Updated: (At last) Yingluck stands up

PPT has determined that spines can be strengthened and made upright. At last, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has dared to speak on things controversial! Twice!

First, at the Bangkok Post Yingluck not only “downplayed a red shirt protest outside the Constitution Court,” but noted that “those involved had the right to demonstrate as long as they did so within the law.”

The report notes that her support for the protesters saw her thumbing her nose “Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva for her to instruct the red shirts to stop their protest against the court.” Abhisit has a preference for sending Army snipers to end protests, at least when the protesters aren’t yellow-shirted ultra-royalists.

Abhisit’s position was supported by palace and military flunkey Meechai Ruchupan, who “urged all MPs and senators to respect the charter court’s authority.” Meechai charged that “the country would be in total chaos if agencies did not recognise the authority one another’s authority.”

We had to cite that because even Chicken Little could tell a tale that made sense to some. Meechai is in a singular space characterized by delusional absurdity. What else can it be when he asks: “What if the court refuses to make a ruling based on a law? … What will be left of the country?” All we can suggest is that Meechai open his eyes and look around at the world of judicial double standards that defines the amart.

So when Yingluck says: “Any protest activity that is in line with the law can proceed,” she is taking on the amart. That backbone has been missing since her election.

As it turns out, Yingluck made her brief comments before leaving for a three day official visit to Mongolia. There she made a second statement demonstrating the development of some political spine.

Khao Sod reproduces Yingluck’s speech on “Thailand’s stance in the sustainable promotion of democracy alongside the development of people at the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia…”.

Her speech begins with her affirmation that “democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand.” She refers to democracy having been formed in processes where “… many people have sacrificed their blood and lives in order to protect and build a democracy.”

She acknowledges that those who oppose democracy “grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom” and that significance of “the changes in my own country where the people power in Thailand has brought me here today.”

In Thailand, “[a]n elected government which won two elections with a majority was overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a decade to regain their democratic freedom.” Well, five years….

On April and May 2010,she notes that:

Many innocent people were shot dead by snipers, and the movement crushed with the leaders jailed or fled abroad. Even today, many political victims remain in jail.

This latter statement is remarkable, indicating the obstacles that her elected government faces in bailing red shirts. She explains:

It is clear that elements of anti-democratic regime still exist. The new constitution, drafted under the coup leaders led government, put in mechanisms to restrict democracy.

A good example of this is that half of the Thai Senate is elected, but the other half is appointed by a small group of people. In addition, the so called independent agencies have abused the power that should belong to the people, for the benefit of the few rather than to the Thai society at large.

… Also important is closing gaps between rich and poor.

She concludes:

… I hope that the sufferings of my family, the families of the political victims, and the families of the 91 people, who lost their lives in defending democracy during the bloodshed in May 2010, will be the last.

These statements may seem like a statement of the obvious but they are sure to sound like a declaration of political war to the anti-democrats, yellow shirts and other royalists.

PPT hopes that this demonstration of political courage is more than a flash in the pan.

Update: As we noted in the next to last paragraph, the anti-democrats were sure to hate this speech. The hissing began almost immediately, with the Bangkok Post reporting that the racist royalist flunkey Vasit Dejkunjorn “accused the prime minister of ‘telling a lie’ and of uttering ‘disgusting’ comments that tried to blame others for the misconduct of her brother.” Vasit, of course, favors military coups and undemocratic politics. Joining him in this criticism was loudmouth Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut who also “accused the prime minister of intentionally distorting facts. Those included the reasons behind the coup after Thaksin abused his power and interfered in independent agencies, and the death of soldiers and protesters in the May bloodshed three years ago.” Chavanond also favors military coups and undemocratic politics.

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post’s op-ed scribe Veera Prateepchaikul managed to conceive Yingluck’s speech abhorring military coups as an expression of bitterness. Perhaps Veera’s claims would be taken more seriously if he too were bitter about the military’s 2006 coup rather than seeking to justify it.

Yingluck has finally acknowledged the reasons she was elected and why the electorate rejected the coup and the military’s puppetry in hoisting Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrat Party to power. Her opponents see this as a throwing down of the gauntlet and immediately adopt undemocratic, chauvinist and royalist armor for their fight. As we have long said, Yingluck’s election was never accepted by this lot, and they are forever spoiling for an opportunity to bring down yet another elected government.

