Red shirt protests 2010: Men in black provoked violence

Before its release, the report was already controversial because it took two years to be released and now that it has been released, the committee has been bombarded with criticism. By the red camp of course; how yellow thinks about it Spectrum, the Sunday supplement of Bangkok Post, not.

That report, titled “Examination for Policy Review on the UDD-led Demonstration 12 March-19 May 2010,” is 88 pages long and was published Aug. 8 on the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) website. No press conference, as usual, because 'We have already had too much criticism and we no longer want to be annoyed,' says chairman Amara Pongsapich (photo).

According to Spectrum the report [note the word 'appears'] seems to exonerate then-Prime Minister Abhisit and his right-hand man Suthep Thaugsuban of responsibility for the deadly consequences of the protests. It is therefore not surprising that two red groups marched to the offices of the NHRC last week to demand the resignation of the commissioners. The Students' Federation of Thailand called the report hypocritical. The NHRC would double standards by legitimizing the military operation with a reference to the mysterious "men in black," heavily armed men who were among the red shirts.

Less one-sided than claimed?

The Spectrumarticle goes into detail about the making of the report and some random incidents, which makes it difficult to summarize here. For example, the events of April 10, 2010 at two locations on Ratchadamnoen Avenue (890 injured, 27 killed). The report says that the UDD protest violated the constitution and the rights of the people and hindered the work of the authorities.

The men in black unleashed violence and used weapons of war against the authorities resulting in deaths, injuries and damage to public and private property. The report also notes that the Red Shirts "indecently" used women and children as human shields and were guilty of plotting murder with laser markings on soldiers.

Still, my impression is that the report is less one-sided than its opponents claim. For example, regarding the events of April 22 in Sala Daeng (100 injured, 1 dead), it is said that the police "did too little and acted too late to prevent the incidents, although they had prior knowledge of the violent intentions of the UDD" .

The gist of the report, if I put it Spectrumarticle carefully, is the observation that the fighting caused so much damage and casualties because of armed men who found themselves among the demonstrators. The arson attack in shopping centers on May 19, including CentralWorld, is exemplary for the red shirt movement, according to the report.

According to Kittisak Prokati, a law professor at Thammasat University, the report ignores the key question: did the government use excessive force?

(Source: Specrum, Bangkok Post, August 18st 2013)