The secret kidnapping of David Rohde – How did the NY Times muffle the media?

A 1995 file photo of The New York Times journalist David Rohde. Photo courtesy AP Photo/Charles Krupa

Last week Pulitzer Prize winning and The New York Times (The Times) journalist, David Rohde escaped from seven months of Taliban captivity – without the world ever knowing he was held hostage.

Rohde, along with local reporter Tahir Ludin and their driver, Asadullah Mangal, were abducted in Logar, outside Kabul, Afghanistan, on November 10, 2008, while he was researching a book about the history of America’s involvement there.

Last week Rohde and Ludin managed to escape their captors by climbing over the wall of a compound where they were being held in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan – 165km (100 miles) from where he was captured.

The two found a Pakistan Army scout, who led them to a nearby army base, and on Saturday they were flown to the American military base in Bagram, Afghanistan.

The strange thing about the episode is that up until the time of Rohde’s escape, no one new anything about the kidnapping. Not a single media organization reported Rohde’s abduction, “out of concern for the men’s safety”.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said, “from the early days of this ordeal, the prevailing view among David’s family, experts in kidnapping cases, officials of several government and others we consulted was that going public could increase the danger to David and the other hostages,”

“The kidnappers initially said as much. We decided to respect that advice, as we have in other kidnapping cases, and a number of other news organizations that learned of David’s plight have done the same. We are enormously grateful for their support.”

What Keller never explained though was how The Times managed to get the likes of CNN, the BBC, Reuters, DPA, Al Jazeera and AFP to keep the matter quiet.

Both Keller and Rohde’s family declined to discuss details of the efforts to free the captives, except to say that no ransom money was paid and no Taliban or other prisoners were released.

“Kidnapping, tragically, is a flourishing industry in much of the world,” Mr. Keller said. “As other victims have told us, discussing your strategy just offers guidance for future kidnappers.”

Indeed that might be the case, however, a quick check of The Times website shows no shortage of stories such as:

“Gunmen Kidnap 3 Workers With Aid Group in Darfur”; “Gunmen kidnap French citizen in Kabul”; “Niger rebels claim kidnap of Canadian diplomat”; “Anti-kidnapping consultant kidnapped in Mexico”.

So what made the conditions surrounding the kidnapping of Rohde any different to these others? What insightful information did The Times have that Rohde’s life was in any more danger than these other cases?

Of equal importance, why did other world media organizations choose not to report on the event? What pressure or persuasive powers did The Times have or exert on these other media outlets to ignore the story?

It’s ludicrous to believe even for a moment that august media outlets such as those mentioned previously, all of who have bureaux in Kabul, were not aware of the abduction.

The message would appear to be that stories that might endanger the life of other kidnap victims are good to go, but, when it’s a news media person the rules change.

One can’t help but think that The Times – along with these other media organization – who so often sprout about a free and unhindered press; about the rights of the media to report the news without favour – have set a very bad precedent with the Rohde kidnapping.

One can only now presume that when the next hapless NGO or foreign contractor in Darfur, Afghanistan, Somalia or the like is kidnapped, these same news organizations will not report the matter, “out of concern for the hostages safety”.

Anything else but would make the kidnapping of David Rohde and the subsequent silence by the world media appear as nothing else but nepotism or, even worse.

ENDS:
© John Le Fevre

Afghanistan, Corruption, David Rhode, Human rights, Journalism ethics, Kidnapping, New York Times, NGOs, Taliban, Nepotism

Red the new yellow as protesters back on Bangkok streets

Thailand Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva - the country's third prime minister in less than a year. Photo courtesy the Bangkok Post

Less than three months after thousands of yellow-shirted “anti-government” protesters seized Thailand’s main international airport stranding hundreds of thousands of foreign tourists, protesters are again on the streets of Bangkok.

More than 10,000 red-shirted “pro-democracy” protesters have surrounded Thailand’s Government House in an attempt to pressure the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva into dissolving the House and dismissing Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, a prominent member of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) who strongly supported shutting down the two Bangkok airports late last year.

In scenes remarkably similar to those that lead to both Bangkok airports being seized by the “Yellow Shirt” PAD, an estimated 15,000 members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), a group linked to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, marched through Bangkok yesterday before laying siege to Government House.

At the same time thousands of farmers have also been protesting, demanding that the government set aside more funds to solve their debts, as well as demanding subsidies to prop up the prices of agricultural products.

The fresh round of political protests comes before the damage caused last year to the grounds of Government House by tens of thousands of Yellow Shirt PAD protesters who occupied it for more than three months have been repaired, and just days ahead of the 14th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) summit postponed since last December due the PAD protests.

The Red Shirts are blocked from entering Government House by police and road construction equipment. Photo courtesy the Bangkok Post (Apichit Jinakul)

Foreign governments have been quick to re-issue alert warnings to their citizens, with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office advising it’s citizens the political situation in Thailand remains “very uncertain”.

Likewise the governments of Australia, and Canada continue to advise their citizens to exercise a “high degree of caution”

The Yellow Shirt protests last year resulted in Prime Minister Abhisit becoming Thailand’s third prime minister in less than a year and saw the balance of power shift to the Democrat Party after a number of politicians changed sides following the deregistration of the then ruling People Power Party in what many people believe was pressure behind the scenes from the powerful Thai military.

Pro-democracy supporters rally in Bangkok. Photo John Le Fevre

Since taking power the Government has been dogged by claims of nepotism and cronyism, a scandel involving the supply of spoiled canned fish to flood victims, a mysterious Bt250 million ($US6.988 million) donation, claims of rewards having been proided to leading PAD members, and disagreements between the new coallition members.

More than 3,000 police and 750 soldiers have been deployed to secure Government House, with road construction equipment, water trucks and barbed wire also being used.

