Thailand launches nationwide crackdown on drugs
The operation is being called "No Drugs No Dealers." It involves the governors of Bangkok and all 76 provinces, as well the Royal Thai Police.
The plan is to disrupt supply chains, seize the assets of producers, identify users for treatment and support, and foster cooperation across national borders.
It comes amid a rise in health and social problems among the country's young people as a result of drugs.
Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said: "Drugs are a threat that has long undermined our nation. The drug problem is therefore a national issue that the government is determined to eradicate from Thailand."
The government believes much of the production takes place in the so-called "Golden Triangle," which straddles the borders of Thailand, Laos and Myanmar.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says 130 tons of methamphetamine were seized in Thailand last year. It was the first time the amount exceeded 100 tons.
Exacerbating the problem is the fact that drugs are being widely bought and sold online in the form of tablets, known as "Yaba."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
6 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Is the US About to Establish a Military Base in Thailand?
In my April column for The Diplomat, I argued that Thailand has downplayed the defense dimension in its tariff negotiations with the United States, so as to dodge tough questions of strategic alignment. And so, 'the moment defense becomes overt in talks with Trump could be the moment Thailand finds itself dangerously cornered.' That gloomy reality is materializing, with Thailand's tariff rate remaining unaltered at 36 percent despite the Pheu Thai government having spent 97 million baht ($2.99 million) on lobbyists, and the state-owned energy conglomerate PTT Group having inked a 20-year agreement with Glenfarne Alaska LNG to import 2 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas annually. Murmurs about security-related concessions are growing louder. But, contrary to my anticipation of arms deals, the buzz centers around the establishment of a U.S. base within the Phang Nga Naval Base on Thailand's southwestern coast. That the buzz refuses to fade regardless of repeated denials from Thai officials reflects two contradictory trends, which are sharpened by today's U.S.-China showdown. On the question of the U.S. basing rights in Thailand, American persistence competes with unyielding Thai resistance. Thailand's stance is not only shaped by its pursuit of strategic equilibrium, but also by its first-hand experience. The heyday of the Thailand-U.S. alliance during the Vietnam War saw a massive American military stationing across seven key bases on Thai soil. The number of U.S. troops in Thailand was 46,300 in 1969, and 27,000 in 1975, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. While the gradual troop reduction was America's doing, the catalyst for the Thai government to formally request that U.S. combat forces pack up and leave was domestic discontent. The problems around hosting the garrisoned presence of another nation are succinctly captured by the late Thanat Khoman, Thailand's esteemed diplomat and one of ASEAN's founding fathers. These include the erosion of sovereignty, direct or indirect interference in domestic politics, and the disruption of social stability, from psychological unease to the economic shocks triggered by sudden inflows and pullouts of foreign funds. Because these problems are structural in nature, even the closest, friendliest ally with shared objectives can still leave a negative footprint. One might assert further that the closer the alliance, the easier it is to overlook the problems for the host country, particularly the psychological imprint. A case in point is the U.S. deployment of the chemical herbicide Agent Orange to destroy jungle cover and crops in Vietnam. Its long-lasting health implications for the Vietnamese population and American veterans are well-recognized, rightfully so. Presumed exposure among U.S. veterans stationed in Thailand are also acknowledged. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs specifically acknowledges compensation consideration for veterans serving 'on or near the perimeters' of U.S. bases in Thailand between 1961 and 1975, which suggests that Thai civilians living around those bases should not be ignored in the broader discourse. Yet, to date, there appears to be no real policy or research focused on the possible exposure of Thai civilians. Since the relatively smooth U.S. withdrawal in 1976, Thailand has not hosted a permanent American or other foreign military presence. All U.S. military activities in Thailand – while still substantial, with greater depth and wider scope than Thailand's military engagement with other nations – are now joint or rotational on a case-by-case basis. Uncle Sam has not been discouraged, though, and the prospect of American basing at Thailand's U-Tapao air base is a recurring discussion. An offshore military base in Thai waters is another area of U.S. interest. The request to establish one reportedly dates back to 1997. The reason for the U.S. interest is simple: Thailand's ideal geographical location. A gateway to mainland Southeast Asia, Thailand is a springboard for U.S. power projection into continental Asia, which is currently lacking. Given that U.S. ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles have a reported range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, shots fired at maximum capacity from central or eastern Thailand could threaten all of China's southern provinces (Yunnan, Guangxi, and Guangdong) and the western Xinjiang Region. Furthermore, America's maritime dominance would be underpinned by Thailand's close proximity to both the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. The rumored U.S. push to secure an institutionalized foothold on Thailand's southwestern coast is most straightforwardly understood in the context of the intensifying competition in the Indian Ocean. The regional littoral power India, and distant powers China and Russia, are all ramping up their naval presence – the latter two in apparent accordance with the classic Mahanian thinking on sea power. Although America has a forward naval presence on Diego Garcia, it is quite a distance away. American access to Singapore, meanwhile, is limited and takes place on a rotational basis under an agreement that runs through 2035. Through Thailand's Phang Nga Naval Base, then, the U.S. would have a firmer hold near the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal. If ever greenlit, a formalized U.S. access to Phang Nga would likely follow the Singapore model. When it comes to Phang Nga, however, Thailand's apprehension goes beyond geopolitical balance and deep-seated sensitivities. Phang Nga is effectively a sister province of Phuket, bound by geographical proximity and a shared economic trajectory, from tin mining in the past to today's tourism. Phang Nga's internationally known resort zone, Khao Lak, is just a 30-minute drive away from the naval base in question. It must also be highlighted that Phang Nga, Phuket, and another neighboring province, Krabi, are undergoing a wellness-focused transformation under the national