NO PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE THAI ELECTION MONITORING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BANGKOK 005555

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP/MLS, NSC FOR PHU

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/25/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM TH
SUBJECT: NO PLANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE THAI ELECTION MONITORING

REF: A. BANGKOK 4687 (EU OBSERVER SPAT)


B. BANGKOK 5332 (ELECTION CLOCK TICKING)

Classified By: Political Counselor Susan M. Sutton, reason 1.4 (b) and
(d).

SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) The decision by a prominent Thai poll monitoring
organization and the European Union to not deploy observers
for Thailand's upcoming December 23 general elections leaves
a dearth of objective election monitors for Thailand's first
election following the September 2006 coup d'etat. While the
Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) plans to partner with
at least 100 NGOs to supplement its own monitoring efforts,
some doubt these groups can provide effective and unbiased
observations. Small groups of observers from international
NGOs, other countries, and Embassy Bangkok and ConGen Chiang
Mai may well be the most credible observers on the ground
during the election. The absence of objective local monitors
may provide an opportunity for political actors to further
their own ends by accusing the government of election fraud
or manipulation. End summary.

POLLWATCH TO GO IT ALONE
--------------


2. (SBU) Pollwatch/P-Net, a prominent Thai NGO that has
monitored many previous Thai elections, announced in October
that it will sever ties with the Election Commission of
Thailand (ECT) following a public spat with the ECT. On
September 10, ECT Commissioner Sodsri accused Pollwatch of
not properly accounting for 80 million baht ($2.4 million)
allocated to Pollwatch to monitor the 2006 general elections.
Pollwatch officials took umbrage to Sodsri's comments,
denied her accusations, and demanded a letter of apology from
the ECT. After an apology letter was not forthcoming,
Pollwatch announced that it would not accept ECT funds to
monitor the upcoming election and that it would boycott any
meetings between the ECT and independent election monitoring
organizations.


3. (C) Pollwatch's refusal to accept ECT funds casts doubt on
its ability to provide comprehensive, nation-wide election
monitoring. In an October 11 meeting with us, Pollwatch
officials indicated they had essentially written off election
monitoring on any significant scale, and that they have made
no plans to seek alternative funding sources. Pollwatch
added that volunteers would provide unofficial monitoring in
a few select areas, and that the organization would "continue
their whistle-blowing role" by publicly commenting on the
freeness and fairness of the election. However, without
election observers on the ground throughout the country, it
is unlikely that Pollwatch will be able to provide a reliable
account of election fraud or nefarious election-related
activity.

ELECTION COMMISSION RECRUITS OTHER PARTNERS
--------------


4. (SBU) The ECT has proceeded with plans to partner with
dozens of other Thai-based NGOs and private organizations to
monitor the election. The ECT has traditionally provided
this type of support as a means of augmenting the ECT's own
monitoring activities. These NGOs constitute a broad range
of Thai civil-society, including groups like fraternal
organizations, local teacher associations, and community
activists. Many of these groups may not necessarily have
prior experience with election monitoring.


5. (C) According to ECT officials, the ECT will provide the
bulk of its monitoring funds to approximately nine NGOs
considered "top-tier" organizations that have a regional or
national reach. As many as 100 other "second-tier"
organizations operating on the local level will receive the
remainder of the funds. An ECT official told us on October
25 that the ECT expects to budget at least 50 million baht to
support the monitoring activities of these NGOs.


6. (C) Pollwatch officials conceded to us on October 11 that
they expect these groups to form the bulk of Thai civil
society election monitoring efforts. Pollwatch openly
questioned the ability of these groups to provide credible

BANGKOK 00005555 002 OF 003


monitoring given their lack of experience. As most will rely
completely on ECT funding, these organizations will also be
open to accusations of bias. (Note: Many officials of the
pro-Thaksin People's Power Party have warned us they expect
the ECT to be biased against them. End Note.)

EU CANCELS MONITORING PLANS
--------------


7. (SBU) The EU Political Counselor told us on October 16
that the EU has canceled plans to send an election monitoring
team to Thailand, following a public spat in August when the
ECT refused to sign a memorandum of understanding with the EU
(reftel A). Many in the RTG felt the EU proposal to send 150
observers went considerably beyond "observing" to providing
technical assistance which was not needed and which would
have reportedly restricted the government's freedom to
oversee its own elections. The EU representative added that
it was still unclear if the Embassies of EU member states in
Thailand would deploy their own election observation teams.

ANFREL STEPS INTO THE GAP
--------------


8. (SBU) The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) is
thus far the largest international NGO to have announced
plans to deploy election monitors. ANFREL plans to partner
with locally-based human rights NGOs, such as Forum-Asia and
the Asian Institute for Human Rights, to deploy 16 monitoring
teams to provinces with a history of previous election
violence or irregularities. An ANFREL official told us
recently that ANFREL will attempt to recruit third-country
nationals to serve as observers, and that ANFREL plans to
fund this program partially through a grant from the National
Endowment for Democracy. The Canadian Embassy and the Asia
Foundation (TAF) have also announced plans to fund a two-day
ANFREL workshop that will train election observers in 14
southern, predominantly Muslim provinces.


9. (C) While ANFREL's involvement augments the monitoring
effort, its strong statements against the September 2006 coup
may open the organization to criticism that it is not
entirely above the political fray. Additionally, it is
unlikely 16 teams will be able to have much of an impact in a
nationwide election, and there is a risk that ANFREL's report
will be negatively biased, as the organization will only
field their teams in problematic regions.

USG ELECTION MONITORING
--------------


10. (SBU) While there are no known U.S.-based NGOs planning
to deploy election monitors, USG-funded IFES, TAF, and the
National Democratic Institute plan to work with civil society
groups in the country to promote a free and fair election.
IFES and NDI have been sponsoring a series of seminars to
educate local elites and political parties on recently passed
election laws, and some are also working with local
organizations to educate the public on new election
registration procedures and the harmful effects of vote
buying.


11. (C) As in previous elections and the August 19
constitutional referendum, Embassy Bangkok and ConGen Chiang
Mai plan to deploy at least a dozen monitoring teams
throughout the country for the December 23 election. We plan
to coordinate our efforts whenever possible with ANFREL,
other independent organizations, and other embassies, such as
the Australian or Canadian embassies, that may also field
monitors, so as not to duplicate efforts. Although by no
means comprehensive, the combined efforts of the Embassy,
ConGen Chiang Mai, and other international observers should
provide a general impression of the overall atmosphere on
election day.

COMMENT
--------------


12. (C) Thailand's geography makes comprehensive nationwide
election monitoring an expensive proposition, and not many
local organizations are properly equipped to take on the
task. The expected absence of Pollwatch and EU monitors will
leave few objective poll monitors on the ground for the
upcoming election. A dearth of objective, locally-respected,

BANGKOK 00005555 003 OF 003


independent poll monitors will leave the government open to
post-election accusations of manipulation that, whether
accurate or not, cannot be easily adjudicated. In such an
environment, it will be possible for political actors to
further their own ends by publicly claiming that the election
was unfair, possibly contributing to political instability
after the election.
BOYCE