There are cluster bombs that our guys use and then there are bad cluster bombs

22 04 2011

In The Irrawaddy, this is stated:

The Obama administration said Thursday that Moammar Gadhafi’s government may be targeting Libyan civilians with cluster bombs, cautiously endorsing claims by rebels and human rights groups that the Libyan strongman’s troops are using the indiscriminate weapon on the western city of Misrata.

Attacks by Gadhafi’s forces have been deplorable, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. Despite outlining more examples of what she termed Gadhafi’s “inhumanity,” Clinton refused to signal any new course for the United States to help anti-government forces in their war to end four decades of dictatorship.

Indeed, deplorable if true.

But what happens when the ever-so-nice-English-speaking Abhisit Vejjajiva-led regime that includes the Thai Army and their royalist backers are the regime using cluster bombs? Nothing, zilch, silence from the U.S. Secretary of State (correct us if we have managed to miss the condemnation). Where is that cautious use of deplorable? PPT searched her official web page and found nothing that condemns Thailand’s soon-retracted admission of the use of cluster bombs (read our posts here, here, here, here, here and here).

PPT is not the only blog to notice these double standards – see this post at Asia Provocateur.

That's our boy!

PPT has a bit of a string of posts on these questions and issues. We earlier questioned Clinton’s position on Thailand and asked questions about her State Department’s recent human rights report.

It is worth setting out some of those earlier posts here:

… did she [Clinton] conveniently forget … [about] the Abhisit Vejjajiva government … presiding over events that saw the shooting of several journalists, with several witnesses, including journalists, claiming that the military deliberately targeted them. We don’t recall her condemnation of the monstrous levels of media censorship in Thailand….

Part of the propaganda benefit that the Thai government has in Washington is a long tradition of “advisers” telling the State Department that it is only the royal family that matters and that the monarchy is the source of stability. Even today, despite the clear evidence that the monarchy has destabilized Thailand’s politics over the past decade, there are academics with thin publication records who have moved from government to universities inside the Beltway and who regularly get inside the palace and in return provide the necessary propaganda as “advice.”

The official U.S. position on human rights is now so riven by contradictions that it can’t be a “position.” It is a hastily cobbled together sham and sick joke.



2 responses

24 04 2011
Reasons for liking Abhisit and his regime | Political Prisoners in Thailand

[…] PPT has tended to stay away from comparisons between Thailand and the Middle East and North Africa in recent months. There have been plenty of comparisons made by all sides in the various political competitions in Thailand. We have generally preferred to stick to domestic events. Where we have looked to the events in the Middle East and North Africa it has been focused on the all too obvious contradictions of Western and especially U.S. human rights policies. Just yesterday we commented on this. […]

17 09 2011
No shame Abhisit | Political Prisoners in Thailand

[…] And we are leaving out the short and sharp military skirmishes on the border that included the Thai use of cluster bombs, several border evacuations and an unknown number of deaths. Laughing at Abhisit? (Photo credit: […]

%d bloggers like this: