" while their client fires off another dozen of billion dollar lawsuits in the same court.

Whatever the case, the UK doesn't have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to Thaksin.

[John K]

Let us not forget Thaksin is more or less is launching attacks from the UK, does anyone remember Singapore? I am sure they will be happy to get Thaksin out of their hair.

[slimdog]

And given that it is yet very early days in the (hopefully successful) extradition process, it would be well into the term of the new government before he was bought back to face the music. The British government would then be in a better position to make the judgment on whether or not he was likely to receive a fair trial.

Be careful what you hope for; I would certainly suggest you read the Extradition Treaty between the U.K and Siam (Thailand), in particular Article 6.

[ando]

A bunch of Generals oust a democratically elected government using guns and tanks and then want the peoples choice PM extradited from Britan to face charges under their dictatorial government.

You lot have got to be joking.

Perhaps when democracy is restored in Thailand, but certainly not while an illegitimate military dictatorship is in control. GB doesnt play political games with minor countries on these kinds of matteres.

[jackspratt]

A bunch of Generals oust a democratically elected government using guns and tanks and then want the peoples choice PM extradited from Britan to face charges under their dictatorial government.

You lot have got to be joking.

Perhaps when democracy is restored in Thailand, but certainly not while an illegitimate military dictatorship is in control. GB doesnt play political games with minor countries on these kinds of matteres.

Certainly doesn't - not even when the minor country has a democratically elected government. Think Spain and Pinochet.

[younghusband]

:the UK will not hand over Thaksin because of a moral principle

What kind of moral principle is that?

They'd look extremely naive arguing that "he won't get a fair trial" while their client fires off another dozen of billion dollar lawsuits in the same court.

Whatever the case, the UK doesn't have any moral ground to stand on when it comes to Thaksin.

The moral principle is that you don't hand over an exile being pursued as part of a political vendetta by his home country.It doesn't really imply a judgement on the guilt of the individual.Are you suggesting incidentally Thaksin will get a fair trial under the junta's puppet courts? Anyway most fair observers agree the pursuit of Thaksin is politically motivated, not least because if you fail to convince that he was Hitler,Genghis Khan and Stalin rolled into one then the dishonourable coup is shown to be even more of a disaster than it has been demonstrated to date.

Certainly he was an unsavoury character accumulating too much power but he did some positive things too, not least giving the Thai majority a real voice.This is what the juntophiles really hate, that someone encouraged the Thai people to stand up against the bloated and selfish power elite.I hope all this is fought out in the British courts: it will be a pleasure to see a top class Queen's Counsel cut though the moral dishonesty of this junta.

[TAWP]

The poor was given a voice? You gotta be kidding...

Taking a bribe and shutting up and voting as you are told isn't my definition of having a voice.

[younghusband]

The poor was given a voice? You gotta be kidding...

Taking a bribe and shutting up and voting as you are told isn't my definition of having a voice.

This was certainly the traditional pattern with rural voters, and TRT was part of this.And yet Thaksin did transcend this to a significant extent implementing a number of policies that uplifted the country's poor majority.The juntophiles hate to hear this and spend much energy belittling the reforms.Nobody believes that Thaksin implemented the reforms out of the goodness of his heart, but since when has that been the motivation of any major politician?Thaksin was more than just a catalyst but a strategic thinker working for a beter educated and more prosperous country.Yes his flaws were immense, and there is almost a Shakespearian sense of tragedy in a potential great man brought down by greed and ambition.Clearly he didn't understand that wise maxim for poiticians of understanding the art of the possible. I don't know if you have a serious interest in discussing this but happy to do so if you like.It's really important to apply cool and considered judgement to this subject given the swirl of misinformation and lies emenating from the power elite on one side and the unpleasant TRT rump, the PPP.