Nitirat, Worachet and dark forces

Puangthong Pawakapan

Readers might find the Radio Australia interview with Chulalongkorn University political scientist Dr Puangthong Pawakapan of interest. Puangthong  is a member of the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112. The interview follows the attack on lese majeste reform campaigner and Nitirat member Dr Worachet Pakeerat by thugs who oppose lese majeste reform. Some highlights from the interview:

Puangthong says that the attack on Worachet “is part of the hatred campaign by the hyper-royalist group.”  While not ruling out that the attackers acted independently, she adds:

A few weeks ago, there were groups of hyper-royalists who burnt effigies of Professor Worajet in front of Thammassat University. And the Nitirat members received several threats from these unknown people – it was part of a hatred campaign by this group….

Other reports state that the two men were participants in the rally burning effigies.

Referring to the possibility of more powerful and dark forces being behind the attack, Puangthong says “I think they want to create fear for us, they want us to stop the Amendment campaign. We know that it’s frightening and no one can guarantee that it won’t happen again, but we agree, our group agreed that we would carry on this campaign.”

Asked about the campaign to amend the lese majeste law, she notes that:

people in the up-country, are really enthusiastic about our campaign. We received many invitations from the civic groups in the up-country, to give talks about the amendment of the law…. These are the silent voices in the country who want the law to be changed.

And she adds:

the Nitirat proposal to amend the law is for the Monarchy as an institution, to be secure in the long term. It’s not a personal matter. For the monarchy to have security and stability, this law must be changed. I believe that all public institutions need to listen to the public voice, so that they can adjust to the changing values in the society, and the values that we cherish now is democracy. For the stability of the monarchy, it has to exist in line with democratic values and principles.

General out of line

In a democratic country, the relationship between the government of the day and the military is usually one that is governed by constitutional rules and practice. This has never been the case in Thailand. Never.

The Thai military is essentially a lawless institution in the sense that it does what it pleases on politics, orders governments and people even ordinary about and if it is really upset, it intervenes in politics. It has done this time and time again, virtually on a daily basis. Coups are just the times when the military uses its arms to get what it wants, for there are countless other, less obvious interventions.

In recent years, the justification for many of these interventions is glossed as loyalty to the monarchy and protection of what is the country’s largest capitalist conglomerate and symbol for hierarchical and authoritarian rule. Readers will likely know that an earlier generation of military bosses didn’t have such a justification for their political interventions and coups.

This is why no one should be surprised that the so-called Supreme Commander General Thanasak Patimaprakorn has demanded that the “government should rein in the debate on the monarchy … voicing opposition to the push by the Nitirat academic group to amend the lese majeste law.”

PPT had a post on this general when he was appointed to this post based on his links to the Army leadership and his royalist credentials.

Thanasak went on to declare: “As a soldier of the King, I strongly oppose the Nitirat…”. Sounding like a violent father waving a big stick at his cowed children,  Thanasak warned “every Thai citizen should know what to do, or not to do, regarding the country’s revered institution.”

In other words, if you don’t do as the military bosses say, you are in trouble and likely to be beaten to within an inch of your life.

This warning and threat is directed at the government and Nitirat and its supporters. The general thinks an elected government should close down a political debate and limit political space. This is a reflection not just of the general’s lack of democratic understanding but a view that all governments should order society about. In other words, it is quite simply an expression of the royalist, authoritarian and anti-democratic mindset of the military command.

Because the palace has never supported democratic governance and its rules, it has never spoken out against military interventionism, now always conducted in the name of the monarchy. Given Thanasak’s claimed close links with the queen, we can only draw the conclusion that his comments reflect a palace perspective.

Of course, in a democratic society, this military boss would be sacked for bleating about things he has no right to be saying and for interfering in politics. That won’t happen in Thailand and the government and people are expected to get the message: watch out!

Democracy and lese majeste

Putting “democracy” and “lese majeste” in the same sentence invites all kinds of contradictions. However, Titipol Phakdeewanich is a Political Scientist at the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani Universityhas a piece in the Bangkok Post that demands serious attention.

