Viktor Bout actually won the trial court verdict for arms dealing to terrorist groups during his stay in Thailand. The verdict was appealed and the Thai prosecutor won a reversal. The issue in the case was whether selling arms to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) constituted supporting a terrorist group. Bout’s lawyers tried to assert that FARC was not a terrorist group according to Thai policy and therefore Bout’s action was a “political offense”.

In other words all Bout did was sell arms to someone the USA doesn’t like and/or is not a US ally. This argument failed on appeal and Bout was shuffled back into US custody and to US territory. I bet he is missing the Thai jail.

Prime Minister Abhisit has assured the media that political considerations held no place in the Appellate Court’s decision. Nevertheless, according to media reports, a spokesman of U.S. State Department called in Thai diplomats to emphasize that Bout’s extradition is of the highest priority to the United States. Although the United States legal system goers to great lengths to avoid political influence in the judicial system, those laws are for internal use. There are no direct restrictions on US officials placing diplomatic pressure on foreign judicial system systems.

Determining who fits into the terrorist category becomes an important issue in legal cases such as these and in terms of receiving support or sanctions by the legitimate governments of the world. FARC is a Marxist Leninist groups that, like other Marxist Leninist groups, seeks the overthrow of the existing government and class system to establish a new egalitarian socialist utopia. They have used crude weapons, kidnapping and torture to achieve their goals, and as such, have been labeled terrorist.

But defining the nuances of who is a “terrorist” becomes more convoluted the more it is examined. Do so-called “legitimate governments” ever engage in crude violence that harms civilians? Kidnapping? Torture? Google News (or watch the History Channel) and the answer is apparent. The conundrum for terrorist organizations seems to be that they need to engage in “asymmetrical warfare” because they cannot access “legitimate” tools of war, such as US and French bombs, guns and aircrafts/ N or can they organize and train in army bases (since they are always on the run.) They also cannot tax citizens because to rise funds because they have no official power. However, when they seek to obtain legitimate weapons, they must go to International weapons dealers like Bout, because governments won’t sell them weapons. So, at the end of the day, some would argue, the real difference is not tactics of these groups but their ideology. And FARC is on the wrong side of the ideological fence.

Lee Aldhouse is a newly made fugitive after having stabbed to death a Muay Thai rival after losing a Phuket Bar fight. Videos have sprung up on the Net showing Aldhouse expropriating a kitchen knife from a 7 11 in preparation for the stalking and killing of DeShawn Longfellow: the guy that kicked his but. There are also some videos of Aldrich’s Muay Thai fights. What can be observed from the videos are: this badboy is covered in tattoos, appears to be on steroids, is unusually short and has mediocre Muay Thai skills. On the night of the murder he appears intoxicated.

Steroids, intoxicants, weapons and people with sociopath tendencies are not a good mix. DeShawn should not have died for being a better fighter than Aldhouse. This obviously a terrible tragedy for his family and is bitterly ironic in that DeShawn survived close combat only to be killed in a vacation paradise.

Unfortunately Aldhouse can also be viewed as a poster boy for everything that is wrong with the mixed martial art and Muay Thai community. Muay Thai has a special cultural place in Thailand. It has a weaponless martial art that has been derived from its traditional wartime form and converted into a sport. The sport has provided an outlet for countless impoverished and or hyperactive youths to find a way to rise above themselves. In Thailand it still exists as a sport and is primarily supported b y the gambling culture that surrounds. It is rare for Thai people to practice Muay Thai training unless they are competing. Accordingly the martial art of Muay Thai has a specific and limited role and impact on Thai society.

Foreigners, on the other hand, treat Muay Thai differently than Thais. The attraction of Muay Thai, for many foreigners is that it is a fairly realistic martial art and is very practical for real violence. The other attraction is that it provides a good all over body workout and great aerobic workout. With the Advent of the UFC and mixed martial rts sports like Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu have exploded in terms of participation and interest.

Thailand has had a reputation as a refuge for lost souls, fugitives and adventure seekers. Add to the list would be warriors and martial artists. A number of professional UFC athletes train in Thailand and Thailand has recently since the birth of numerous Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Mixed Martial Ats school. The vast majority of the people involved are athletically oriented people looking for a physical challenge and camaraderie. There are also professional and amateur fighters in this community. In general it is a good group of healthy positive individuals.

