Jump to content

US envoy 'unaware' of ex-PM's asylum report


webfact

Recommended Posts

US envoy 'unaware' of ex-PM's asylum report
THE NATION February

30253911-01_big.jpg?1423692936243

Lawyer denies Yingluck is fleeing, says it's like she's 'under detention'

BANGKOK: -- THE US chargé d'affaires said yesterday he was unaware of reports that former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was seeking asylum in the United States and declined to comment on the matter.


"I have not heard of any report about that. I am not going to comment on that issue," said Patrick Murphy, the top official at the US Embassy in Bangkok in the absence of an ambassador.

Murphy also reiterated that the United States does not take sides in Thai politics. "As a friend, we simply want Thailand to succeed. Thailand's success and return to democracy is success for Southeast Asia and a success for global challenges. We are not taking sides at all," he said.

The US diplomat spoke to reporters after a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Yongyuth Yutthawong to discuss bilateral cooperation. He repeated the US call for Thailand to return to democracy, restore civil liberties and end martial law "sooner rather than later".

Murphy and Yongyuth did not discuss reports about Yingluck seeking asylum during their meeting yesterday, they both told reporters.

Yingluck's lawyer Norawit Lalaeng yesterday accused the former PM's opponents of attempting to discredit her by spreading false rumours that she would flee the country before facing criminal charges in court next week. "If she had a plan to escape, she would not have publicly asked for permission to go abroad. The opposition is trying to make out that she wants to flee abroad in order to discredit her," Reuters quoted Norawit as saying.

Security officials appear to be monitoring Yingluck's recent movements although the government denied ordering security officials to keep a watch on her because of fear she might flee the country. Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan had earlier said that the authorities simply wanted to ensure that Yingluck was safe and secure.

Prawit, who is also defence minister, said yesterday that Yingluck, as well as other VIPs in the country, were given increased security in order to prevent any untoward incident. "We all are afraid and do not want anything bad to happen," he said when asked if the government was worried about any third party.

However, Yingluck's lawyer Norawit said that in his opinion, the military's close monitoring of the ex-PM was more like a house arrest. "It's not direct detention but it's like an indirect detention. This is a violation of personal rights and a limitation of liberties," the lawyer said.

Yingluck, who now lives in her home city of Chiang Mai, reportedly cancelled her participation in a Valentine's Day school reunion after being followed by local military officers.

Her former schoolmates offered Yingluck words of encouragement through their group's Line chat room. Yingluck responded with the words, "Patience, my friend," according to a source.

Yingluck will be followed by military officers where ever she goes in the country as part of security measures for the former prime minister, Deputy Government Spokesman Maj-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday. He denied this was a threat, saying that similar security measures were also in place for other VIPs, including the prime minister.

The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has not granted Yingluck's request to leave the country at a time when a court case is pending against her in connection with her government's rice-pledging programme.

The Office of the Attorney-General will submit a subpoena to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on February 19, and it wants Yingluck to be present on that day. However, Yingluck's legal team has not decided whether to seek her presence before prosecutors, Norawit said.

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, who is also the NCPO leader, said on Tuesday night that public prosecutors had requested that the junta not allow Yingluck to leave the country while a court case against her was pending.

In a related development, the Army held a briefing for military attaches from 25 countries about Thailand's post-coup political situation, at Army headquarters yesterday. In an eight-point explanation, the Army stressed that progress was being made in accordance with the junta's road map for the country's return to democracy. The military attaches also were told that the impeachment and legal action against Yingluck were not politically motivated, NCPO spokesman Colonel Winthai Suvari said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/US-envoy-unaware-of-ex-PMs-asylum-report-30253911.html

nationlogo.jpg
-- The Nation 2015-02-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she wanted political asylum, her high level advisors could arrange it through the US Embassy. She might qualify considering that she is pursued by a junta using martial law which the US considers illegal.

All she'd have to do is to walk into the embassy, but how she'd get out of there and travel I don't know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she wanted political asylum, her high level advisors could arrange it through the US Embassy. She might qualify considering that she is pursued by a junta using martial law which the US considers illegal.

All she'd have to do is to walk into the embassy, but how she'd get out of there and travel I don't know.

No way would she qualify.

As the envoy has stated:

Murphy also reiterated that the United States does not take sides in Thai politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she wanted political asylum, her high level advisors could arrange it through the US Embassy. She might qualify considering that she is pursued by a junta using martial law which the US considers illegal.

All she'd have to do is to walk into the embassy, but how she'd get out of there and travel I don't know.

No way would she qualify.

As the envoy has stated:

Murphy also reiterated that the United States does not take sides in Thai politics.

I disagree. There is a difference between takings sides and granting a person political asylum. That is an individual matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the USA is pleased so many Thais and foreigners think of the USA first when the discussoin centers on political asylum. It certainly has a well-known and long track record for such human rights.

