Envoys not fussed about the consequences of their remarks

[rooster59]

Envoys not fussed about the consequences of their remarks

NUNTIDA PUANGTHONG
THE NATION



Glyn Davies

BANGKOK: TWO foreign diplomats who recently created a stir over their comments on Thai politics said yesterday they were not concerned about the consequences.

UK Ambassador Mark Kent and United States' Glyn Davies separately played down the controversy that came after their recent remarks criticising certain issues in the Kingdom.

Last month, in a talk at the Foreign Correspondents Club, Davies voiced concern about the "unprecedented" prison terms handed down under the lese majeste law, saying that "no one should be jailed for peacefully expressing their views". He also noted that the number of such cases had risen substantially since the military took power last year.

Kent's tweet on Monday said: "I had hoped the fact that 200 people [being] allowed to demonstrate at the US Embassy might be [a] relaxation on freedom of assembly."

His message - referring to a recent protest held against the US ambassador - came in response to the arrest of student activists, while they made their way to Rajabhakti Park in Hua Hin to protest against alleged irregularities. However, Kent's message was seen as an allegation that the government was applying double standards to different groups.

The envoys' comments spurred widespread debate online - with some people voicing support and others rebuking the diplomats. Somebody even filed a police complaint, seeking an investigation into Davies' comments on the royal defamation law.

Kent declined to elaborate on the issue yesterday, saying he was ready to discuss the matter if summoned by the Foreign Ministry.

Davies, meanwhile, also declined to comment on his speech, other than saying he was not concerned, as he has already been busy with improving bilateral ties and cooperation. He went on to say that he has been happy working in Thailand over the past three months and hopes to continue serving here.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Sek Wannamethee said yesterday the envoys' comments indicated that there were some inaccurate perceptions about Thailand's situation.

He said the ministry was trying to explain this to foreign diplomats and international organisations, particularly in relation to what the government is doing to solve the country's problems. He said regular briefings were held to update all sides about the progress the government is making.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Envoys-not-fussed-about-the-consequences-of-their--30274763.html

-- The Nation 2015-12-12

[tbthailand]

TWO foreign diplomats who recently created a stir over their comments

no, let's get this straight right now. These two gentlemen did not "create a stir".... the junta and their foaming-at-the-mouth-extremist dogs created a stir out of the comments.

Ah, The Nation, loyal lapdogs that they are, they must be so much more relaxed at the office now that Pravit is over at Khaosod.

[JAG]

They knew exactly what they were saying, their meanings were crystal clear, and they had fully weighed up the consequences before they made their comments.

[waldroj]

Sek, you are so right!

There are almost 70 million people with inaccurate perceptions about Thailand’s situation!

Your actions speak far louder than your words (propaganda), so there's no need to try to explain this to foreign diplomats - they all know the situation quite well (even the French).

[sharecropper]

It's a shame more people in the country can't speak their minds as freely.

[khwaibah]

A top diplomate that has dealt with Kim Jung -un is concerned about Thailand. I don't think so.

[bim]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Edited December 12, 2015 by bim

[mrrizzla]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Got a link for that?

[bim]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Got a link for that?

Google the Film "Taking Liberties" and see how peaceful protest in the UK is dealt with.

[mca]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Got a link for that?

Conditional discharge. Google Maya Evans

[mrrizzla]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Got a link for that?

Conditional discharge. Google Maya Evans

So who is this couple that did 2 years for protesting?

Now I (as a Brit) am no fan of the policies of various British and American governments (especially foreign policy) and how massively hypocritical they are in general (Cameron and the Saudi government) but that is a separate issue.

I am pretty damn sure there would be uproar in the UK if someone was sent to prison for 2 years for protesting peacefully. I have read up on Maya Evans and in her case her protesting led to some pretty significant discoveries about the treatment of prisoners of war. Can you EVER imagine that happening in Thailand? let alone with this junta in charge!

We can criticize the governments these two diplomats represent until the cows come home (and lord knows that I do!) but they are absolutely right the junta and their use of LM to suppress people. Would you stand for a rule like LM in your country? People would go nuts in the UK if it were ever muted.

It is a draconian law and there is little going for it to defend it.

Edited December 12, 2015 by mrrizzla

[arminbkk]

"However, Kent's message was seen as an allegation that the government was applying double standards to different groups."

Well, they do/did.

The 200 or so demonstrators at the US embassy were not stopped but let to demonstrate (with some placards even showing inappropriate language).

The group of students were stopped, even before the reached that park, while still on the train.

They even dismantled the carriage the students were in.

If there is a nation-wide general ban on demonstrations and assembly of more than 5 persons under the junta rule, both activities should have been dealt with the same way.