Unfortunately there is a also a sub class of people that Mixed Martial Arts, Muay Thai and BJJ attracts that have more nefarious motivations. Steroids, drugs and alcohol, martial arts and bad attitudes is a bad mix. It is also contrary to what martial arts should be about. Many gyms will throw out bad apples, but some can’t afford to. Thugs give Muay Thai and Mixed Martial Arts a bad name.

The rumors of the Slash Myles Kennedy concert seem to be incorrect. It appears that these was a concert scheduled for 31 July, at Urban Spaces, a new venue in Bangkok. Unfortunate the show looks like its not happening. The show on 31 July will instead be in subaya, Indonesia. Various Indonesian websites report that the change of venue was due to risks concerning do the recent political turmoil and violence in Bangkok.

A Swiss computer programmer, Oliver Fricker is in the news for spray painting graffiti on a Singapore train. Pleading guilty, the 32 year old was sentenced to 5 months in jail and 3 cane strikes. For people who are not familiar with medieval corporal punishment techniques, caning means being struck on the back with a rattan stick.

Perhaps no crime is so antithetical to the spirit of Singapore than graffiti art. Graffiti, which arguable reached its pinnacle with New York subway artists in the 1970s, is unique in that it is an art form that is free from the academic structures of art schools and museums and is also free from commercial restraints of the need to be bought. Finally it is distinguished by the fact that it imposes itself on the viewer in public spaces rather than waiting to be purchased or downloaded. The closest analogy would probably be cave paintings or street theatre.

Graffiti rebels against academic standards, the requirements of commerce and is a violation of law. Hence, the beauty of this news story is the juxtaposition of an art form that effectively is among the purest form of anti-authoritarian art clashing with one of the world’s most renowned authoritarian regimes.

The sentence of 5 months and 3 cane strikes would seem cruel and inhumane in almost any country except Singapore. In fact, amazingly, most Singaporeans would probably agree with the sentence and applaud Singapore’s efforts to severely punish non-conformity and free expression of ideas. In spite of the rise of its financial center, Singapore is a dictatorship run by a single family and dynasty. There are fewer lawyers per person than almost any other country. In Singapore, few lawyers fight for human rights or justice. There seem to be no famous human rights lawyers in Singapore. Overwhelmingly, attorneys in Singapore prepare contracts for corporate bosses.

I think Oliver Fricker deserves a medal instead of a prison sentence.

Sat July 31, 2010 at Urbanspace

“Slash”, the legendary guitarist from Guns N Roses and Velvet Revolver will be appearing in Bangkok at Urban Spaces on 31 July 2010. Adding to the mystique of the event, Urban Spaces is an outdoor art/concert venue beside Gaysorn Plaza, close to the area that was formerly occupied by the Red Shirt demonstrators.

Myles Kennedy is replacing Scott Weiland on vocals, injecting a new energy into the previous lineup with Velvet Revolver.

Unlike other bands that have become embroiled in copyright disputes following breakups and solo ventures, both Axl Rose and Slash are playing Guns N’ Roses songs in their solo tours without any public copyright dispute.

With the Deep Purple concert last month and Green Day in January, and now Slash’s upcoming appearance, there actually seems to be some hope for Bangkok in becoming a contender for a stopover on international concert tours. Currently we are stranded out here in T-land with the nearest major venue being Tokyo, a 6 hour plane ride and several thousand baht away from Bangkok.

The maverick general, McChrystal has found himself in deep water after “bad mouthing” Obama and his administration in a feature Rolling Stone article. One wonders what would happen to a Thai general that was in a similar position, making negative comments about the Thailand executive office.

Recent examples have shown that the degree to which a Thai military senior official can display disrespect and even insubordination against the executive branch of government is much greater in Thailand than in the USA. If anything, McChrystal’s comments were tame, relatively inoffensive by Thai standards and didn’t involve any direct refusal to obey a lawful order. Basically, McChrystal said Obama and company didn’t have a real understanding of the fighting on the ground in Afghanistan and some very mild “name-play” of calling VP Biden “Bite me”.

Big friggin deal. Thailand has generals and a military that seem much more independent of the executive branch than their US counterparts. Amidst Thailand’s recent troubles, General Anupong hemmed and hawed and delayed enforcing executive orders to crack down on the Red Shirts, with relative impunity. On the red shirt side, General Khattiya (Seh Daeng) actually revolted against the existing executive power, and indeed carried on an armed rebellion against his own military without facing serious disciplinary procedures or arrest.