The sensitive issue of Section 112 is now being linked in discourse to the ongoing question of promoting freedom of speech and expression within Thailand.

That’s true, but why should it be “sensitive”? It is sensitive because its use is politicized.

Titipol is correct when he observes that:

Thailand will inevitably have to learn one way or another, to fully accept a founding principle of democracy, which is freedom of speech and expression. No country can claim to have negotiated the road to democracy while continuing to pick and choose as and when such democratic principles suit prevailing domestic interests.

The “promotion of freedom of speech and expression” he says will:

help to shift many Thai citizens out of a lingering passive and obedient mentality, which is a historical legacy; and towards becoming more actively engaged citizens within an evolving, maturing and more dynamic, vibrant democratic system.

Actually, we think this move has taken place already, and that is why the minority of those who gained most from the former “passive and obedient mentality” are so reactionary and aggressive in their protection of lese majeste and the monarchy itself. And, historically, it is clear to us that the majority have not always been “passive and obedient.” They have been repressed and butchered by those who gain from enforced passivity.

Titipol observes:

In arguing that the amendment of Section 112 will inevitably lead to the destruction and removal of the monarchy; anti-amendment groups are acting to further slow the process of democratisation within Thailand.

Of course they are!

Titipol has a long article with some well considered points in an argument about the monarchy needing to change. We think he is being optimistic. That said, his points on debating lese majeste and democratic freedoms make sense.

Even The Nation has a surprisingly sensible editorial on this issue: “Thailand cannot emerge from its political stalemate and develop its democratic institutions unless people have respect for opponents’ opinions…”. The editorial writer is correct in saying that “Thailand is at an interesting period in its politics…”.

On the lese majeste reform “debate” – in fact, debate should have two sides, but the royalists are pretty much a singular and very loud voice over the past week or so – this:

While this kind of partisan competition is to be expected in an open and free society, the situation in Thailand could soon reach an extreme and dangerous level. If it does, … the government and Thai public need to re-examine recent eras in both local and international political history to avoid repeating past mistakes. Thailand is at a critical juncture politically and socially.

The editorial points to extremism:

Last Saturday’s gathering of pink-clad supporters of the lese majeste law at the Royal Plaza saw the burning of effigies of … law lecturers, who have spearhead[ed] a campaign to amend this law. The scene smacks of the horror of October 4, 1976…. Was the Saturday gathering a harbinger of worse to come?

It seems entirely possible. Maybe the lesson of 1976 was that force and violence can keep people obedient and subservient.

In a generally sensible editorial, we are unsure who added this:

However, it is our belief that we must ensure that whatever we debate, we must at all costs protect and preserve our traditional institutions and customs, the source of our national pride and statehood.

Meanwhile, while Nattawut Saikua has to maintain party solidarity, he seems to agree with Titipol and The Nation, stating that while the Puea Thai Party is going to continue to doze on and allow the ultra-royalists to set the agenda, “The Nitirat group has a different point of view and I see it as normal in democracy…”.

PPT is certain that allowing the royalists to define debate while using the lese majeste law for their purposes is a dumb political strategy. Puea Thai will eventually pay dearly for it. Where will democracy be then?

Ji on red shirts and the new cabinet

Ji Ungpakorn comments on the new cabinet of Yingluck Shinawatra. PPT added the bolding:

Most politicians in the Peua Thai party no doubt believe that having Red Shirts in the cabinet would create a “bad image”. This is true if you believe that a “good image” is one of doing absolutely nothing to solve the crisis of democracy and social justice in Thailand.

The new cabinet contains people like Chalerm Yubamrung, a thuggish politician who sums up the term “legal double standards” from when his son was charged with murdering a policeman in a pub brawl. He is also suspected by some of having profited from drug dealing. This is a “good image” for the new government.

I don’t know General Yuttasak Sasiprapa, the new Defence Minister. Some say he had a hand in gunning down student protesters in 1973. I don’t know the truth about this. He might be a democratic soldier. But the big question is why any democratically elected Thai government needs to put a military man in charge of Defence. Surely the time has come to kick the military out of politics and ban all military and police ranks from parliament. The military just expects to have the “right” to intervene in politics for its own benefit. Then it claims to defend the King, to justify its actions, and uses lèse majesté to shut up its opponents.

