RESPONSE TO APRIL 2 ELECTIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L BANGKOK 001947

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/30/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM TH
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APRIL 2 ELECTIONS


Classified By: Ambassador Ralph L. Boyce reason 1.4 (b) (d)


1. (C) The USG should refrain from comment on the April 2
elections that could be used by either side to boost their
competing claims. These elections are only one step in a
complicated political contest that has been unfolding in
recent weeks, and which will not be decided by the poll
results alone. After the vote, each side will do its utmost
to spin the results -- which are likely to be inconclusive at
best -- to its advantage. PM Thaksin may consider whether to
step down, thus perhaps defusing further crises, or he may
attempt to stay on and plow ahead with plans to govern with a
one-party parliament. Any public statement we make runs a
serious risk of being used in ways we would not want.


2. (C) Beyond these political issues, there are several
looming problems with the election process that will make it
difficult to render a positive assessment in the near future:


-- In order to undermine the boycott by the main opposition
parties, several little-known parties submitted fraudulent
candidate registrations. There are serious and unresolved
accusations that the members of the ruling Thai Rak Thai
(TRT) and the Election Commission colluded in this fraud.

-- There will be no systematic monitoring of any kind on
April 2. The opposition parties are not running, so they
cannot have agents in the polling places. Poll Watch, the
respected independent poll monitoring NGO, is also
boycotting.


3. (C) Under these circumstances, we are highly unlikely to
be in a position to make an objective assessment of the
fairness of the vote right after April 2. At a minimum, it
would be inappropriate to comment on the election while the
various claims of fraud are being considered -- a process
that is likely to take weeks.


4. (C) We are consulting with other embassies to determine
their position on post-election statements or anticipated
letters of congratulation to the PM. So far, most have
expressed reservations about making any public statement,
especially immediately after the election (Japan, Australia,
EU). They all recognize the risk of being drawn into the
middle of the debate, and having any official statement
misused by one side or the other. Among the embassies with
which we have consulted, only the Canadians seem inclined to
send a letter of congratulations.


5. (SBU) We propose the following guidance:

-- We note that elections took place in Thailand on April 2.

-- There are still a number of issues to be resolved in these
elections, including allegations of fraud and constitutional
questions.

-- We believe that it would be inappropriate to comment until
these issues have been settled according to Thai law.

-- We would urge the Election Commission and all Thai
authorities to work to resolve any allegations fairly.

If there is any violence, we would add:

-- We are particularly concerned by reports of violence in
some locations. We urge the government to ensure that
everyone expressing political views peacefully can do so
without fear of intimidation or violence.

BOYCE