The Desire to Crush All Opposition

Gotta love Political Prisoners in Thailand. As with most of us, Thaksin was considered the devil incarnate when he was in office, and a major abuser of human rights, not to mention using his position and power to add to his substantial wealth. He was legitimately elected PM three times, but when he threated the traditional power structure of royalty, the military, and to a less extent the beaurcracy, it was time for the military to go for the traditional way to keep the richies in power: yet another embarrasing coup. Here's PPT latest examination on why Thailand fails in almost every respect to be a democracy.

The desire to crush all opposition

For the Military-backed Abhisit Vejjajiva regime the crushing of the red shirts was always more than ending the demonstration at Rajaprasong. For the royalist ruling class, the desire is to crush opposition that is seen as challenging to their social, political and economic power. The crackdown is continuing to deepen.

PPT has already mentioned the deep commitment that the royalists in government have to weeding out those they believe are anti-monarchists and republicans.

The New York Times reports that the “government has moved into the next phase of a campaign against the dissident movement known as the red shirts, freezing the assets of scores of people it says helped finance recent protests, and planning to summon them for questioning.” (See Bangkok Pundit on this.)

The NYT notes that Abhisit has emphasized so-called national reconciliation while, at the very same time, “hundreds of members of the opposition have been arrested and held without trial.” It observes that the premier’s “plan” has now “added to the atmosphere of acrimony, becoming a new focus for attack from government opponents.” The BBC also has some video on this “reconciliation” process.

Bangkok Pundit has another excellent post on reconciliation and the chosen committee, recalling PPT’s earlier point that reconciliation for Abhisit means rejected opposition, speaking only to his buddies and yellow-shirted supporters, and appointing the same to his various reconciliation committess.

The overall result, according to the NYT is that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has said that emergency rule will be maintained, essentially allowing the government to do almost whatever it wants, effectively placing it above the law, especially as the courts are almost always on the government’s side.

The government continues to hunt down people it thinks might have funded the red shirts. The highly-politicized Department of Special Investigation has identified a shortened list of “83 individuals and companies that were thought to support the protesters had made suspiciously large and frequent financial transactions over the past nine months. It said questioning [of suspects] would begin next Monday.”

Some of the amounts claimed are ludicrous. For example, Thaksin Shinawatra’s cousin, Chaiyasit, is accused of using almost $1.14 billion.

In response to allegations of political harassment and persecution, Abhisit makes the following absurd statement: “I insist that the government has never intended to persecute anyone.” He insists that “suspicious financial transactions” need to be controlled. He seems to have forgotten all those in jail, killed and being hunted.

Abhisit is hardly mentally inhibited, so PPT assumes that he realizes that he is demanding controls on private funding that are unlikely to “prevent further unrest and that people whose accounts had been frozen would still be able to do things like pay utility bills and staff salaries and service debts” but that will prevent these people from making political contributions to legal political parties when election time comes about, if it ever does.

Abhisit, like many of his supporters, believe that funding keeps red shirts going and gets pro-Thaksin parties elected. They are wrong, but can’t see it. That said, if Puea Thai Party’s main financial backers are blocked, then the Democrat Party and its pro-military coalition partners can have an open road in funding.

This is beginning to look increasingly like a co-ordinated plan to ensure royalist-military-”Democrat” rule for some time to come. So-called reconciliation is nothing but a political Orwellianism that hunts, harasses, inhibits, and destroys opponents.

The Economist -- Banned in Thailand

Some straight talk from The Economist about the Royal Family. Not formally banned, but no magazine distributor will touch this one.

As father fades, his children fight

Behind the present unrest in Thailand lie far deeper fears about the royal succession. And those may not be spoken publicly

Mar 18th 2010

From The Economist print edition

IN TRUCKS, boats and buses, protesters streamed into Bangkok for a non-stop rally that was billed as a “people’s war against the elite”. By March 14th the crowd, all wearing bright red and brimming with elation, had passed 100,000. On the stage, speakers railed against the government and its royal and military enablers. Banners read “No Justice, No Peace”. Another bruising round in Thailand’s protracted power-struggle was under way, with no clear end in sight.

By mid-week the red shirts seemed no closer to their goal of forcing out the prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, and forcing new elections. The army stands squarely behind Mr Abhisit, who took power 15 months ago by a parliamentary fix and remains the hero of Bangkok’s myopic monied classes, as well as the yellow-shirted protesters who support the status quo. But in a one-man, one-vote democracy, the have-nots hold the key to success.

Thailand’s twice-elected and now fugitive former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, understood this well. He has refused to keep quiet since the army ousted him in 2006. A court ruling on February 26th to seize $1.4 billion of his fortune has only made him angrier. Many red shirts consider Mr Thaksin to be the country’s true leader and, despite his enormous wealth and privileged life, make common cause with him.

Ruling-party politicians complain that the lowly red shirts are paid proxies and do not represent mainstream opinion. They bat away the idea that an election may be the only way to prove their point, arguing that an orderly vote is impossible amid the tumult. Most of all, they blame Mr Thaksin for the uproar.

But there is another figure in the political landscape to consider: King Bhumibol Adulyadej, at 82 the world’s longest-reigning monarch. At the rally site, a giant spotlit portrait of him gazed down impassively on the red-shirted crowds. To Thailand’s royalist movement the monarch is the nation’s father, and the “fighting children” on the streets are a source of distress to him. Some fear that Thailand’s troubles may be thwarting King Bhumibol’s full recovery from the respiratory illness that has kept him in hospital since September.

But it is precisely because “father” is on his way out that his “children” are fighting. The death of a monarch is always a moment of national drama and self-reflection. Thais feel a dread of it. Few have known any king other than Bhumibol, who ascended in 1946 to an institution that had slipped into irrelevance. As military rule gave way to a semi-functional democracy, the palace served as a respected power-broker. But its legitimacy depended on the charisma of King Bhumibol and the stealth of his courtiers.

The palace insists that the king is alert and active. But Thais already fear a destabilising royal succession. Investors are especially worried, and the more so because lèse-majesté laws discourage frank talk about it. When a large Thai brokerage polled fund managers about political risk factors in 2010, 42% of respondents chose what the brokerage describes as “a change that cannot be mentioned”. Rumours of King Bhumibol’s death last October sparked a two-day equities sell-off and a furious government witch-hunt for rumour-spreaders. The real thing is likely to outdo that rout.

Thailand has already endured four years of turmoil. The death toll has been low so far, but the rage unleashed last April, when red shirts fought the army in Bangkok, was a glimpse of how deep passions run. Splits within the army itself are starting to appear. Even if fears of all-out civil war seem overblown, it is reasonable to expect more years of political confrontation and paralysis.

The crown itself should pass smoothly. The designated male heir is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, aged 57, and there is not much scope for doubt about his claim. A long mourning period, perhaps six months or more, will allow a pause in the political dogfight. Some protagonists may come to their senses and seek a compromise. The death of King Bhumibol would also signal a generational shift in Thailand: younger voices could start to be heard.

But this king will be a most difficult act to follow, and Prince Vajiralongkorn is already widely loathed and feared. Most Thais try not even to think about his accession. “This reign ends. And then, nothing,” says an academic. The next ruler must fill the shoes of a beatified icon whose achievements have been swathed in a personality cult. The role of a crown prince in an era of great longevity and public scrutiny is tough anywhere. In Thailand it verges on the impossible. “How do you follow someone who walks on water?” asks a senior Western diplomat.

Doubts about the prince

This conundrum is a familiar one. King Vajiravudh, Rama VI, who assumed the throne in 1910, had a rough ride in the shadow of his father, King Chulalongkorn, a vigorous moderniser. Even before he ascended to the throne he was tainted by palace gossip of alleged bad behaviour, according to Thongchai Winichakul, a Thai historian at the University of Wisconsin. Vajiravudh was a “fantastic poet and playwright” but an also-ran monarch who was eclipsed by his exalted predecessor. “The royals shot themselves in the foot,” Mr Thongchai told a recent public seminar.

