Thailand Drug War: Thaksin Defends Policy Amidst Public Outrage
The legacy of policy is often more complex, and far more persistent, than its initial promise suggests. Consider Thailand, where former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is slated to deliver a lecture on drug suppression at the Office of Narcotics Control Board (ONCB). This invitation, as detailed in this recent reporting, has ignited a firestorm of criticism, and not without reason.
Thaksin’s infamous “war on drugs” in 2003, ostensibly aimed at eradicating narcotics, instead became synonymous with extrajudicial killings. The brutal campaign resulted in the alleged deaths of over 2,500 people, a stain on Thailand’s human rights record that continues to provoke outrage. The very notion that the architect of such a devastating policy would now be advising on drug suppression underscores the inherent tension between political expediency and ethical governance.
The invitation reveals several troubling dynamics at play:
- The Politicization of Expertise: The ONCB’s decision to invite Thaksin, framed as leveraging his position as an advisor to the ASEAN chair, feels less about genuine expertise and more about political calculation. Expertise, in this context, becomes a malleable tool.
- The Persistence of “Tough on Crime” Narratives: Despite evidence suggesting the ineffectiveness and human cost of punitive drug policies, the appeal of a “tough on crime” approach, exemplified by Thaksin’s past actions, continues to resonate, particularly during election cycles when parties like Pheu Thai promise drug eradication.
- The Normalization of Impunity: The invitation, while stirring public dissent, highlights a degree of normalization of Thaksin’s actions. Political activist Nitithorn Lumlua’s questioning of the ethics of the government officials, and his suggestion they risk violating Section 160 of the constitution, reflects a broader unease with the lack of accountability.
The criticism extends beyond the ethical implications. Former Democrat MP Thepthai Senpong fears a return to the forceful methods advocated during Thaksin’s premiership. He, and others, suggest that Pheu Thai’s current drug policy, despite election promises, has faltered. The Bangkok Post article reveals a deep skepticism that Thaksin can offer a new, more humane, or effective path forward.
What seems clear is that the echoes of the past continue to shape the present, and the specter of the 2003 drug war looms large, reminding us that policy choices have profound and enduring consequences that transcend immediate political goals.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Thaksin’s lecture raises fundamental questions about Thailand’s approach to drug policy and its commitment to human rights. It serves as a stark reminder that the pursuit of political advantage should never come at the expense of justice and accountability.