The “check and balance system” and “Freedom of Speech” are terms, which like “democracy,” have largely been romanticized in Western culture. However, General McChrystal seems to be facing disciplinary action for speaking his mind. It seems questionable whether a true check and balance system (or freedom of speech) can exist when a general cannot express his opinion, as an expert on the ground against an administration that he feels is misinformed and ineffective. In Thailand, the balance of power seems to exist by more of an amorphous social contract than by the express operation of laws. After all there have been an overwhelming number of military coups in Thailand’s history. However, criticism of the executive by other branches of government seems to be more freely tolerated in Thailand than in the USA.

The Criminal Courts of Thailand have issued an arrest warrant for Thaksin Shinawatra on terrorism charges and are publicizing their interest in extradition. The new media has provided a cursory analysis, in legal and practical terms, of the issues involved. In our practice we have had to deal with similar issues and would like to shed some light on these legal processes.

First off, Interpol and extradition are two separate issues. Interpol is the international police organization that lists various criminal matters in their records and provides this information to national police agencies. The aim of Interpol is to assist and support national police forces. However, Interpol itself does not, in general, have enforcement powers. Interpol is most well know for the notice systems that provides a series of color coded notices to national police forces regarding suspects, with a red notice signaling a serious offender with an outstanding warrant.

Extradition has no relation to Interpol. There is no central organization that controls extradition. Extradition is a process between two nations used in order to return a criminal suspect to the requesting nation. Interpol, however, may facilitate the process by making a nation aware that a person has an outstanding criminal case or warrant.

Extradition is frequently the subject of a treaty. There are numerous bilateral treaties between nations concerning extradition. However, the absence of a treaty does not mean that extradition cannot be obtained from a particular nation. This is because most nations will have internal laws that will allow for extradition based on requests that meet their legal processes.

Normally exceptions to extradition are violations that are not recognized by the requested country. In other words, the crime must be recognized as a crime by each country: the requesting country and the requested nation. Additionally most extradition laws require that the sentencing or punishment does not offend the moral standards (excessive or inhumane) of the requested party. Finally there must be sufficient evidence to substantiate the accusation and there is normally a due process procedure before a country will grant the extradition request.

The most famous case for extradition in Thailand is the Rakesh Saxena case. The defendant fought extradition to Thailand from Canada for approximately 10 years but was ultimately sent back to Thailand and appeared, aged and disabled, in Thailand in a rather anti-climactic Court appearance.

In the final analysis, the requesting state must provide evidence and documentation to two entities: Interpol, in order to establish a basis for a red notice that would restrict travel and place the defendant (Thaksin) under a provisional arrest; the Thai government or relevant department of the Thai government must also send an extradition request to its responsible counterpart in the requested country. Normally this is conducted through the central prosecutor’s office. If there is a specific extradition treaty between the two countries, there might be a specific procedure outlined.

IMHO the question in regard to this current case is not so much the process involved in extradition, but rather whether the Thai government has the political will to actually bring Thaksin back to Thailand and face the repercussions. Thaksin also seems reluctant to return to the country when he is facing such serious criminal charges and possible arrest. Both sides seem to prefer an indefinite stalemate than an outright confrontation. As a result, we may be facing a long term low level state of warfare rather than a clear demarcated final battle.

Thailand is poised on the brink of brutal civil war in the heart of Bangkok.
With 25 already killed and 800 wounded the only solution to avoid more blood pooling in the streets appears to be continuing imposition of martial law.

Thousands of anti-government red-shirt protestors are now barricaded behind bamboo and rubber tires in the commercial shopping district. They are crudely armed with homemade rockets, broken chunks of pavement, and sharpened wooden spears – as well as more lethal grenades, launchers and automatic-rifles.

In Bangkok’s financial district, the Thai military is preparing behind razor wire. Snipers are crouched on elevated walkways and in surrounding high-rise buildings – weapons loaded and ready to fire.

Both sides are fighting for ‘democracy.’

The beginnings could be immediately traced back to the ‘yellow-shirts’ protests in 2008 culminating with the weeks-long occupation and shutdown of the nation’s international airport.

