It is not easy to cover a large topic like the "war on drugs" in a single post so I will confine myself to the alleged number of deaths (2,275) between February-April 16 2003. I have said on numerous occasions that I am not/was not in favour of the "war on drugs" no matter whatever happened. However, if statistics are going to be quoted then surely their needs to be some factual basis for those statistics. Credit for the original source of 2,275 must go to Tom.
For the below articles, ask yourself, do they imply the government killed 2,275 people? Or is it the total number of drug-related homicides? Or is it something altogether different.
Der Spiegel:
The government's campaign against Thailand's drug mafia claimed at least 2,275 lives within a few months.
Washington Post in June 2003:
In Thailand, Thaksin began a new round in his campaign against drugs in February and ordered police "to produce results at any cost." The goal was to "eradicate all drugs in Thailand." This three-month campaign resulted in 2,275 deaths.
The BBC:
The death toll in Thailand's controversial war on drugs now stands at 2,275, Thai police said on Wednesday.Arabnews:
Thaksin’s drug war left some 2,275 suspected drug offenders dead in apparent extrajudicial killings over four months in 2003.IPS:
The consequences of those words became disturbingly clear early on in the anti-drug drive. During the first three months of that ‘war,’ which began in February that year, over 2,275 people were killed.
The Guardian:
...than the government-endorsed 'war on drugs' that saw in excess of 2,275 people killed in Thailand during a three-month period in 2003.Soros Foundation:
The Thai government crackdown began in February 2003 for the official reason of curbing the trade in methamphetamine tablets, locally know as ya baa or “crazy pills.” Within three months, an estimated 2,275 drug suspects were shot dead.
COMMENT: Now, it is "drug suspects" "shot dead"? Unfortunately, not all of the above articles tell you the source of the 2,275 number although some do, like ChannelNewsAsia:
His war on drugs left some 2,275 suspected drug offenders dead in apparent extrajudicial killings between February and May 2003, according to Human Rights Watch.
The Times (UK):
HRW claims that the most disturbing of these came during the notorious “war on drugs” when more than 2,275 people were killed during a three-month period at the beginning of February 2003.
COMMENT: Ok, so it is clear that HRW is the source, but where did they get the 2,275 figure from?
HRW in October 2004:
Between February and May 2003, some 2,275 suspected drug offenders were shot dead in Thailand in apparent extrajudicial executions.
COMMENT: No actual source for the claim that "2,275 suspected drug offenders were shot dead".
HRW in a long report on the war on drugs
In the first three-month phase of the crackdown that began on February 1, 2003, the Royal Thai Police reported that some 2,275 alleged drug criminals had been killed.14 Most were shot with handguns.
...
[14] “Death toll in Thailand’s drug war hits 2,275, say police,” Agence France-Presse,
COMMENT: Argh, we have a source. HRW didn't diligently try to calculate the figures themselves, they relied on an AFP report.
Unfortunately, I can't find that specific AFP article online which I can link to (there is another AFP article though below). The relevant paragraph is:
While police are unable to say how many of the killings are drug-related, the national murder tally has been widely used as a proxy figure for the number of deaths resulting from the no-holds-barred battle against traffickers.AFP:
According to police figures released in mid-April -- and not updated since then following the furore that greeted their release -- 2,275 people were killed nationwide from the start of the war.
While it is not known how many were drug-related killings, the toll was widely seen as an indicator of an alarming number of deaths resulting from the no-holds-barred battle and sparked an outcry from human rights groups.
COMMENT: Yes, you read that correctly. Police figures never stated that 2,275 were killed directly by the police or as a total figure in the "war on drugs". It is simply the total number of homicides for the 2 and a half months. So for HRW's figure of 2,275 to be correct it would mean (a) that there were non-drug related homicides in Thailand in that period, and (b) all drug-related homicides where extra-judicial killings. The odds of that happening would be astronomical. In which parallel universe would the total homicide rate be seen as the drug-related homicide rate. HRW's figures are inflated and wrong. The police said that themselves as the BBC reported:
...only 1,329 Thais died over drugs, arguing that the other 1,300 killings had nothing to do with the illegal trade
...
Police General Sant said that based on the inquiry, 72 people died as a result of extra-judicial killings.