[jackspratt]

This was certainly the traditional pattern with rural voters, and TRT was part of this.And yet Thaksin did transcend this to a significant extent implementing a number of policies that uplifted the country's poor majority.The juntophiles hate to hear this and spend much energy belittling the reforms.Nobody believes that Thaksin implemented the reforms out of the goodness of his heart, but since when has that been the motivation of any major politician?Thaksin was more than just a catalyst but a strategic thinker working for a beter educated and more prosperous country.Yes his flaws were immense, and there is almost a Shakespearian sense of tragedy in a potential great man brought down by greed and ambition.Clearly he didn't understand that wise maxim for poiticians of understanding the art of the possible. I don't know if you have a serious interest in discussing this but happy to do so if you like.It's really important to apply cool and considered judgement to this subject given the swirl of misinformation and lies emenating from the power elite on one side and the unpleasant TRT rump, the PPP.

Bankrupting the country while lining your own pocket is hardly Shakespearian. More Suhartoian or Marcosian I would have thought!

[mrbojangles]

Mind you, that government does have recent form on making political decisions on what should be a legal issue eg the dropping of the investigation into the massive BAE bribes of the Saudi royal family to secure large defence contracts.

The Al-Yamamha deal with Saudi stopped BAE going bankrupt in 1989 (British Aerospace as it was then). Currently BAE employs over 100,000 employees, as well as all the knock on employment it brings. Trust me, the company AND the country needed that deal.

Also, the contract was actually a Goverment-to-Government contract with BAE as the prime contractor. The goverment at the time where well aware of what was going on, it is common practice when dealing with Saudi's.

It was also the Saudi's who said the investigation had to stop, or they wouldn't sign the new Salam contract and it could jeopardise relations with the Saudi royal family and therefore the UK's efforts to fight terrorism. The Salam contract is the world's biggest defence deal, worth about £20Bn is for the supply of 72 Typhoon aircraft.

Sorry to go off topic there people but i had to clarify a few points

[jackspratt]

Mind you, that government does have recent form on making political decisions on what should be a legal issue eg the dropping of the investigation into the massive BAE bribes of the Saudi royal family to secure large defence contracts.

The Al-Yamamha deal with Saudi stopped BAE going bankrupt in 1989 (British Aerospace as it was then). Currently BAE employs over 100,000 employees, as well as all the knock on employment it brings. Trust me, the company AND the country needed that deal.

Also, the contract was actually a Goverment-to-Government contract with BAE as the prime contractor. The goverment at the time where well aware of what was going on, it is common practice when dealing with Saudi's.

It was also the Saudi's who said the investigation had to stop, or they wouldn't sign the new Salam contract and it could jeopardise relations with the Saudi royal family and therefore the UK's efforts to fight terrorism. The Salam contract is the world's biggest defence deal, worth about £20Bn is for the supply of 72 Typhoon aircraft.

Sorry to go off topic there people but i had to clarify a few points

While you don't actually say so, my reading of your post is that it is OK to indulge in bribery and corruption, providing the contract is big enough.

Shades of the Australian government and the Australian Wheat Board - paying bribes to Saddam whilst denouncing him, and deep in preparation to invade Iraq.

[mrtoad]

Just looks like it's a freebie trip for a few of the usual suspects.

There is no way that the UK government will entertain any extradition at the present, with the current "Junta" in power. The Generals can dress it up as much as they like, but the fact is , like him or loathe him, Thaksin was a democratically elected Prime Minister who was overthrown in a coup.

This may change in the future if they can provide credible evidence to justify extradition, once there is an elected government in power, but I suspect this is more to do with the Junta trying to look like they are doing something, on the issue that they used to overthrow the government last year. Whether there is any intent on really getting him extradited is open to debate.

[mrbojangles]

Mind you, that government does have recent form on making political decisions on what should be a legal issue eg the dropping of the investigation into the massive BAE bribes of the Saudi royal family to secure large defence contracts.

The Al-Yamamha deal with Saudi stopped BAE going bankrupt in 1989 (British Aerospace as it was then). Currently BAE employs over 100,000 employees, as well as all the knock on employment it brings. Trust me, the company AND the country needed that deal.

Also, the contract was actually a Goverment-to-Government contract with BAE as the prime contractor. The goverment at the time where well aware of what was going on, it is common practice when dealing with Saudi's.

It was also the Saudi's who said the investigation had to stop, or they wouldn't sign the new Salam contract and it could jeopardise relations with the Saudi royal family and therefore the UK's efforts to fight terrorism. The Salam contract is the world's biggest defence deal, worth about £20Bn is for the supply of 72 Typhoon aircraft.