Despite this dramatic airport-takeover that caused long-lasting negative ripples to Thailand’s economy; and now with the impending bloody-battle in Bangkok, the Kingdom does not have and has never had an explicit, clear law designed to regulate and control public assembly and protest. At the same time, it also does not have a law that supports and regulates the Thai public’s constitutional right to protest.

Thai Police can only indirectly control protests through existing weak laws related to the maintenance of ‘cleanliness’ and general ‘order.’
Nor do the massive-rally organizers and protestors have any strict rules defining just what they are allowed to do, where they may assemble, when their protests are allowed, or for how long.

The result is violent chaos resembling anarchy.

PROPOSED LAW

Thailand’s Council of State is now in the process of closely examining a bill originally drafted by the Royal Thai Police and approved by the government cabinet in October 2009. This bill is designed specifically to regulate mass public protests.

The government cabinet is now warning the government’s legal advisor – the Council of State – to heed its concern that this bill, if enacted into law, could interfere with the public-right to gather and protest as enshrined in the current Thai constitution.

Perhaps right now is the time to pass some form of this bill into law in order to finally stop Thailand’s continuing succession of coups, constitutions, and prime ministers?

Of course this bill threatens to hinder the Thai public’s right to protest. However, as is with the rules regarding free speech, public assembly and protest in the US, this compromised system of law and order will also be open to intelligent interpretation by a supreme court; and as a result may promote more reasonable, non-violent public forum – thereby indirectly increasing the rights of all.

BILL SUMMARY

The approved bill contains more than 30 sections in four chapters. It defines a public assembly as a minimum of 10 persons gathered at a public location whose purpose is to air their demands.

The bill says that such public group-meetings must be non-violent and bans possession of deadly weapons. Furthermore, the gatherings shall not be allowed to infringe on the general public’s right to move freely.

Also, the bill dictates that assemblies located within a radius of 300 meters of Royal-family palaces are strictly forbidden. This rule extends to courts of law, airports, railway terminals, public transportation centers, and government buildings.

Protest organizers will be required to alert government officials 70 hours prior to the gathering. And, interestingly, the leaders of the protest will be tasked with ensuring that absolutely no weapons are present and that activities remain non-violent.

Perhaps most threatening, the leaders are required to openly disclose their full names, identification cards, resident addresses. Also rather concerning is that all those people choosing to join the rally will be banned from disguising their own identity or dressing in camouflage.

Finally, officials representing the government will have the authority to request the court to disallow a public assembly.

CONCERNS

Observers are concerned that the bill should be directed not at controlling – but upholding rights to public assembly; while preventing further violence and infringement on the freedoms of the general population.

The bill has been criticized as too restrictive (rather than simply regulative) by rural villagers and non-governmental organizations. The concern is that people’s ability to freely oppose government activities that negatively affect their lives will disappear.

This argument is supported by a law reform subcommittee, which points out that authority to control public protest should not be held by the courts, but by the government’s executive branch. Furthermore, the subcommittee stresses that protest organizers should also have the freedom to appeal assembly bans decided by the state.

OTHER COUNTRIES

The First Amendment to the US Constitution secures the public right to assemble and speak freely. However, the government reserves the ability to enforce ‘reasonable’ restrictions on place, manner and time in order to maintain public security. The decisions striking this balance are ultimately handed-down by the US Supreme Court.

The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, broadly allows restrictions on demonstrations in cases of ‘national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime”.

RELATED THAI LAWS

The Thai police must currently rely on indirectly-related laws to control public assemblies. These laws are weak, however, in that they provide limited authority to actually control unruly crowds, and require a stretch of regulatory imagination.

For example, the Public Cleanliness and Orderliness Act penalizes people for throwing rubbish or urinating in public. Existing traffic laws provide an opportunity for Thai police to step in and at least begin making identification checks of unruly mobile protestors.

In lieu of these weak, unrelated laws, Thailand does have its tough Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows the Internal Security Operations Command (Thailand’s primary security agency) to set checkpoints and curfews; as well as control the general movement of demonstrators. The ISA was enacted by the government cabinet just prior to the planned mass red shirt, anti-government rallies in March of 2010.

The Act grants ruling authority to the Thai Prime Minister and cabinet. Measures allow very broad provisions for the government to combat threats to internal security; including the deployment of tens of thousands of official and volunteer civilian security personnel.