COMMENT: HRW even published this figures in their report:
In October 2003, Thailand’s foreign minister told the U.S. State Department that 2,593 homicide cases had occurred in the country since the previous February, more than double the normal level of about 400 homicides per month.15 On December 15, 2003, after the end of the first phases of the campaign, the Royal Thai Police reported 1,329 drug-related homicides (out of 1,176 separate incidents) since February, of which seventy-two (in fifty-eight incidents) had been killed by police. More than 70,000 people allegedly involved in the drug trade were arrested.
COMMENT: If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed? If the homicide rate doubled from 400-800, the 1,329 drug-related deaths figure starts to be a more accurate number than the 2,275 figure. What about the Thai Police's statement they were only responsible for 72 deaths? Why have those figures never found their way into all the newspapers? Ok, because it doesn't paint Thaksin as sufficiently evil enough.
NOTE: I disagree with the BBC's use of the word extra-judicial killing it is a translation of วิสามัญฆาตกรรม which actually equates to justifiable homicide. Now, obviously police claims of justifiable homicide/self-defence should be investigated to see if there is any substance to them, but it is not the same as extra-judicial killings which has different connotations.
Finally, AFP who were originally the source of HRW's 2,275 figure later quote HRW and make the same mistake:
The government's drugs campaign started in February 2003 with some 2,275 extrajudicial killings in the first three months, according to the US-based group Human Rights Watch (HRW).COMMENT: Let that be a lesson, don't quote a source who earlier quoted you. Otherwise, you you will turn like the AFP!
2275, 2500, 1329 or 72 - the principle is still the same, and lets not forget the infamous Article 18.
Although the war on drugs was a disgraceful episode for Thais generally, this quote our old fried Vichai N sums up Thaksin's culpability:
Let me add a few points that would suggest that Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage was inspired by megalomania and that Thaksin was a psycopath. Thaksin is/was a well educated police lt. colonel, who possessed a Ph.D. in criminal justice from Sam Houston University at Texas, USA. And during all the time that the anti-yaa baa war was going on, from start to horrific finish, the FACE of this war had always been Thaksin Shinawatra(Thaksin wanted the glamor of the kill, so to speak) Thaksin Shinawatra therefore, by his police background and educational achievement, and by his position of PM of Thailand should have insisted that RULE OF LAW should be observed religiously while his war on drugs raged on. At no time, when the reports of abuses and extrajudicial killings were coming out did Thaksin hesitate to investigate or to ask for a pause in the killings. That famous “The United Nations is not my father” outburst of Thaksin Shinawatra was the highlight of exactly where Thaksin Shinawatra stand was in the extra-judicials; e.g., he wanted the Thais and the world to know he was the Maestro.
And further, Thaksin Shinawatra as PM of Thailand at that time, and possessing overwhelming unassailable majority in Thai parliament could have authored the most punishing anti-drugs laws, but DID NOT, but instead chose to deliver shoot-to-kill entertainment to the guillible Thai rurals. That certainly allowed Thaksin Shinawatra to feed his megalomaniac lust to be god-like . . . unfortunately at the expense of horrific carnage to many innocents.
thaksinskeptic
Thank you Vichai N.
Q - "If 70,000 people were arrested, is this not evidence there was not a de facto shoot to kill policy as some have claimed?"
A - No, because merely playing with the numbers misses the point.
Numbers games always prove problematic in human rights advocacy. In the Philippines at the moment there is a great deal of argument about the number of persons killed as a result of a tacit army policy to murder trade unionists, peasant leaders, human rights defenders and left-wing politicians. The talk about numbers confuses and derails the more important discussion about the details of how and why the killings are occurring and what sorts of government policies, practices and language permit them to continue.
Similarly, in Thailand discussion about the number of killings, even the number of "wars"--while relevant--sidetracks attention from the systematic manner in which the killings were carried out and what policies and practices enabled them. In June 2003, the Asian Legal Resource Centre released a report in which it pointed to the policy--the orders signed by Thaksin that endorsed killings by rewarding state officers for the death of alleged dealers and constant threats and encouragement for police and local officials to overstep the legal boundaries; the language--constant iterations by Thaksin, Wan Mohammad Noor and others that the lives of drug dealers were worthless; and the pattern of killing in different parts of the country--1. name on a blacklist; 2. invited for questioning; 3. allowed to go home; 4. killed shortly thereafter, often in public or at home; and, 5. police fail to conduct proper inquiry and concentrate on obtaining evidence to prove that the victim was a drug dealer, where necessary, by planting the evidence--i.e. the ubiquitous blue plastic bag with a small quantity of Yaba inside.