But there are many other nations throughout the world that honor political asylum, both democractic and "neo-democratic" (ie., kingdoms and oligarchies) countries. Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada are also among the best known for asylum seekers. The right of asylum is enshrined in the UN Convention and in the EU Charter. However, as Julian Assange can attest, getting asylum at an embassy may not be the best solution. And as John Snowden might attest, seeking asylum at a foreign nation's immigration gate is no guarantee to entry.

The best thing for a developing democracy in Thailand is for Yingluck to remain in the country. If people think Thaksin has been a political thorn in the side of the elitist, Yingluck will become a martyr for democracy and crusader against usurpers of Thai sovereignty. Her every word and action will be followed by the public. She will become an Aung San Suu Kyi protegee. The Junta can only hope she leaves the country permanently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she wanted political asylum, her high level advisors could arrange it through the US Embassy. She might qualify considering that she is pursued by a junta using martial law which the US considers illegal.

All she'd have to do is to walk into the embassy, but how she'd get out of there and travel I don't know.

No way would she qualify.

As the envoy has stated:

Murphy also reiterated that the United States does not take sides in Thai politics.

She qualifies under the Geneva Convention.

"a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"

All countries which are a party to the Geneva Conventions are legally bound to accept her if she manages to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the Thai people and many of TV commentators, the US seems to have forgotten (deliberately?) what this is all about. YT took all the plaudits when she was PM for the many good things (she alleged) her government did for the people of Thailand. Ipso facto, she should take responsibility for the corruption perpetrated under her watch. For anyone to say that the allegations are merely a Junta imposed excuse for retaliation obviously has forgotten about the thousands of tons of rice that went missing under her watch. Take a deep breath people.

There's a distinction that you and many others miss. A leader is responsible for actions and programmes that they design, implement, or sign off they sign off on. But you can't hold the leader responsible for poor implementation (unless they were aware of it and did nothing) or criminal activity of others 'on their watch' (again, unless they were aware of it).

Obama can be held responsible if Obamacare ends up costing people more money and this is something that could have been anticipated. He cannot be held responsible if a website doesn't work when it goes live (he's not a webmaster) or if some insurance companies or lower level bureaucrats scam the system.

YL can be held responsible for poor judgement in the design of the rice pledging scheme - she signed off on it, even if it was not her bright idea. But unless she was aware of lower-level people pilfering rice stores or didn't put in reasonable safeguards against it, she cannot be blamed for that. Leaders have a thousand things to do, and they have to empower and rely on others to take care of the details and implementation. That's where things often break down...

So on the 19th she has the opportunity to defend her position. If that position is not defendable, ensuring she remains present is paramount. Only her own advocates claim a pseudo house detenion. What problem can there be with tax payed paid minders? Yet to see claims they are interfering in movements or activities in realistic terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the Thai people and many of TV commentators, the US seems to have forgotten (deliberately?) what this is all about. YT took all the plaudits when she was PM for the many good things (she alleged) her government did for the people of Thailand. Ipso facto, she should take responsibility for the corruption perpetrated under her watch. For anyone to say that the allegations are merely a Junta imposed excuse for retaliation obviously has forgotten about the thousands of tons of rice that went missing under her watch. Take a deep breath people.

There's a distinction that you and many others miss. A leader is responsible for actions and programmes that they design, implement, or sign off they sign off on. But you can't hold the leader responsible for poor implementation (unless they were aware of it and did nothing) or criminal activity of others 'on their watch' (again, unless they were aware of it).

Obama can be held responsible if Obamacare ends up costing people more money and this is something that could have been anticipated. He cannot be held responsible if a website doesn't work when it goes live (he's not a webmaster) or if some insurance companies or lower level bureaucrats scam the system.

YL can be held responsible for poor judgement in the design of the rice pledging scheme - she signed off on it, even if it was not her bright idea. But unless she was aware of lower-level people pilfering rice stores or didn't put in reasonable safeguards against it, she cannot be blamed for that. Leaders have a thousand things to do, and they have to empower and rely on others to take care of the details and implementation. That's where things often break down...

most leaders have a thousand things to do. This particular one only had a thousand things to buy with her countless shopping trips.

You forget. She made herself responsible by her own words claiming that she was in total control and by other comments to this effect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Murphy also reiterated that the United States does not take sides in Thai politics."

Mr. Murphy might want to check again with his boss POTUS Obama.

November 14, 2014; "US President Barack Obama urged Myanmar Friday to hold 'free, fair and inclusive' elections as he threw his weight behind a bid by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to change a constitution that bars her from the presidency....Speaking at a joint news conference he warned Myanmar's reforms since shedding outright military rule in 2011 were by "no means complete or irreversible" and called for "free, fair and inclusive" elections in the nation, where Ms Suu Kyi and her party are set to contest crucial polls next year."

Perhaps most shocking is the Junta's naivety to think that every nation will suppress their own freedom of expression for the sake of the Junta's agenda. Obviously, nations like the USA have always been very vocal.

post-171049-0-45969500-1423709800_thumb.

Edited by rickirs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much doubt the US would go that far. Another article plucked from facebook

Only if she has something to offer. If there is a good chance that a family member will come back and hand out candies she might get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...