Sorry to go off topic there people but i had to clarify a few points

While you don't actually say so, my reading of your post is that it is OK to indulge in bribery and corruption, providing the contract is big enough.

We don't actually know if there was any bribery. It is only "alleged", as there hasn't been an investigation

Also, whilst i don't neccessarily agree with it, greasing palms and freebies isn't anything new, why all of a sudden has it become a moral dillema?

[plachon]

Mind you, that government does have recent form on making political decisions on what should be a legal issue eg the dropping of the investigation into the massive BAE bribes of the Saudi royal family to secure large defence contracts.

The Al-Yamamha deal with Saudi stopped BAE going bankrupt in 1989 (British Aerospace as it was then). Currently BAE employs over 100,000 employees, as well as all the knock on employment it brings. Trust me, the company AND the country needed that deal.

Also, the contract was actually a Goverment-to-Government contract with BAE as the prime contractor. The goverment at the time where well aware of what was going on, it is common practice when dealing with Saudi's.

It was also the Saudi's who said the investigation had to stop, or they wouldn't sign the new Salam contract and it could jeopardise relations with the Saudi royal family and therefore the UK's efforts to fight terrorism. The Salam contract is the world's biggest defence deal, worth about £20Bn is for the supply of 72 Typhoon aircraft.

Sorry to go off topic there people but i had to clarify a few points

While you don't actually say so, my reading of your post is that it is OK to indulge in bribery and corruption, providing the contract is big enough.

We don't actually know if there was any bribery. It is only "alleged", as there hasn't been an investigation

Also, whilst i don't neccessarily agree with it, greasing palms and freebies isn't anything new, why all of a sudden has it become a moral dillema?

Ummmmmmm.................because there are supposed to be laws against it and the majority of the British electorate, I suspect, would be not pleased if their elected representatives and civil servants were greasing palms. Or am I being old fashioned?

[mrbojangles]

Mind you, that government does have recent form on making political decisions on what should be a legal issue eg the dropping of the investigation into the massive BAE bribes of the Saudi royal family to secure large defence contracts.

The Al-Yamamha deal with Saudi stopped BAE going bankrupt in 1989 (British Aerospace as it was then). Currently BAE employs over 100,000 employees, as well as all the knock on employment it brings. Trust me, the company AND the country needed that deal.

Also, the contract was actually a Goverment-to-Government contract with BAE as the prime contractor. The goverment at the time where well aware of what was going on, it is common practice when dealing with Saudi's.

It was also the Saudi's who said the investigation had to stop, or they wouldn't sign the new Salam contract and it could jeopardise relations with the Saudi royal family and therefore the UK's efforts to fight terrorism. The Salam contract is the world's biggest defence deal, worth about £20Bn is for the supply of 72 Typhoon aircraft.

Sorry to go off topic there people but i had to clarify a few points

While you don't actually say so, my reading of your post is that it is OK to indulge in bribery and corruption, providing the contract is big enough.

We don't actually know if there was any bribery. It is only "alleged", as there hasn't been an investigation

Also, whilst i don't neccessarily agree with it, greasing palms and freebies isn't anything new, why all of a sudden has it become a moral dillema?

Ummmmmmm.................because there are supposed to be laws against it and the majority of the British electorate, I suspect, would be not pleased if their elected representatives and civil servants were greasing palms. Or am I being old fashioned?

No, not old fashioned. The old fashioned way was to grease palms. Your'e just being "new fashioned"

[mrtoad]

Ummmmmmm.................because there are supposed to be laws against it and the majority of the British electorate, I suspect, would be not pleased if their elected representatives and civil servants were greasing palms. Or am I being old fashioned?

No, don't think that you are being old fashioned, but probably being naive in beleiving that a lot of the electorate in the UK really give a shit. Most will vote on personal interest and not morals, and thats been proven over the years with some of the despicable politicians in the UK, like Thatcher, Blair, Archer, Hamilton, Mandelson etc, etc continuing to hold office.

The UK is a little different than Thailand, in that the corruption has evolved into a more meticullous and discreet art, whereupon, here it's often flaunted and accepted as part of the culture.