Another “image” associated with this cabinet is the image of the elected speaker of the House grovelling on the floor before the unelected King. In Britain the Queen must read out the policies of a newly elected government in parliament

Another, supposedly, “good image” of the new cabinet, as they all posed for their collective photo outside Government House, was their black arm bands, a sign of mourning for some minor Royal who just died. When will the cabinet wear mourning for the nearly 90 unarmed red shirts gunned down by the military last year?

If these are all part of the “good image” of the new cabinet then thank heavens there are no red shirts in the government!!!  It would immediately sully their reputations.

But there are more important reasons why red shirt leaders should not hold cabinet posts. In the past, Filipino and British governments have brought in leftists to head Labour Ministries, in order to create an image, shut them up and then make them fall-guys. It would have been a disaster if a red shirt had been appointed as Minister of Justice, only to be made impotent and then blamed for not achieving justice for those killed by the army last year.

The fact that there are no red shirts in the cabinet is a golden opportunity for the red shirt movement to prove that it is independent from the Peua Thai government. They can then organise mass protests to demand justice, the freeing of political prisoners, the punishing of those responsible for the 2010 massacre, the end to censorship and lèse majesté and the reform of the army and the judiciary.

The question is: are the red shirt leaders up to this? If they are not, will new groups of leaders emerge who can take the movement forward?

Some say we must be patient. But on this I agree with Arisman Pongreuangrong, another red shirt activist, who says that we cannot wait. Now, just after the election victory, is exactly the time to strike out for democracy and justice. A time table should be set for the freeing of prisoners and the bringing to justice of those who committed state crimes against the people. “If not now, then when?” (paraphrasing Tracey Chapman). Wait until the elites regroup and crush us again?

The recent election had only one important meaning and that was to prove that the military and the Democrat Party were illegitimate. Having a newly elected Peua Thai Party government is totally meaningless if nothing changes. It is time to take the gloves off and stop worrying about the feelings of the government. If they wish to betray the people who sacrificed their lives for democracy, or those who are currently in jail, then they are not on our side. Red Shirts will have to fight this government in order to gain democracy and social justice.

BBC on media freedom in SE Asia

Readers will be interested in a forthcoming BBC series on free speech and democracy in Southeast Asia:

What Can I Say? Speaking out safely

‘What Can I Say?’ is a radio documentary series exploring freedom of speech and democracy in South East Asia.

Over four programmes, presenter Gary Bryson travels to Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand and Singapore. Along the way he meets journalists, poets, filmmakers, political activists and others trying to find a voice for their village, their culture or their nation. Together they weave a picture of how past traumas and present politics limit freedom of expression. The series seeks to uncover what can be said publicly in these countries without fear of being sued, imprisoned or worse.

What Can I Say? – on air and online from 16 February

Teflon Mark, Teflon Thailand

How important is it for a repressive, military-backed regime to have British-educated and English-fluent Abhisit Vejjajiva as its face for the rest of the world?

If Tan Siok Choo, a columnist at Malaysia’s The Sun, is to be believed, it matters a lot. PPT has designated Abhisit “Teflon Mark” and Tan says “Thailand is the ultimate Teflon country.” She says:

This non-stick trait is something Thailand enjoys. Consider this: more than two months of protests by 100,000 supporters of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in the capital last year ended with an army crackdown on May 19 that left more than 91 dead, at least 1,400 injured and arson attacks on several buildings that left Bangkok looking like Beirut.

If this had happened in another Third World country, its reputation would have been damaged, possibly irreparably. Instead, Bangkok’s May mayhem left unblemished Thailand’s claim to be the Land of Smiles.

PPT disagrees. We think that a lot of people view Thailand very differently these days. However, Tan makes some interesting observations:

Preliminary data by the Tourism Authority of Thailand suggests tourist arrivals last year could total 15.8 million – surpassing the tally of 14 million visitors in 2009. Even more remarkable, international arrivals increased over 2009 for every month last year except for April and May, the peak of the unrest.

Despite the May mayhem, investor confidence also remained robust.

