Kaew Loss - An Odd Pattern In Thai Reaction To International Rules?

[Gadfly]

I am not a boxing expert by any means, but reading the reports on Kaew's loss of a Gold Metal to Zou Shiming, I was struck by something I have seen repeatedly happen with Thailand in other contexts. There does seem to be a pattern, but I cannot quite put my finger on why this happens over and over again.

 

First, in the Bangkok Post's report about the loss, mid-way down the story, you will read the following: "The Thai team's protest against the decision was rejected because they failed to lodge it within five minutes of the decision being declared, as stipulated." Reading the Bangkok Post story, it sounds as though Kaew would have won if a protest was timely lodged. Why then didn't they lodge a protest within the "stipulated" five minutes?

 

Second, in the the Preah Vihear dispute, which continues to strain ties between Thailand and Cambodia, the International Court of Justice ruled that the temple was in Cambodia in 1962. We have discussed this before, but the topography of the area seems (again, I am no expert) to favor Thailand. Thailand had ten years to contest that ruling, but failed to do so. Now its in the precarious position of arguing that even though the temple is in Cambodia, the surrounding areas of land is in Thailand. Many Thai officials now argue that the ICJ decision in 1962 was wrong. Why then didn't they protest the original 1962 decision? Irrespective of your views of the dispute, Thailand's position in the current dispute is certainly weakened if the temple itself is in Cambodia. Why didn't Thailand appeal the 1962 ICJ decision?

 

Third, in the Walter Bau dispute, Thailand lost a 30m + Euro arbitration with Walter Bau. Thailand refused to pay. Countries usually pay, or suffer embarrassing consequences when they do not pay these type of international arbitration awards. And that is what happened here. A jet was seized in Germany. Putting aside who really owned the jet (I really don't know), when asked why Thailand had not paid the arbitration award in the first place so that it could have avoided this embarrassment in the first place, the government said it refused to do so because countries never pay such awards until all appeals are exhausted, and the matter was on appeal in New York. This was simply untrue. This was a Swiss arbitral award. The jet was seized in NY. And the appeal was in the U.S. Walter Bau had commenced an action in New York for recognition and enforcement of the award in New York because it's a good venue to enforce awards (US dollar transactions will likely need to clear in the US), but that didn't limit it from enforcing the award elsewhere. Thailand was simply challenging enforcement in the US. This had nothing to do with enforcement in Germany. In its own brief to the US. Second Circuit, Thailand's U.S. lawyers admitted they were not challenging the underlying arbitral award and had not authority to ask a US court to do so. But at the same time, the Thai government was saying the award itself was on appeal in the US. This was simply not true.

 

I see a pattern here. Thailand claiming it was wronged, generally and vaguely claiming the other side has failed to comply with the applicable international rules, but when one looks closer at what actually happened, its apparent that Thailand violated the rules by failing to timely lodge an appeal or mischaracterizing the international challenges it has made. I am not quite sure why this happens over and over again, but there is certainly a pattern here.

[Coss]

It's Thai Logic,

 

if you are wrong (as I see it)

 

why should I do anything to prove it?

 

You are wrong.

 

I rest.

________

 

I might add, you see this kind of behavior in middle aged ill-eductated women the world over, once they have have volubly stated their case, they''ll fold their arms, give a 'harrumph', and raise their chin, strike a triumphant pose and assume that because they have stated it, it is true...

[Flashermac]

A matter of Thais thinking that the world is the same as at home.

 

1) In the bizarre ICJ decision against Thailand, the kingdom was simply screwed. Not only did the majority buy the French-Cambodian claim that Thailand had "acquiesced" in France unilaterally changing the map to its advantage, but Thailand could only appeal the decision by presenting new evidence.

 

What new evidence was that? As Sir Percy Spender said in his very critical dissent of the majority decision, much evidence had been presented - most of which was irrelevant. There wasn't anything new to present.

 

Siam and France agreed the border should follow the natural watershed. But the French incorrectly drew Preah Vihear as on their side. The Thais discovered this years later and immediately changed their own maps. Is that acquiescing? The French always insisted their map was correct. When they finally had to accept that it wasn't, they changed the rules and invented acquiesence. No "new evidence" could change that.

 

The strange part is Thailand still claiming the land next to the temple. The court said the French map was now the legal border. That means the disputed land is also inside Cambodia.

 

2) As to the boxing decision, it looks to me like the Thai coach at ringside screwed up. A 5 minute limit after a decision is ridiculous. Imagine all that was going on in the ring when the decision was announced. Several boxing decisions were overturned (e.g. the Japanese boxer who knocked down his opponent SIX TIMES and lost), and the Thai side should have been ready for it. They weren't.

 

3) In the Walter Bau decision, the government was shocked because no one ever expected they would dare seize the CP's plane. It was a case of Thai politicians living in Lala Land and making a bodge of handling it. The whole world is not like LOS, but that never seemed to occur to them.

[kamui]

A matter of Thais thinking that the world is the same as at home.

 

1) In the bizarre ICJ decision against Thailand, the kingdom was simply screwed. Not only did the majority buy the French-Cambodian claim that Thailand had "acquiesced" in France unilaterally changing the map to its advantage, but Thailand could only appeal the decision by presenting new evidence.

 

What new evidence was that? As Sir Percy Spender said in his very critical dissent of the majority decision, much evidence had been presented - most of which was irrelevant. There wasn't anything new to present.

 

Siam and France agreed the border should follow the natural watershed. But the French incorrectly drew Preah Vihear as on their side. The Thais discovered this years later and immediately changed their own maps. Is that acquiescing? The French always insisted their map was correct. When they finally had to accept that it wasn't, they changed the rules and invented acquiesence. No "new evidence" could change that.

 

The strange part is Thailand still claiming the land next to the temple. The court said the French map was now the legal border. That means the disputed land is also inside Cambodia.

 

2) As to the boxing decision, it looks to me like the Thai coach at ringside screwed up. A 5 minute limit after a decision is ridiculous. Imagine all that was going on in the ring when the decision was announced. Several boxing decisions were overturned (e.g. the Japanese boxer who knocked down his opponent SIX TIMES and lost), and the Thai side should have been ready for it. They weren't.

 

3) In the Walter Bau decision, the government was shocked because no one ever expected they would dare seize the CP's plane. It was a case of Thai politicians living in Lala Land and making a bodge of handling it. The whole world is not like LOS, but that never seemed to occur to them.

 

I can't say anything to 1).

 

 

2) The Thai officials not complaining, it was either a sure sign of incompetence or the lack of confidence to face the olympics officials. Either way it was extremely stupid to do _nothing_:: Who knows who the Thai officials are and who selected them? Family members of important people or boxing specialists? My guess goes to incompetence.

 

3) Not paying the money to the German company was extremely stupid as well. They thought the case would just go away, like such cases seem to evapore in LOS (unless a scapegoat is needed for whatever reason).

 

2 + 3 have in common that the Thai did ignore the *international* rules and preferred inaction. If no one does anything, no one can make a mistake and no one will be held responsible, or so the thinking might go. Also in both case it seems that there were people involved who lacked the power/will and competence to draw the right conclusion and act accordingly.

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

I think the Thais did complain, just not within the 5 minute time period. Which I think is way too short. Half that time would be over within the time it takes to register and talk to the other people on the team.

 

I also seem to recall there being a mention this period used to be 30 minutes, but not certain about that.

 

Sanuk!

[Mekong]

Not sure about it used to being 30 minutes, I am not a great follower of boxing so I am unaware of any recent rule changes.

 

What gets me is the discrepancy between the time allowed to lodge the complaint between different sports which all compete under "IOC Rules", why was the Korean Fencer allowed a 90 minute sit in after her loss, why are FIFA still considering the Canadian women's football team complaint since the events last Thursday? I am also sure I have seen Taekwondoo results overturned 30 minutes after the result in the past.

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

Ah, perhaps that is where the 30 min comes from (Taekwondo).

 

Sanuk!

[kamui]

Hi,

 

I think the Thais did complain, just not within the 5 minute time period. Which I think is way too short. Half that time would be over within the time it takes to register and talk to the other people on the team.

 

I also seem to recall there being a mention this period used to be 30 minutes, but not certain about that.