His successor, Prajadhipok, Rama VII, fared worse. A bloodless 1932 coup ended absolute rule and nudged the Thai monarchy towards the margins. Prajadhipok fled to exile in London and abdicated in 1935, deepening the drift. He handed over to Rama VIII, King Bhumibol’s elder brother, who died in 1946 after a mysterious shot to the head. Bhumibol was proclaimed king the same day, and promptly returned to Switzerland to complete his studies.

In 1926 Prajadhipok had written frankly about the shortcomings of dynastic rule. In a letter, he wrestled with the clash between a society in flux and the law of hereditary kingship, a clash that seems to hang over Thailand today. The king’s rule was one “of great difficulty” as public opinion had turned against absolute rule. He fretted over who might be coming next. “Some sort of guarantee must be found against an unwise king,” he wrote.

Nearly a century on, no such guarantee exists. Instead, Thais are faced with the prospect of Prince Vajiralongkorn, a career army officer and fighter pilot, who has already assumed many ceremonial duties from his father. Largely absent in recent years on jaunts around Europe, he is now back in Thailand and in the public eye. The signals are loud and clear. Two weeks after King Bhumibol’s birthday speech, the Bangkok Post ran a stiff, respectful profile of him under the headline: “King in Waiting”.

For Thais used to King Bhumibol’s virtues, which include monogamy, Buddhist piety and old-fashioned thrift, the crown prince is a poor substitute. Salacious stories of his private life are daily gossip. A video circulated widely in 2007 showed his third wife, known as the “royal consort”, at a formal dinner with the prince in a titillating state of undress. Diplomats say Prince Vajiralongkorn is unpredictable to the point of eccentricity: lavishing attention on his pet poodle Fu Fu, for example, who has military rank and, on occasion, sits among guests at gala dinners. In the 1980s his rumoured ties to the criminal underworld, which he denied in a newspaper interview, inspired the gangster nickname of “Sia O”.

In contrast, Princess Sirindhorn, his sister, enjoys a saintly image as a patron of charity. Many Thais are praying for an eleventh-hour change that installs her on the throne. Some army and palace factions are said to favour the princess as the next ruler. Other possibilities aired in recent years are a jump to Prince Vajiralongkorn’s children, such as his youngest, Prince Tipangkara, with a regent, perhaps Princess Sirindhorn. The leaked video was presumably a bid to discredit the prince and push other options. So far, however, King Bhumibol seems to have made up his mind that Prince Vajiralongkorn will succeed him.

Vajiralongkorn, meddling already

Paul Handley, the king’s unofficial biographer, whose book is banned in Thailand, thinks there is a tiny possibility that King Bhumibol could decide on his deathbed to disinherit Prince Vajiralongkorn. That would require a written command. Life in exile in Europe might suit the prince, who would not want for money or diversions. Inevitably there are other, bloodier, predictions of how he might be removed from the succession. This might explain why soldiers in his personal guard are not allowed to wear guns in his presence.

One reason why Prince Vajiralongkorn is distrusted in military circles is his past association with Mr Thaksin, who was ousted by a military coup in 2006. Mr Thaksin, a telecoms billionaire turned populist politician, was said to have lavished money on the prince. That may have been the real reason for the coup, which appeared to have the blessing of Prem Tinsulanonda, the chairman of the Privy Council and thus the king’s chief adviser. The fact that Mr Thaksin, who is living in exile in Dubai, is still in contact with the prince is deeply troubling for those same royalists. In a recent interview with a British newspaper, the former prime minister lavishly praised the heir to the throne.

Nobody knows what kind of ruler Prince Vajiralongkorn would be. Sulak Sivaraksa, a veteran royal observer and social activist, says that the prince has matured during his third marriage and is more respectful of others than in the past. Others say that he is still easily bored by royal duties, unlike Princess Sirindhorn, who lives for them. Above all, say royal watchers, he needs able courtiers to steer him through the political pitfalls ahead. Many believe that Prince Vajiralongkorn will replace the Privy Council with his own men. For senior courtiers who have served the king and look askance at his successor, an exit will be welcome. But the new men “will definitely not have the calibre” of the current crop, says a foreign scholar.

Mighty but clumsy

A taste of this came last year when Mr Abhisit, the prime minister, tried to reshuffle the police force. His choice for police chief was blocked by members of his own team, including Nipon Prompan, an aide to Prince Vajiralongkorn, who lobbied for another candidate. A “powerful and mighty” backer was reported to be pushing the second man, a former head of national intelligence under Mr Thaksin. Mr Nipon later resigned from the cabinet. Mr Abhisit was unable to confirm his man, who is currently acting chief. The row exposed Prince Vajiralongkorn’s clumsy meddling. It also provoked apoplexy among King Bhumibol’s courtiers, says a palace source. Prince Vajiralongkorn was told that “we don’t do things like this,” the source says.

In fact, the palace has long patronised loyalists in the army and bureaucracy. This is how power operates in Thailand. What made Mr Thaksin such a threat to the palace was his determination to exert similar control. In turn, Prince Vajiralongkorn is itching to meddle in the annual autumnal shuffle of senior jobs in the armed forces and extend his support base, says a senior Asian diplomat. How far he succeeds may determine how long he lasts. Another possibility is a royal pardon for Mr Thaksin so that he can return to manage state affairs for the new king. This would delight the red shirts. But it would appal Bangkok’s elite and split the army. As for courting public support, this seems far-fetched. The prince knows he is unpopular, says a political acquaintance, but “he doesn’t care.”

One way out of this predicament would be to shrink the Thai monarchy back to its previous size. Top-down reform of the institution is more palatable than a push from below with republican overtones. Under King Bhumibol its stock has fallen already from its zenith in May 1992, when he could order a military dictator to cease and desist. Recent years have exposed the limits of his powers. In 2008 the king was unable to stop the People’s Alliance for Democracy from sowing chaos in his name. “We expect too much of him,” sighs a senior courtier.

Clearly Thailand needs a new equilibrium. Some fear that the power vacuum left by an enfeebled monarchy will be filled by the army, which is already the steel behind the palace’s gilded façade. But the generals who seized power in a coup in 2006 did a dismal job of running the country, and had to return power to the voters 15 months later. Business families do not want a repeat performance, and would prefer to have politicians and professionals in charge. Several banned MPs, some hoping to lead parties, will re-enter the field in 2012. But the rules of the game will need to be reset.

Some might argue that King Bhumibol shares the blame for the failure of democratic institutions to take root in Thailand. Relying on “a few good men” and the army to steer the country has left it in the lurch, says Mr Handley.

It is a sad twilight for the monarch. Thailand was once an outpost of freedom in a fairly repressive region. Scrappy politics did not choke rapid economic growth, as the bureaucrats kept a steady hand on day-to-day management. In the 1990s Western rights activists hoped that the dynamism of Thai civil society might spread to neighbouring countries. Instead, some now see Thailand as a cautionary tale of a botched democracy.

That may be too harsh. Thailand’s rival red and yellow mobs disagree about democracy, but both want a fair political system. To measure tolerance, the California-based Asia Foundation last year surveyed Thais about their views. It found that 79% of respondents would allow unpopular political parties to meet in their area. Only 6% said that they would stop seeing a friend who had joined a rival party. These are healthier figures than in other Asian democracies. Almost everyone agreed that democracy was the best form of government, though 30% would accept authoritarian rule in certain circumstances.

Thailand has not yet given up on democracy. But taking stock of its troubled politics should include talking about the crown. Of course, it is distasteful—and inauspicious, Thais believe—to speak of King Bhumibol’s death. But it is unavoidable. The stakes are too high. Respect and fear have kept a lid on the debate. Anyone who speaks out of turn in Thailand risks arrest under the lèse-majesté laws or a new, equally nasty computer-crimes law. Several people have been prosecuted for defaming the king and his family, including an Australian jailed (until freed by a royal pardon) for writing a novel that contained an unflattering depiction of the crown prince.

Behind closed doors, a spirited debate goes on over the fate of the monarchy when the king dies. An old prophecy holds that the Chakri dynasty will last only nine generations. King Bhumibol is Rama IX. Republican voices are rising to the surface—unreported in Thailand’s pliant media. The Bangkok Post struck a typical tone of pride and menace in its birthday eulogy for the king in December: “The Thai people’s love for his majesty is so ingrained in the national psyche that to declare otherwise is unthinkable.”

Gagged and flagging

Within palace circles, however, there is a dawning realisation that change is coming. Senior royalists know that King Bhumibol’s charisma and influence will not easily transfer to his successor. This is the crux of Thailand’s royal impasse. And King Bhumibol knows it, says Mr Sulak. As he puts it, the king “would like to see that the next reign will not be bloody.”

To this end, King Bhumibol recently asked three trusted emissaries to present ideas for reforming the institution, according to Mr Sulak. One emissary asked for Mr Sulak’s advice, explaining that the findings would be for the king’s eyes only. Mr Sulak replied that the palace must be transparent about its finances, including some $35 billion in assets managed by the Crown Property Bureau, decouple itself from the army and open up to public criticism. Only by becoming a European-style figurehead can a future monarch survive, he argues.

Preserving the tree

Mr Sulak has often been accused of lèse-majesté. He insists that he is a monarchist at heart. “To pull down the tree is easy. But I think it’s better to preserve it,” he says. Such steps just might rescue the Chakri dynasty. But a radical rethink seems unlikely. Allowing opponents to attack an insecure ruler could quickly escalate. Under King Bhumibol the silencing of opponents has been controversial, but many tolerate it out of respect. Prince Vajiralongkorn can expect no such leeway.

What might a diminished monarchy look like? Thailand may not be ready for such a thing. In Spain, the palace’s annual household budget of €9m ($12m) is audited by the government. Norway puts its royal accounts on a website. It is impossible to find out how much Thailand’s jet-setting royals spend. Japan may be a better model, as a respectful national press keeps its distance.

It took defeat in the second world war and an American occupation to curtail the powers of Japan’s emperor. Other royal houses were whittled down to size by assertive parliaments. This happened in Thailand in 1932, but was later reversed under King Bhumibol. Clearly, some constitutional fixes would be needed to shrink the sovereign’s role. But power in Thailand flows along patronage networks that start with the king. That is why elected ministers who care about their careers are continually looking over their shoulders for signals from the palace. Mr Abhisit attends so many royal ribbon-cuttings that it is hard to imagine how he finds time to govern, says a senior Western diplomat.

Royal censorship has kept much of this debate under wraps. That is a pity. King Bhumibol famously said in 2005 that he was not above criticism. But not many are ready to test that. Though the internet is humming with opinions, the taboo still stands. And because the country has never had a chance to talk openly, people cannot prepare themselves for what may be a rough road ahead.

The Economist: Where the Power Really Lies in Thailand

The Economist has an interesting article on where the power lies in Thailand, and it sure ain't with the People. I had thought that Thailand was done away with military coups, but the coup three years ago really screwed up the country with no sight in end to the problems.

Army officers like to grumble that politics in Thailand, unlike soldiering, is a dirty game. But it is a game that they have rigged to their advantage. After the coup, the liberal 1997 constitution was replaced by a less democratic one. They have secured a bigger budget allocation (see chart), allowing them to give friendly politicians a hand. And a tough new internal-security act was passed with minimal oversight.

This proved handy after Mr Thaksin’s allies won an election in December 2007 and an inept military government was disbanded. Within months, yellow-shirted royalist protesters were back on the streets in Bangkok, refusing to leave until the government did. In the ensuing chaos, it was the army that arguably emerged on top. Urged by yellow-shirts to stage another coup, General Anupong Paochinda, the army chief, demurred. But when he refused to disperse the crowds at Bangkok’s two airports last November, and instead urged the prime minister, Somchai Wongsawat, to resign, the effect was the same.

After the mess it made in power, the army is much happier pulling the strings, says Paul Chambers of Heidelberg University in Germany. It has all the legal tools it needs to keep civilians like Mr Abhisit in line, without the bother of having actually to run the country.

Of course, General Anupong’s reluctance to seize power need not preclude others from trying. Many of the 18 coups since 1932 have turned on factional rivalry within the top military ranks during the autumn shuffle of commands. But General Anupong has promoted his followers and penalised officers suspected of Thaksinite loyalties. He is due to retire next year as head of the army, the most important branch of the armed forces. His anointed successor is his deputy, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, who is young enough to serve until 2014. He is reckoned to be even more conservative than his mentor, and even readier to crack heads to defend national security and the revered monarchy. General Prayuth is likely to play a crucial role during the much-feared succession to the king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is 81.

Among Thais, the army commands both respect and suspicion. A recent survey by the Asia Foundation ranked it second behind the judiciary as institutions with integrity (the monarchy was not an option). But only 37% of respondents said it was neutral. Its reputation has improved since May 1992, when troops massacred scores of demonstrators in Bangkok. Never again, came the refrain. Soldiers were spat on in public. But successive civilian governments failed to overhaul the 300,000-strong armed forces. They still have several hundred active generals, many without even a desk. The tally of 36 four-star officers is just behind America’s 41. But America’s army is four times larger—and at war.

Why Does the U.S. Want Viktor Bout?

Viktor Bout by Chris Coles

The U.S. Department of Justice issued this press release in Oct. 2008 to explain why they want to try Viktor Bout in an American court.

U.S. Announces Indictment Of International Arms Dealer for Conspiracy to Kill Americans and Related Terrorism Charges

NEW YORK—Michael J. Garcia, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Michele M. Leonhart, the Acting Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), announced today the unsealing of an indictment against international arms dealer Viktor Bout, a/k/a Boris, a/k/a Victor Anatoliyevich Bout, a/k/a Victor But, a/k/a Viktor Budd, a/k/a Viktor Butt, a/k/a Viktor Bulakin, a/k/a Vadim Markovich Aminov, for, among other things, conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (the FARC) -- a designated foreign terrorist organization based in Colombia -- to be used to kill Americans in Colombia.

Bout was arrested by Thai authorities on a provisional arrest warrant on April 9, 2008, based on a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Bout has been in custody in Thailand since March 6, 2008. According to the indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

Bout, an international weapons trafficker since the 1990s, has carried out his weapons-trafficking business by assembling a fleet of cargo airplanes capable of transporting weapons and military equipment to various parts of the world, including Africa, South America and the Middle East. In 2004, as a result of his weapons trafficking activities in Liberia, the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Department of Treasury placed Bout on the Specially Designated Nationals list, which prohibits any transactions between Bout and any U.S. nationals, and freezes any of Bout’s assets that are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Between November 2007 and March 2008, Bout agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars’ worth of weapons -- including surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs), armor piercing rocket launchers, AK-47 firearms, millions of rounds of ammunition, Russian spare parts for rifles, anti-personnel land mines, C-4 plastic explosives, night-vision equipment, “ultralight” airplanes that could be outfitted with grenade launchers and missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Bout agreed to sell the weapons to two confidential sources working with the DEA (the CSs), who represented that they were acquiring these weapons for the FARC, with the specific understanding that the weapons were to be used to attack United States helicopters in Colombia.

As described in the Indictment, during a covertly recorded meeting in Thailand on March 6, 2008, Bout stated to the CSs that he could arrange to airdrop the arms to the FARC in Colombia, and offered to sell two cargo planes to the FARC that could be used for arms deliveries. Bout also provided a map of South America, and asked the CSs to show him American radar locations in Colombia. Bout said that he understood that the CSs wanted the arms for use against American personnel in Colombia, and advised that the United States was also his enemy, stating that the FARC’s fight against the United States was also his fight. During the meeting, Bout also offered to provide people to train the FARC in the use of the arms.