A pro-democracy supporter in Chiang Mai. Photo John Le Fevre

The “Red Shirts” have attracted up to 40,000 supporters at previous rallies, though this is the first time since the new government came to power a little over two months ago that they have laid siege to public buildings in a move similar to those used by the PAD last year.

While Prime Minister Abhisit is publicly treating the protest as little more than a minor disturbance, the heavy security cordon along with the relocating of the weekly cabinet meeting to Hua Hin, about two hours drive from the capital, shows the Government is not taking any chances.

With leaders from the 10-member Asean due to begin arriving in Hua Hin on Friday for the delayed summit, the Government will be keen to ensure it doesn’t suffer any further loss of face. A violent confrontation with the Red Shirts would be extremely embarrassing, as too would any disruption to the summit.

Thailand has already been embarrassed by the political musical chairs, with the the summit first being being moved from Bangkok to Chiang Mai due to the Yellow Shirts’ protests and then delayed until this week due to the change of government.

While the protests, rallies and marches by the Red Shirts to date have been considerably more controlled and peaceful than those by the yellow-shirted PAD last year, there is no guarantee this will continue.

The sight of political protesters again on the streets of Bangkok is also not one those in the country’s depressed tourism industry will relish, with this years tourism arrivals and occupancy levels running between 25 and 40 per cent below those for last year.

ENDS:
© John Le Fevre, 2009

Abhisit Vejjajiva; Democrat Party; Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship; Hua Hina: Kasit Piromya; People Power Party; PAD; Peoples Alliance for Democracy; “Red-shirts”; Thailand; Thailand current events; Thailand Government House; Thailand military; Thailand politics; Thailand tourism; Thailand travel; Thaksin Shinawatra; United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship; “Yellow shirts”; 14th Asean summit

Pakistani receives life sentence for murdering Thai: Australian gets four years for killing American

Mohammad Arif, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment for murdering and dismembering a Thai woman. Photo Bangkok Post

William Thomas Douglas. Four years reduced to two years jail for killing an American. Photo John Le Fevre

Just two days after the Chiang Mai Provincial Court handed down a four year sentence to 61-year-old Australian William Thomas Douglas for the March 2008 murder of American tourist Gary Bruce Poretsky, Thailand’s Court of Appeal was affirming a life sentence for a Pakistani man convicted for murdering a Thai woman in 2006.

Mohammad Arif was found guilty on March 30, 2007 by the the Ratchada Criminal Court in Bangkok of murdering Ubon Ratchathani English-language teacher Dissanee Thongnarkthae in a Bangkok Hotel room on May 8, 2006.

Arif had come into contact with Ms Dissanee through an internet chat room and arranged to meet her in Bangkok. However when Ms Dissanee arrived in Bangkok she was met by Arif instead of the handsome Spaniard she expected to meet.

According to police and court reports, Arif stabbed the Thai teacher, killing her in “impulsive rage”, and then dismembered her body and attempted to dispose of body parts in several places.

The Ratchada Criminal Court originally sentenced 34-year-old Arif to death, but reduced the punishment because he confessed and had proved “useful”.

The court also ordered Arif to pay Bt2 million (about $US 58,625) in compensation, Bt150,000 ($US 4,396) for funeral expenses, and Bt30,000 ($US 879) for valuables he stole from Ms Dissanee to her parents.

Court-ordered payments to the victim’s family are subject to 7.5 per cent interest per year until fully paid.

In his appeal Arif claimed to have acted out of “impulsive rage” after Ms Dissanee had insulted his religion.

Arif asked the court for a lighter sentence and to reduce the Bt5.3 million compensation sought by the victim’s family.

The court judges refused to commute the sentence to a 25-year imprisonment and also upheld the lower courts ruling as to the levels of compensation that should be paid.

The judges said there was no substantial evidence to substantiate the defendant’s claim that he was forced to kill Ms Dissanee in “impulsive rage” or that he did not steal her belongings.

Just 644km to the north though, the Chiang Mai Provincial Court appeared to accept the claim by Douglas that when he put first two bullets into Mr Poretsky and then a third into his face as he lay on the floor that he did so in “impulsive rage” and “didn’t know what I was doing.”

The two vastly different sentences by the two courts raises many questions.

The fact that Douglas also received only a total of one-and-a-half years – reduced by half for pleading guilty – for two firearms offences that each carried a maximum of five years imprisonment  raises further questions.

The family of Mr Poretsky have already petitioned the US State Department and a string of senior US law makers, politicians, and media outlets over the Chiang Mai court sentence, but so far those appeals have brought little action.

If  expatriates living in Thailand, as well as tourists, foreign investors and the Thai public are to have any faith in the Thai legal system, the sentencing and conduct of the Douglas trial should be subject to close scrutiny by both the Thai and US governments.

Otherwise the message is clear. Killing a Thai is a more serious a crime than murdering a foreign tourist, or that a Muslim murderer is treated more harshly than a murderer from a developed nation.

Either way, the signals are all bad for a country experiencing record inflation, a destabilised political system, increasing levels of violence against dwindling tourist numbers, and a festering civil war in the south.

Without a prompt judicial review of the sentence imposed on Douglas for murdering Mr Poretsky in Chiang Mai earlier this year, Thailand is making it clear to everyone that there really is one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Or that the Thai Government subscribes to the Hebrew proverb that equality of man is an empty phrase so long as it does not exist among the world’s peoples.

ENDS:
© John Le Fevre, 2008

Chiang Mai; Corruption; Crime; Gary Bruce Poretsky; Human rights; Mohammad Arif; Murder; Thailand; Tourism/travel; Tourist murder; William Thomas Douglas; Thailand legal system