Last year, the baht rose by 11% to 29.98 to the US dollar, Asia’s third biggest gainer after the yen and the ringgit. During the same period, Thai equities attracted net foreign investment of US$1.9 billion – the biggest annual net purchase since 2006 – while global funds sank a whopping US$10.7 billion into Thai bonds….

Admittedly, Thailand benefited from the tidal wave of funds abandoning the US and Europe in search of higher yields. In spite of abundant alternative destinations in East Asia, however, these investors voted overwhelmingly with their wallets for Thailand.

Tan then refers to investments in tourism, Japanese investor confidence, and ratings agency upgrades, albeit with less than robust growth estimates for 2011.

Remarkably, on the “Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2010 Democracy Index ranked the country 57th – the highest among Asean countries last year.” That’s true, but Thailand ranks below Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia and equal with Singapore on the Freedom House rankings for political rights and civil liberties. Nonetheless, the point being made is that for all the strife and repression, Teflon Thailand seems to hold up for investors.

Tan believes that “Thailand’s Teflon reputation may be due to two factors. First is the law of diminishing fear. With 18 actual or attempted coups … Thais have perfected the art of wresting power through extra-constitutional means, thus reinforcing the belief that all imbroglios will be short-lived and resolved eventually. Second, despite hostility between Thaksin [Shinawatra] supporters and his opponents, both groups are committed to putting out the welcome mat for foreign investors.” She adds:

This year, Thailand’s Teflon reputation faces more challenges – an economic slowdown coupled with uncertainty whether the Abihisit administration can prevail over Thaksin-backed political parties in the yet to be announced general election and whether the army will remain on the sidelines.

Another major concern is succession to the revered but still-ailing King Bhumibol.

PPT agrees that the two Teflon images face considerable challenge in 2011. PPT also thinks there are several reasons that Tan neglects that should be considered. First, the history of foreign investment in Thailand is of a seeming preference for the political stability provided by authoritarian and military regimes rather than a vibrant democratic political system. Second, foreign investors like Thailand because, academics tells us, the rates of profit there are very large, and have increased in recent years (for some evidence of this, see this academic paper). Of course, that advantage is there for local business as well. Third, the opposition to the Abhisit regime is now far broader than Thaksin and Abhisit himself faces international censure and that could scratch away the Teflon.

Teflon deteriorates too and some argue that it can be toxic. Will it be Toxic Mark?

The culture of impunity

Joshua Kurlantzick at the Council on Foreign Relations has a short post related to much of Southeast Asia, but which has particular resonance for Thailand. He begins with the “awful stampede that took place at a water festival in Phnom Penh in late November, killing as many 350 people” and concludes that “no one will be punished.”

Apart from the fact that he thinks this culture of impunity that protects state officials and the higher ups does not infect Singapore, his observations about the way, for example, in Thailand, the police and military can torture and kill and get away free from any responsibility is amazing and tragic. He says:

In Southeast Asia, punishing wrongdoing is exceedingly rare, outside of Singapore [sic]. Yet it is one of the pillars of a functioning democracy, a democracy in which citizens have the degree of trust in the state necessary to conform to the laws. If this trust in the state does not exist, you wind up with a privatization of essential functions, tax avoidance and people paying for public services like water and sanitation and policing, private militias, and other corrosion of state control. You also wind up with a total lack of trust in the law, so that average people become less likely, in the future, to report crimes, testify as witnesses, or generally punish illegal activities.

Thailand has plenty of that.

Democracy withering or just dead?

Readers may find the article in World Politics Review by Fabio Scarpello, Southeast Asia correspondent for the Italian news agency Adnkronos International, of interest. He begins: “The withering of Thailand’s democracy is closing potential avenues for political resolution of the country’s ongoing crisis and may lead toward widespread violence, and possibly even an armed revolt.”

PPT’s question relates to the use of the term “withering”; we wonder if the the withering has gone so far as to warrant calling the concept dead for Thailand in the short-term (and potentially longer)?

Scarpello considers the “latest episode in this ongoing, self-destructive process was the Constitutional Court’s decision on Nov. 29 to dismiss a case against the ruling Democrat Party — which had been accused of electoral fraud — on a technicality. In ruling that the case was not brought within the prescribed time period, the court declined to consider the merits or the opinion of the prosecutor.” He says the decision “highlights and reaffirms the country’s ongoing reverse-democratization.”