The Indictment unsealed today charges Bout with four separate terrorism offenses:

Count One: Conspiracy to kill United States nationals;

Count Two: Conspiracy to kill United States officers or employees;

Count Three: Conspiracy to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missile; and

Count Four: Conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

If convicted, Bout faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on each of Counts One through Three, including a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for Count Three. Bout faces a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment on Count Four. The case is assigned to United States District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

The United States is actively pursuing Bout’s extradition from Thailand. Mr. Garcia praised the investigative work of the DEA and thanked the Royal Thai Police, Office of the Attorney General for Thailand, and the Royal Thai government for their assistance. Mr. Garcia also thanked the Romanian Border Police, the Romanian Prosecutor's Office Attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Korps Politie Curacao of the Netherlands Antilles, and the Danish National Police Security Services, for their cooperation, and thanked the U.S. Department of Justice Office of International Affairs.

"Viktor Bout has long been considered by the international community as one of the world's most prolific arms traffickers," said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia. "Today, Bout is in Thai custody facing extradition to the United States, where he will be prosecuted for agreeing to arm a terrorist organization, an aim of which was to kill American citizens."

"Viktor Bout no doubt faces some of the most extraordinarily serious conspiracy charges possible for his crimes against Americans," said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Loenhart. "With the unsealing of this indictment, we are one step closer to ensuring Bout has delivered his last load of high-powered weaponry and armed his final terrorist."

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anjan Sahni and Brendan R. McGuire are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Thailand Frees World's Most Notorious Illegal Arms Dealer

Congrats to the Thai legal system, which has once again sided with international terrorists and refused to extradite the world's most notorious smuggler of arms to the U.S. for prosecution. Instead, they will send Viktor Bout back to his homeland, Russia, where he faces no charges and soon will be a free man to sell surface to air missles to insurgent movements around the world, including the Islamic revolt in southern Thailand. As long as they can raise the money from Islamic governments and wealthy Islamic individuals who agree with their fight for an independent Pattani nation. That shouldn't be too hard.

Congrats, Thai government. I predict this legal action to free Viktor Bout will someday return to bite you in the ass. I wonder who got the big, big, big payoff?

Washington Post has some background.

THE WIFE OF Viktor Bout, the international arms merchant nabbed last year by undercover American drug agents posing as weapons-hungry Colombian rebels, insists that her husband's interest in South America extends only to "tango lessons." Like his wife, Mr. Bout, a former Russian air force officer, has also taken the international community for fools while, U.S. officials say, he went about ferrying millions of dollars worth of military equipment to rogue nations, terrorist groups and rebels of every ideological stripe on four continents while insisting that he was an honest businessman. Now, despite evidence that he planned a huge sale of arms to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a Thai court has handed Mr. Bout a victory by rejecting his extradition to stand trial in the United States. Will Thailand allow Mr. Bout to continue playing the world for fools?

In the view of U.S. and international officials, Mr. Bout, dubbed "the Merchant of Death" by journalists Douglas Farah and Stephen Braun in their book of the same name, has probably done more to bust international sanctions and fuel bloody conflicts around the world than any man alive. Operating from his home in Moscow, where his close ties with military and intelligence circles apparently afforded him protection, he built what was believed to be the world's most formidable one-stop shop for black-market weaponry, up to and including tanks, helicopters and surface-to-air missiles. He controlled a large fleet of former Soviet aircraft, which he used to ferry goods anywhere and everywhere -- including into Baghdad on behalf of the United States following the invasion of Iraq. In a hugely profitable, two-decade-long career, his customers are believed to have included outlaw governments, armed factions and terrorists in the Philippines, Lebanon, Afghanistan and, especially, some of the more violent and lawless countries in Africa.