 

Sanuk!

 

 

 

Come on. The Thai athlets prepared for Olympia for years, they focussed their whole life on it, but the officials where unable to deal with the basic rules of olympic boxing? IMHO there is no excuse for the incompetence of the Thai team members.

[Gadfly]

Thank you all for your responses.

 

On the ICJ decision, Flashermac may be right that it was wrongly decided, but why raise a ruckus about the surrounding area? Just maintain the status quo. I don't think the ICJ is going to over turn its original 1962 decision when Thailand failed to appeal. And since the ICJ has already decided the temple is in Cambodian territory, it's going to be difficult to persuade a new court that the region around the temple is in Thailand. Unless the ICJ is going to disregard the 1962 decision (unlikely), it needs to start by assuming the temple is located in Cambodia. Or Thailand may also not have understood the consequences of agreeing to such a map. The point here is that Thailand had nothing to gain by turning this into a dispute and much to lose. And the pattern I see here is a not only a failure to understand international rules and treaty obligations, but deliberate blindness to those rules and obligations and the consequences of failing to abide by those rules and obligations.

 

The Walter Bau case is a good illustration of this. The person responsible for enforcing Walter Bau's arbitral award had repeatedly asked and demanded that Thailand pay. In a case involving another country, he did exactly the same thing - that is, seize an aircraft of another country when it was in a jurisdiction that would comply with the award. Thinking that he would just give up was wishful thinking. And claiming that the seizure was improper because it was "still on appeal" was pure fiction. Or some might say deliberate blindness to the ultimate outcome of that dispute.

 

In the boxing case, five minutes may be too short, but the Thai team should have known the rules. At least raise the objection so it is timely, and that gives the Thai side time to put together a case for setting aside the decision. Claiming that the decision was wrong when you did not even object in time simply makes you look like a sore loser.

 

Now consider the WTO case Thailand lost against the Philippines. Not only did Thailand lose the case, but the WTO appellate panel found that the Thai government made misrepresentations about its own laws. The WTO appellate panel also found, for example, that Thai businesses that would lose if the Philippines had access to the Thai market were on the Thai decision making panels that decided the terms for the entry of Philippines into the Thai market. How did Thailand react? You don't see much about it in the Thai press, but the DSI is 'investigating' the executives of the foreign company responsible for prompting the WTO case for failure to comply with tax laws that the WTO ruled were unlawful. Thailand has been a member of the WTO since 1995.

 

There are plenty of other examples available, but I am gob-smocked when I see how Thailand acts in the international arena. And this is only going to get worse. The world is a smaller place. The internet makes dissemination of this sort of information to foreign investors much easier. The AEC rules are supposed to come into effect in 2015, and Thailand seems to have just realized that it agreed to these rules long ago. (To be fair, my hunch is that some will come into effect and there will be a stall on others, but the direction towards liberalization will not change).

 

I wonder how Thailand will cope in the smaller and more transparent world where it will need to seriously compete with other countries for foreign investment? I also wonder if Thai officials understand the problems this challenge and the problems they have created by thumbing their noses at international norms?

[kamui]

I wonder how Thailand will cope in the smaller and more transparent world where it will need to seriously compete with other countries for foreign investment? I also wonder if Thai officials understand the problems this challenge and the problems they have created by thumbing their noses at international norms?

 

Actually, I think those in power don't give shit. For the most of the Thai elite it never seems to be about Thailand, but about personal gain (and for their peer group) and about power and control. For their gain the thai elite seems to play always to a certain audiences (red, yellow, military, middle class, farmers, whatever), without any second thoughts about results for the people outside their realm and even less outside the country.

 

Just have a look at the current rice buying scheme. By playing to the main supporters of the government, within a year Thailand has lost more than 45%!!!!! of its rice export market. As a result the exporters are going down in numbers (except the ultra rich and well connected of course). At the same time the quality of Thai rice seems to suffer (the quality combined with price sold Thai rice until now). Other countries are happy to jump in. Nevertheless the government doesn't seem to give a shit... Link

 

PS: Nevertheless LOS is still doing really well, since in the surronding countries corruption, level of eduction, infrastructure, e.g. are worse.