That process – the turn to authoritarian politics – has been highlighted many times in posts at PPT. Also recall Pravit Rojanaphruk’s comments on the failure of institutions and failed states here.

An expert on constitutional process at Chulalongkorn University is cited: “Since the time of the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) dissolution, the Constitutional Court has lost all credibility.”

Scarpello argues that “Thaksin’s rise inverted that process [of democratization], and current Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva is arguably even less-democratic. The two share responsibility for the country’s spiraling regression.”

He notes that “Abhisit has avoided going to the polls to gain a democratic mandate since assuming power. He still governs with the mandate accorded by parliament in a vote heavily influenced by the military in 2008.” A good point and one that Abhisit repeatedly fudges to the international media.

Scarpello observes that “Abhisit is seen as progressively losing his grip on power, while the military is increasingly open about asserting its own will. Thailand may not be a dictatorship yet, but it is very close to becoming one.”

But the opposition is not completely lost, with the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) said to “no longer merely a pro-Thaksin front. Its various factions, which include those interested in progressive political reforms as well as former communists, may have different objectives, but they are united in their dislike of the current regime. This makes the movement a formidable force, unlikely to be subdued even in the long term.”

Scarpello concludes that to “avoid falling into the trap of endless social unrest and a potential civil war, the conservative elite — comprised of the military, the bureaucracy, the monarchy, and parts of the political establishment — would need to reverse the current trend and move the country back toward a more democratic, participatory system. This implies a genuine political reform that takes into consideration the aspirations of the rural masses via a better distribution of wealth and political power. Unfortunately, there are no signs of this happening.“

All in the family

In case readers miss it, in the Postbag section of the Bangkok Post, Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij’s wife Vorakorn defends herself and her interview with Matichon earlier in the week.

For details of the Matichon interview, see Bangkok Pundit’s post here. Apparently, Vorakorn was apprised of a comment about her statement on the “problem of democracy”  at Robert Amsterdam’s Thai-language site. Vorakorn seems miffed and writes to the Bangkok Post:

Mr Amsterdam, in reference to the article ”Is democracy a problem?”, posted on your website and Twitter, I wish to respond as follows.

First of all, I assume you know what freedom of speech is. What I said in the interview (with Matichon newspaper, Nov 12) is an opinion that many others share. I am a housewife who sees the flaws in my country’s democratic system. Notwithstanding that, I am a law-abiding citizen who complies with her democratic duty of voting at every election, local or national.

Anyone who calls himself a democrat would also acknowledge my democratic right to criticise democracy in my own peaceful way. In fact, if democracy can’t be criticised, then surely it wouldn’t be democracy at all.

Now, let me share my perspective: You, Mr Amsterdam, are now serving a former leader whose political party was disbanded for election fraud and who himself was convicted of corruption whilst in office. Like me, he chose to criticise society; but unlike me, he chose the route of violence by supporting an uprising that led to many deaths and the burning of private and public properties. All the while he says he ”loves democracy”. I understand that your paid duty is to whitewash your employer, but I am confident that the whole world sees him for who he really is.

One problem with the response is that she believes that she needs to respond to Amsterdam when all his site has done is translate the original Bangkok Pundit post. See Bangkok Pundit on this.

A second problem is that she seems to think that pointing out here views on democracy is somehow challenging her right to speak on democracy. In fact, there was no such attempt by either Bangkok Pundit or Amsterdam. Like others associated with the current government, she seems to confuse legitimate commentary with some kind of political attack. Maybe all critical commentary needs to be banned for these privileged members of the elite to feel comfortable. Of course, Amsterdam is banned from Thailand already and the elite has worked hard to chase out others they see as “oppositional.”

A third issue is that she is justifying a comment where she questioned the efficacy of democracy for Thailand. In her misdirected attack on (the messenger) Robert Amsterdam, Vorakorn conflates democracy with voting – isn’t that what urbanites like her accused “ignorant” villagers of doing when they supported Thaksin Shinawatra?

Finally, she accuses Amsterdam of working for a former leader who supported violence “by supporting an uprising that led to many deaths and the burning of private and public properties.” Wasn’t it her husband’s government that sent the military in with weapons and free fire zones?