[noosard]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Said protesters may have been jailed for 2 years but I bet it was for something else they had done

[LomSak27]

"She received a conditional discharge and a fine"

Ok so that sorts Maya, now who are these two people who were jailed for 2 years?

[oneday]

"...said yesterday they were not concerned about the consequences..."

They shouldn't be the least bothered.

All diplomats have diplomatic immunity so any investigation the police are making into their remarks are like pissing in the wind. There isn't a damn thing they can do about it except expel the diplomat which they would never do.

[Blue Muton]

"She received a conditional discharge and a fine"

Ok so that sorts Maya, now who are these two people who were jailed for 2 years?

Don't hold your breath.

[klauskunkel]

Foreign Ministry spokesman Sek Wannamethee said yesterday the envoys' comments indicated that there were some inaccurate perceptions about Thailand's situation.

stay tuned for development of Diplomatic Perception Adjustment Seminar, voluntary of course

[Snig27]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

You seem to be struggling with the differences. Even if (and there is no evidence presented to support your fairly broad claims) such existed both countries have constitutional transparent judicial oversight. The courts in the US can overturn police action, and reinterpret and overturn law. If someone is locked up wrongly there are defined and multiple avenues to redress. And a press that is allowed to report on such. Thailand has none of that.

I strongly disagree with much that is done by and in the US and UK but to try and compare their state interaction with their citizenry with Thailand's in 2015 is what is really laughable.

[ddavidovsky]

And if their comments made life uncomfortable for their nationals living in the country - possibly even put them in danger? I still think a diplomat should be above all diplomatic. There are all sorts of ways pressure can be brought to bear - but not by ambassadors speaking out against their host. That's not the way to effect change. You have more leverage if you get the enemy on your side, not rile them. That's the point of diplomacy. Open criticism is so rarely done by diplomats that it is obviously against protocol. Ever tried criticising your wife? See where it gets you.

I watched Davies's speech and I think his comments slipped out after he was lulled into a false sense of security in the free-speaking atmosphere of the FCC - especially after Jonathan Head's joke about North Korea - he probably thought he was on safe ground. Now I should think he is kicking himself.

Edited December 12, 2015 by ddavidovsky

[baboon]

And if their comments made life uncomfortable for their nationals living in the country - possibly even put them in danger? I still think a diplomat should be above all diplomatic. There are all sorts of ways pressure can be brought to bear - but not by ambassadors speaking out against their host. That's not the way to effect change. You have more leverage if you get the enemy on your side, not rile them. That's the point of diplomacy. Open criticism is so rarely done by diplomats that it is obviously against protocol. Ever tried criticising your wife? See where it gets you.

I watched Davies's speech and I think his comments slipped out after he was lulled into a false sense of security in the free-speaking atmosphere of the FCC - especially after Jonathan Head's joke about North Korea - he probably thought he was on safe ground. Now I should think he is kicking himself.

The only way you will have the junta on your side is by offering unquestioning, unqualified support, which clearly is not going to happen.

[JAG]

And if their comments made life uncomfortable for their nationals living in the country - possibly even put them in danger? I still think a diplomat should be above all diplomatic. There are all sorts of ways pressure can be brought to bear - but not by ambassadors speaking out against their host. That's not the way to effect change. You have more leverage if you get the enemy on your side, not rile them. That's the point of diplomacy. Open criticism is so rarely done by diplomats that it is obviously against protocol. Ever tried criticising your wife? See where it gets you.

I watched Davies's speech and I think his comments slipped out after he was lulled into a false sense of security in the free-speaking atmosphere of the FCC - especially after Jonathan Head's joke about North Korea - he probably thought he was on safe ground. Now I should think he is kicking himself.

I have to disagree. I watched the speech too, and I think that his comments were thought through, nuanced (probably cleared in principal if not verbatim with Washington) and were made to make his and his governments views clear.

Nor do I think Mr Kent woke up, yawned, scratched his bum and thought, " You know what, I will send a sarky tweet having a pop at the Junta."

Both these men are at the top of their profession, both are long serving career diplomats. Comments (especially about such sensitive subjects) do not just "slip out".

The advantage of releasing such comments in such an "informal manner" is that they are immediately in the public domain, unadulterated and without spin. There is no "The Ambassador expressed support for the governments herculean efforts to follow the road map" guff. At times, and I suspect dealing with this government is one of them, such an approach is needed.

Jonathan Head is also a seasoned professional journalist, (despite the scorn some here have for him) who will have extensive contacts and knowledge of both men. The BBC, despite what many think, is still probably the international organ of record. It is no co-incidence that as the BBC's man in Thailand he heads up the Foreign Correspondents Club.I would imagine he had a pretty clear idea of what Mr Davies was going to say.

Edited December 12, 2015 by JAG

[mrrizzla]

What's with all the hate of Head? Because he asked Suthep the very relevant question of why you want to remove an elected government and replace them with a nameless 'people council' of 'good people'.