[ColPyat]

Bankrupting the country while lining your own pocket is hardly Shakespearian. More Suhartoian or Marcosian I would have thought!

He didn't bankrupt the country - pure hyperbole.

The first post coup finance minister made in his first statement the declaration that the debt situation of Thailand was in order, and so were the foreign currency reserves. The money spent on the schemes have not been huge portions of the budget at all, and all was covered.

The first things the new government did was taking money off the schemes, and increasing the military budget tremendously (and not much has trickled down to the normal soldiers - there is for example still a huge lack of bullet proof vests for combat troops down south).

The ones who are bankrupting the country right now is this government. Maybe present censorship forbids the reports - but there are since several weeks mass lay offs in all the industrial zones, and many rumors of factory closings towards the new year.

I am not a Thaksin fan at all, but lets not get overboard here.

[mrbojangles]

The UK is a little different than Thailand, in that the corruption has evolved into a more meticullous and discreet art, whereupon, here it's often flaunted and accepted as part of the culture.

Absolutely. Deal "sweeteners" will continue in one form or another whilst there is money to be made.

[TAWP]

The poor was given a voice? You gotta be kidding...

Taking a bribe and shutting up and voting as you are told isn't my definition of having a voice.

This was certainly the traditional pattern with rural voters, and TRT was part of this.And yet Thaksin did transcend this to a significant extent implementing a number of policies that uplifted the country's poor majority.The juntophiles hate to hear this and spend much energy belittling the reforms.Nobody believes that Thaksin implemented the reforms out of the goodness of his heart, but since when has that been the motivation of any major politician?Thaksin was more than just a catalyst but a strategic thinker working for a beter educated and more prosperous country.Yes his flaws were immense, and there is almost a Shakespearian sense of tragedy in a potential great man brought down by greed and ambition.Clearly he didn't understand that wise maxim for poiticians of understanding the art of the possible. I don't know if you have a serious interest in discussing this but happy to do so if you like.It's really important to apply cool and considered judgement to this subject given the swirl of misinformation and lies emenating from the power elite on one side and the unpleasant TRT rump, the PPP.

With invented labels as 'juntophiles' I fear there isn't really a good start if you want to debate Thaksins policies. I for one dislike the former as much as the current government. As my title and sig would imply...

I am not a Thaksin fan at all /../

You had me fooled...

Edited October 16, 2007 by TAWP

[younghusband]

The poor was given a voice? You gotta be kidding...

Taking a bribe and shutting up and voting as you are told isn't my definition of having a voice.

This was certainly the traditional pattern with rural voters, and TRT was part of this.And yet Thaksin did transcend this to a significant extent implementing a number of policies that uplifted the country's poor majority.The juntophiles hate to hear this and spend much energy belittling the reforms.Nobody believes that Thaksin implemented the reforms out of the goodness of his heart, but since when has that been the motivation of any major politician?Thaksin was more than just a catalyst but a strategic thinker working for a beter educated and more prosperous country.Yes his flaws were immense, and there is almost a Shakespearian sense of tragedy in a potential great man brought down by greed and ambition.Clearly he didn't understand that wise maxim for poiticians of understanding the art of the possible. I don't know if you have a serious interest in discussing this but happy to do so if you like.It's really important to apply cool and considered judgement to this subject given the swirl of misinformation and lies emenating from the power elite on one side and the unpleasant TRT rump, the PPP.

With invented labels as 'juntophiles' I fear there isn't really a good start if you want to debate Thaksins policies. I for one dislike the former as much as the current government. As my title and sig would imply...

I am not a Thaksin fan at all /../

You had me fooled...

I dont't really understand your first paragraph I'm afraid.Could you expand it a little so the meaning is a little clearer.As to the expression juntophile sometimes labels have to be invented, in this instance to describe those who are so blinded by hatred of Thaksin that they support ever action of the coup leaders whether foolish, incompetent ,sinister or corrupt.I should stress that this label doesn't apply to thoughtful supporters of the coup who recognise the damage it has caused but nevertheless feel it was the only way to clear the political logjam.

As to your comment on Colpyat if you believe he is a "Thaksin fan", you haven't been paying attention to what he's been saying.