Why Europe Won’t Sell Weapons to Thailand

It is no secret that most of the weapons the Royal Thai Army discharged on its own citizens in April and May, in a desperate attempt to prevent a democratic election, were manufactured in Western liberal democracies.

Many Western countries have policies in place prohibiting arms sales to governments that routinely use foreign-made weapons to repress dissidents and ethnic minorities. At the same time, however, countries like the United States have long had a double standard when it comes to supplying dictators with the implements of war they need to remain in power – give dictators who are sympathetic to Western interests almost everything they want, withhold any military assistance from those who are not. A string of Thai military regimes have benefited from this double standard since World War II.

While Western nations have long turned a blind eye to events like the recent Bangkok Massacres, one of the world’s major arms exporters appears to have finally stood up to the Thai military. Today, without a hint of embarrassment, government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn explained to the Bangkok Post that Germany declined to sell to Thailand a batch of Deutz BF 6m015 engines, in accordance with a European Union policy that prohibits the sale of weaponry to governments that systematically use violence to suppress or deny the rights of their citizens. The engines were meant to complement the purchase of ninety-six armored personnel carriers from Ukraine.

The Thai government will have no trouble buying the military equipment it wants. The Royal Thai Army, after all, was just rewarded for the zeal with which it shielded the Abhisit administration from the terrifying prospect of an election with a vastly increased military budget – when measured as a percentage of GDP, now almost twice as large as it was during Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure in office.

Still, Germany’s refusal to sell Thailand some of the toys its corrupt generals need to protect their ill-gotten power and continue to line their own pockets with taxpayer’s money sets an example that other Western democracies should have the moral courage to follow. If Thailand’s military insists on quashing challenges to its authority without any regard for human life and dignity, it should not be able to do so with weaponry supplied by countries that profess to be committed to the defense of human rights around the world.

No doubt, the generals can take their business elsewhere. By banning the sale of weapons to Thailand, however, Western governments can send a strong message to the Abhisit administration that the level of brutality it exhibited in April and May is not without consequences. At the very least, Western liberal democracies should seek to uphold a moral standard higher than Victor Bout’s.