Well the 'good people' are in charge at the moment and Thailand is in more of a mess than when Red Yingluck puppeteered by her brother was in charge!

[Emster23]

I'm a yank living here and say bravo to both diplomats for their statements. Especially the Brit: well played indeed. I am not worried at all about being "in danger". These two said what many of us have said to each other here on TV, but have said it where can get a bit of attention from the current self installed rulers. Those who wish to can cower in corners. I will not join them however.

[Dustdevil]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

I suggest you study up on the First and Fourteenth Amendments and then the Supreme Court's ruling on these, which is the law of the land....before jsut saying things that make you feel good.

[Baerboxer]

And if their comments made life uncomfortable for their nationals living in the country - possibly even put them in danger? I still think a diplomat should be above all diplomatic. There are all sorts of ways pressure can be brought to bear - but not by ambassadors speaking out against their host. That's not the way to effect change. You have more leverage if you get the enemy on your side, not rile them. That's the point of diplomacy. Open criticism is so rarely done by diplomats that it is obviously against protocol. Ever tried criticising your wife? See where it gets you.

I watched Davies's speech and I think his comments slipped out after he was lulled into a false sense of security in the free-speaking atmosphere of the FCC - especially after Jonathan Head's joke about North Korea - he probably thought he was on safe ground. Now I should think he is kicking himself.

I have to disagree. I watched the speech too, and I think that his comments were thought through, nuanced (probably cleared in principal if not verbatim with Washington) and were made to make his and his governments views clear.

Nor do I think Mr Kent woke up, yawned, scratched his bum and thought, " You know what, I will send a sarky tweet having a pop at the Junta."

Both these men are at the top of their profession, both are long serving career diplomats. Comments (especially about such sensitive subjects) do not just "slip out".

The advantage of releasing such comments in such an "informal manner" is that they are immediately in the public domain, unadulterated and without spin. There is no "The Ambassador expressed support for the governments herculean efforts to follow the road map" guff. At times, and I suspect dealing with this government is one of them, such an approach is needed.

Jonathan Head is also a seasoned professional journalist, (despite the scorn some here have for him) who will have extensive contacts and knowledge of both men. The BBC, despite what many think, is still probably the international organ of record. It is no co-incidence that as the BBC's man in Thailand he heads up the Foreign Correspondents Club.I would imagine he had a pretty clear idea of what Mr Davies was going to say.

I doubt either professional career diplomat, of Ambassador level, would make comments like this without having cleared it with their respective State Department and FCO.

Davies's comments were, IMO, a fair view of how the US views such matters.

Kent was also making a reasonable comment in response to the protests outside the US Embassy. He did not put the interpretation into his comments other have made, they did that themselves. He did not make the comparison, others did.

I don't agree with your view on Head or the BBC. Head's reporting constantly shows a bias towards the Shiniwatra family and their supporters. He presents them in the best possible light and fails to include pertinent details regarding them that would present a balanced view. The BBC has received much criticism for it's political leanings leading to biased reporting and content over many years in the UK; and for it's governance. I doubt many would consider it the international organ of record anymore.

[fred Kubasa]

Good for them and I hope/wish, yes, even pray, that this 2nd. round will have them giving Thai

authorities an " Attitude Aajustment " class US style -- gloves off, behind closed doors !

[IAMHERE]

I am personally amazed at the high quality of diplomat the USA has sent to Thailand. This guy is a professional, not the debutante political appointee that was here before as a reward for spending money on the reelection of POTUS.

[ldiablo]

The double standards of the UK and US are laughable. "No one should be jailed for peacefully expressing the views". Really? There are many examples in both countries where this has been the case using draconian anti terror laws. One young man and a women served 2 years in jail some years ago in the UK for peacfully demonstrating in front of the Cenotaph in London. There crime was reading out of the names of the war dead. And many examples of peaceful protest in the both countries are ruthlesley stopped by Police. What a joke.

Maya (Anne) Evans is a British peace campaigner who was arrested in October 2005 opposite theCenotaph war memorial in London, for refusing to stop reading aloud the names of British soldiers who had been killed in Iraq following the 2003 Iraq war.Evans, an anti-war activist from Hastings, became the first person in the UK to be convicted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 for taking part in an unauthorised demonstration within 1 km of Parliament Square. She received a conditional discharge and a fine.

A conditional discharge and a fine is NOT serving 2 years in prison.

Get your facts straight before inserting your foot into your mouth.

[facthailand]

Appears the only folks who can speak their mind are those with...diplomatic immunity!

[Jonmarleesco]

'Foreign Ministry spokesman Sek Wannamethee said yesterday the envoys' comments indicated that there were some inaccurate perceptions about Thailand's situation.' He thinks?