The noose started to tighten on Mr. Bout a few years ago, when his movements were cramped by an arrest warrant issued by Belgium, a travel ban imposed by the United Nations and sanctions levied by Washington. Possibly, it was a tougher business climate that led Mr. Bout to drop his guard and agree to travel to Thailand in March last year to meet with agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration posing as FARC rebels. Shortly after arriving at his hotel in Bangkok, Mr. Bout was arrested by Thai authorities working with the DEA.

Since then, the Kremlin, which has expressed its contempt for international law by tolerating or approving of Mr. Bout's arms enterprise, has pressed hard for his release, selling the Thais cheap oil, talking about selling them fighter jets and, as has been hinted by U.S. officials, offering bribes. Not long ago, one of the Thai judges hearing Mr. Bout's case mused publicly that the court's decision on his extradition would anger either Washington or Moscow. In a decision rendered Tuesday, the court handed Mr. Bout a victory, arguing that the FARC, notorious for its kidnapping and cocaine trafficking, was a political group, not a terrorist one, and in any event, no affair of Thailand's.

Thai prosecutors were expected to file an immediate appeal in order to block Mr. Bout's release. Moscow, which shudders to think of Mr. Bout telling American authorities what he may know of the Kremlin's possible ties to illegal arms trafficking, rejoiced. And it remained undecided whether Thai courts will help bring one of the world's most dangerous men to justice, or allow him to go free to pursue his passion for tango.

Jotman cuts to the chase and uncovers why Thailand is so happy to release international criminals:

The internationally-renowned arms dealer Viktor Bout has just been acquitted in the Thai court. The Russian state broadcaster ITAR-TASS reports:

Russian Foreign Ministry learned with much satisfaction the reports on Thai Criminal Court’s decision to free the Russian citizen Viktor Bout, who was suspected of planning a sale of weaponry to the Revolutionary Armed Force in Colombia (FARC), the ministry’ s deputy official spokesman, Igor Lyakin-Frolov said Tuesday. Earlier in the day, the Thai Criminal Court issued a non-guilty verdict to Viktor Bout, thus denying a request from the U.S. to extradite him. The court ruled the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was a political organization and not a terrorist one, as the U.S. had claimed.

JOTMAN.COM Russian contributor Sanjuro, who translated a rare interview with Victor Bout from his prison cell in Thailand, summarizes an article from the Russian media pertaining to Bout's release:

A more detailed article in the Kommersant said that Thai court considered the case "politically motivated", and that the prosecution failed to provide trustworthy evidence of Bout's dealings, and of the fact that FARC, indeed, is a terrorist organization. It also briefly quoted an unnamed Russian diplomat in Thailand saying that Thailand simply didn't want to taint relationship with Russia, as in case with Iran (there was a similar case with an Iranian military officer caught in Thailand). The reason was described as Russia and Iran are seen by Thailand as "unpredictable" and hence it is better to please them, while the US has been a reliable partner and shall not be too angry with Bout's acquittal, especially as Obama administration has no vested interest in it.

But according to an article on the acquittal by Douglas Farah in Foreign Policy, "His extradition has become a top priority for an Obama administration seeking to prevent him from being released and further fanning conflicts around the world, particularly in his old stomping grounds of Afghanistan."

It should be noted that the Americans were only too happy to work with Bout when he served their purposes: in the first years of the Iraq war Bout flew "hundreds of missions for the U.S. military and civilian contractors, raking in millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars." Back then, it seems that Bout was too useful to the United States to get arrested.

While the Bush Administration was spending hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer dollars to hunt down Victor Bout, it was funneling hundreds of millions to military contractor Blackwater USA and its CEO Erik Prince. According to Wikipedia:

On August 3, 2009, two anonymous former Blackwater employees swore under oath that Prince may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. In addition, they said that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

If such allegations are found to be true, perhaps it would be unfair to Victor Bout to compare him to Erik Prince. An amoral arms merchant is not quite in the same league as a hate-inspired holy warrior.

American citizens might have been far better served had their government focused on keeping its own house in order rather than chasing one semi-retired Russian arms dealer halfway around the world.

Jotman on the Release of Viktor Bout