The ISA provides for government power ‘to cease any action in connection with electronic equipment.’ This could possibly be used to override mobile phone signals just prior to a government crackdown - as the red-shirts predict will happen. Furthermore, an estimated 10,000 websites have been blocked since the protest began in March.

Martial law is the imposition of emergency military rule covering specific regions. This is most often a temporary measure used when the government fails to effectively maintain security and order, such as in cases of extensive, widespread riots. Military personnel replace government authorities and their functions. The imposition of martial law may include the replacement of civil law with military law.

Most recently, on April 7, 2010, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva declared martial law in Bangkok after thousands of red-shirt protesters raided parliament. Warrants followed to arrest the suspects initiating the siege. Other emergency provisions under martial law include a ban on public gatherings of more than 5 persons, military right to promptly deploy security forces to disperse demonstrators, and gives soldiers immunity from persecution to detain people without charge.

POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES OF DEMONSTRATION LAW

The measures to control public protest outlined in the new draft bill may appear draconian, but perhaps only because comparable regulations are non-existent. However the proposals are gleaned from police experience, which may translate to some degree into wisdom.

A fine line exists between laws that are restrictive versus laws that are regulatory. Perhaps a law in Thailand outlining restrictions defined by the police could actually spur more intelligent debate, rather than continuous emotionally-driven rhetoric and deadly violence. This kind of more reasonable forum could help the public – including those with no color-allegiance – understand the issues, facts, and opposing party’s opinions.

Related News: Public Assembly Bill to be Reviewed

Streamlined procedures in Thai business law initiated by the Financial Institution Business Act of 2008 allow both Thai and foreign juristic entities to more easily lend money for security of mortgage on immovable property.

Generally, the intended purpose of the Act was to improve and merge existing measures regulating finance and credit foncier businesses, as well as commercial banks.

The Act is also designed to stimulate Thailand’s economy by encouraging foreign participation within the Thai banking industry. Under the Act, 75% of the shares of a financial institution must be held by Thais. But, with the go-ahead by the Bank of Thailand (BOT), foreigners may now actually own up to 49 percent of the shares of a Thai registered bank.

Furthermore, specific changes within the Financial Institution Business Act addressed eliminate tedious documentation previously necessary for foreign juristic entities, financial institutions, in regards to lending money for immovable property in Thailand.

POSITIVE CHANGE FOR JURISTIC ENTITIES

The Financial Institution Business Act of 2008 makes it easier to register a mortgage receipt of immovable property, such as real estate, property rights, and land, with a government Land Officer. The changes eliminate the need to receive written permission from the Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) declaring that the juristic entity is not a credit foncier business.

Prior to these changes in Thai business law the mortgage receipt registration for juristic entities was too cumbersome. Streamlined procedures in the Financial Institution Business Act focus specifically on the meaning of ‘credit foncier.’

The word foncier is a French word meaning ‘land.’ In English, credit foncier is ‘a specialized company licensed to provide loans and financial advances upon real securities for the purpose of carrying out improvements’ (‘real’ refers to immovable property and ‘securities’ refers to instruments representing evidence of ownership issued by a company or a corporation).

The original definition of credit foncier under Thai business law negatively impacted juristic entities that were attempting to make loans for security of immovable property mortgages. Changes in the Act essentially reword the definition of the term credit foncier.

A license is required under Thai law for businesses that lend money in order to receive deposits from the public. Before the Act, the FPO was required to obtain sufficient documentation from unlicensed juristic entities demonstrating that it only lends its own money, and does not receive deposits from the public in Thailand.

Enacted in August 2008, the Financial Institution Business Act frees the Land Officer to simply make a preliminary investigation as to whether the juristic entity receives deposits from the public in Thailand. The Land Officer may then proceed with the registration and receipt of the mortgage accordingly. This process may be completed within one day – compared to up to a month before these changes took place.

However, when the new law first took effect confusion prevailed. Land Officers lacked guidance as to how to go about making the initial determination. Then in December of 2008, the Land Department issued clarification of terms and procedures for the Land Officers to use in conducting their preliminary investigation of the juristic entity. With the new guidelines, the changes have been working effectively for over a year and are helping both foreign and Thai companies lend money for mortgages on immovable property in Thailand.

Exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has a younger sister. Her name is Jetsun Pema and she’s 69 years old. She had planned to deliver a key-note speech in Bangkok as a guest of honor at a festival celebrating Tibetan spirituality and culture. The festival was called ‘From the Himalayas to the Chao-Phraya’ and the name of her intended key-note speech was ‘My Story,’ focusing on Buddhist education in Tibetan schools.

The speech was never to take place. When she and her husband applied for a tourist immigration visa at the Thai embassy in New Delhi, the Thai government rejected the requests.

Of course China views the Dalai Lama as a rogue leader of the separatist movement seeking Tibetan independence from China. The Thai foreign minister’s office openly stated that his sister’s visa request was denied because Thailand has a long standing policy of avoiding international conflict by not allowing people to use Bangkok as a base for ‘criticizing’ other countries.

Even the US feels the Sino-pinch. Chinese officials openly expressed anger at US President Barack Obama’s recent meeting with the Dalai Lama. In conciliation to China, the meeting was kept low-key and off-camera (the White House released only one photo) – and took place in the ‘Map Room’ rather than the Oval Office.

Thailand’s Diplomatic, Economic, and Ethnic Ties to China
Thailand has good reason to maintain positive relations with China. Thailand and China established formal diplomatic ties in 1975. During Thailand’s 1997 economic crisis, while the US maintained indifference, China contributed handsomely to the international bailout fund. China’s recent economic explosion has made China Thailand’s second-biggest trading partner and the two countries generally maintain a closer relationship than other ASEAN states.

As of 2010, the ASEAN - China Free Trade Area (FTA) pact requires Thailand (along with the five other original ASEAN countries) and China to implement a zero-percent tariff program for thousands of products. For Thailand, the expectation was that Thai exports would benefit from the giant Chinese market. However in many cases the benefits are gained by China. Thailand’s northern tangerine farmers, for example, realized early after 2005 (when tiered tariff reductions first began under the FTA) that they could not compete effectively with China because the FTA allowed China’s cheaper, lower quality tangerines to flood the market.

Ethnically, Thailand’s roots with China run deep: a significant percentage of the dominant business elite in Bangkok are ethnic Chinese. Though not officially a government holiday, the Chinese new year is widely celebrated in Thailand and government schools in areas with a high Thai-Chinese population are typically empty during the celebration.

Interestingly, the now fugitive former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is a Sino-Thai (his grandparents are from China’s Guangdong province and immigrated to Thailand).The Thaksin administration kowtowed to China on a number of politically-sensitive issues. Under the One China policy, Thaksin tightened restrictions for Taiwanese delegates desiring to enter Thailand. Thaksin’s party also quickly gave in to pressure from Chinese officials to suppress the ‘Falun-Gong’ Chinese spiritual movement’s activities within Thailand.

Note that during the 2005 military-coup that ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s government, China remained quiet while it was openly condemned by the US. And while the US imposed a post-coup ban on military aid to Thailand, China immediately jumped-in and reportedly offered close to $50 million in military-aid and training.

As the Tibetan cultural festival in Bangkok went on without the Dalai Lama’s sister and Thailand was completely absorbed by the ‘Red-Shirt Rally” (centering on, ironically, a former Thai prime minister of Chinese descent), a very serious drought has taken deeper hold on Thai soil. The prolonged lack of rain in the northern Thai provinces has directly contributed to record-low levels in some stretches of the Mekong River, seriously affecting farmers who rely on irrigation from the river for crops and livestock.

The unusually low-levels in the Mekong in Thailand are surely due to some degree by China’s upstream mega-hydroelectric dam projects; of eight planned dams on the Mekong, three are reported to be already constructed and in-use. 

At this time the Thai government does not have clear and open to access to information regarding exactly how these relatively newly constructed dams are negatively affecting water levels in Thailand’s portion of the Mekong. The situation is completely controlled upstream by China in the form of a giant straw.

The ripple economic effects from a drastic and prolonged drop in Mekong River water levels are incalculable, and could eventually undermine other economic benefits gained through an assumed friendly relationship with China.

Rather than just continuing to avoid conflict with China, as in the case of the Dalai Lama’s sister and her immigration visa application, it may be necessary for Thailand to step-up and pro-actively negotiate the use of Mekong River water, and demand open and on-going access to pertinent information regarding China’s upstream mega-dam projects.