I think this sums it up:
"Behind the worst atrocities in history lies the mentality that there exists a class of persons who can be eradicated simply because they are deemed socially undesirable--in this case, alleged drug dealers. Irrespective of what a person is said to have done, if they and their kind are pursued without regards for due process, a deep social crisis is sure to follow." (p. 41)
The report is here for anyone interested:
Extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in Thailand
Hobby: Your point?
Awzar Thi: I pointed out the 70,000 arrested number because media coverage seems to imply that the government's default response was to kill all drug dealers.
and the pattern of killing in different parts of the country--1. name on a blacklist; 2. invited for questioning; 3. allowed to go home; 4. killed shortly thereafter, often in public or at home; and, 5. police fail to conduct proper inquiry and concentrate on obtaining evidence to prove that the victim was a drug dealer, where necessary, by planting the evidence--i.e. the ubiquitous blue plastic bag with a small quantity of Yaba inside.
And this was necessarily done by the police? If you were higher up on the drug dealing food chain wouldn't you be watching the police station for who was called in. Fear of the person talking or that they were now "suspects" might be enough for some gangs to kill the person. Now, given the lack of subsequent police investigation for such killings, the drug gangs could get away with their crimes with impunity. Drug gangs kill people all the time. I don't know how many of the 1,300 where killed by drug gangs or the police/other government agencies, but I just think it is wrong to assume they were all killed by the authorities.
My point?
Well, although you started out saying you were not in favor of the 'war on drugs', the general tone of the post seemed to me to be making some sort of excuses for Thaksins war on drugs, or at least to be an attempt to minimise the gravity of the situation.
I can see that you were blogging about where did the specific number 2275 come from, and I do concede that perhaps I am a little jaundiced, because to me defense of Thaksin seems the be one of the main recurring themes of your blog.
Well, although you started out saying you were not in favor of the 'war on drugs', the general tone of the post seemed to me to be making some sort of excuses for Thaksins war on drugs, or at least to be an attempt to minimise the gravity of the situation.
Actually, I thought I was criticising the media for seemingly reporting the HRW's number as the truth and not looking at the figures.
Look it has been stated that 2275 people were killed and it is implied they were killed by the government. The basis for this is the HRW report who based this information on the AFP news article. If you look at the news article, you will see the idea that 2275 people were killed by the government is not statistically possible.
Surely, if you are going to criticise Thaksin, criticise him for what he actually did/didn't stop preventing and not relying on inaccurate figures.
I really don't get that it was somehow defending the war on drugs. I see no one is defending HRW's original figures. This is what the purpose of the post was about.
Bkk Pundit: Thanks for your reply.
I agree with your basic point about the problem of numbers, but having made it, to get into an argument about what the actual number may be is also not fruitful. On this, see an article on the same problem in the Philippines, here:
Numbers are not the issue in Philippine killings
To divide the killings between those involving police and other persons also is simplistic. The line between hired killers and police in Thailand is so fine as to be all but non-existent (a point made by Pasuk and Sungsidh in their fine book on corruption). The so-called war only further blurred the line.
The simple fact of non-investigation defeated the prospects for proper understanding of what happened. This in itself amounts to a failure of the concerned state agencies. Where a few proper investigations were made they showed a clear pattern involving the police. For instance, Dr Porntip and her staff working in Nonthaburi examined bodies placed in the same place, position and with the same packets of pills in their back pockets night after night over the first week or so in February. They observed that the manner in which the persons had been killed and dumped corresponded with that in other killings where police or professional hitmen had been allegedly involved. After they began speaking publicly, the bodies stopped turning up in Nonthaburi and were moved to a neighbouring province outside of their jurisdiction.
See further remarks by Basil Fernando, AHRC director:
"The extrajudicial killings that have occurred in Thailand across recent months have involved the specialization of functions shared between law enforcement agency personnel and some criminal elements. For example, a person is called to a police station to make a statement and then on his way back home is killed by unknown persons. Such activities are well coordinated, and will not end with these killings. A new relationship has been established between the actual killers and the planners of the killings. Law enforcement officers are in normal circumstances expected to catch criminals. However, now they have become collaborators in murder. How a law enforcement agency can get out of this trap is hard to imagine."
A comment on the consequences of extrajudicial killings in Thailand
OK point taken.
As a final point:
I have yet to see anyone plausibly counter Vichai's reasoning that Thaksin deserves to take much of the blame for the 'war on drugs' disgrace.
(I have already linked to it in several posts, so I wont bother linking to it again)