development agenda. An established foreign military presence in the area is at odds with that development priority. To cite Thanat Khoman once again, 'the criteria for allowing foreign forces to remain should rest on the national interests of the host country, or at least on the concord between the former and those of the foreign party.' The answer to the first criterion is clear, but the second one is murky considering that Thailand remains a formal U.S. ally. Perhaps unnoticed by many, there exists no mutual defense treaty between Bangkok and Washington. Instead, the Thai-U.S. defense alliance draws symbolic significance from the 1954 Manila Pact, which created the now-defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. The alliance is reinforced by subsequent bilateral documents: the 1962 Thanat-Rusk communiqué, the Joint Vision Statements of 2012 and 2020, and the 2022 United States-Thailand Communiqué on Strategic Alliance and Partnership. None of these has binding provisions for basing rights. Ultimately, there is neither legal compulsion nor interest – and thus no political will – on Thailand's part to host an institutionalized U.S. military presence. More viable and desirable ways to boost the Thailand-U.S. alliance would be to expand military education and training, to co-develop or support indigenous defense capabilities, and to focus on strengthening a number of existing joint exercises, whether in bilateral or multilateral formats. The fact that there is no good outcome for Thailand on the trade front makes it even more unlikely that the ruling government would concede basing rights as part of its negotiations with the U.S. While a 36 percent tariff stands to devastate Thai exports and growth rate, Thailand offering zero tariffs on U.S. imports risks opening the floodgates to overwhelming inflows of American goods. This, combined with the already high influx of Chinese goods, will kill Thai-made products. The trickier business is determining the position of the Trump administration, which, on the one hand, has been relentless in bending others to its will. On the other hand, however, setting up a new base in Thailand seems to go against the administration's cost-saving agenda, especially as Trump himself has shown little interest in Southeast Asia. All things considered, an American base in Thailand remains a distant prospect.
Yomiuri Shimbun
16 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Administration Withdraws from UNESCO Again, Only 2 Years after US Rejoined
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it will once again withdraw from the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, an expected move that has the U.S. further retreating from international organizations. The decision to pull U.S. funding and participation from UNESCO comes two years after the Biden administration rejoined following a controversial, five-year absence that began during President Donald Trump's first term. The White House cited similar concerns as it did in 2018, saying it believes U.S. involvement is not in its national interest and accusing the agency of promoting anti-Israel speech. The decision, which won't go into effect until December 2026, will deal a blow to an agency known for preserving cultural heritage through its UNESCO World Heritage Sites program — which recognizes significant landmarks for protection, ranging from the Taj Mahal to Egypt's pyramids of Giza and the Grand Canyon National Park. The agency also empowers education and science across the globe. It is the Trump administration's latest move to pull support for U.N. agencies under a larger campaign to reshape U.S. diplomacy. Under the 'America First' approach, the administration has pulled out of the U.N. World Health Organization and the top U.N. human rights body, while reassessing its funding for others. This has left the U.N., which is in the process of its own massive overhaul, reevaluating core programs and initiatives and what the international body would look like without support from the U.S. — its largest donor. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement that the withdrawal was linked to UNESCO's perceived agenda to 'advance divisive social and cultural causes.' She added that UNESCO's decision in 2011 'to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a Member State is highly problematic, contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.' UNESCO director general Audrey Azoulay said she 'deeply' regrets the U.S. decision but said it was expected and that the agency 'has prepared for it.' She also denied accusations of anti-Israel bias, saying it contradicts 'the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism.' Azoulay added that 'the reasons put forward by the United States of America are the same as seven years ago, even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism.' Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the U.N., celebrated the announcement, saying in a statement that it is a 'fitting response to the consistent misguided anti-Israel bias of UNESCO, an organization that has lost its way.' The Biden administration had rejoined UNESCO in 2023 after citing concerns that China was filling the gap left by the U.S. in UNESCO policymaking, notably in setting standards for artificial intelligence and technology education. 'Unilaterally withdrawing the United States from UNESCO is another assault by the Trump administration on international cooperation and U.S. global leadership,' Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said. 'This decision cedes more ground to U.S. competitors, especially China, who will take advantage of America's absence to further shape the international system in their favor.' The withdrawal, which was first reported by the New York Post, came after a review ordered by the Trump administration earlier this year. While the U.S. had previously provided a notable share of the agency's budget, UNESCO has diversified its funding sources in recent years as the U.S. contribution has decreased. Today, American assistance represents only 8% of the agency's total budget. Bruce hinted later Tuesday that further U.S. withdrawal from international organizations could be coming as a result of the ongoing review to ensure 'continued U.S. participation in international organizations will focus on advancing American interests with clarity and conviction.' Azoulay pledged that UNESCO will carry out its missions despite 'inevitably reduced resources.' The agency said that it is not considering any staff layoffs at this stage. 'UNESCO's purpose is to welcome all the nations of the world, and the United States of America is and always will be welcome,' she said. 'We will continue to work hand in hand with all our American partners in the private sector, academia and non-profit organizations, and will pursue our political dialogue with the U.S. administration and Congress.' The U.S. previously pulled out of UNESCO under the Reagan administration in 1984 because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance the interests of the Soviet Union. It rejoined in 2003 during George W. Bush's presidency. France, where UNESCO is based, stated in a press release that it regrets the U.S.'s decision to withdraw from the agency, which was founded in 1946 'to prevent conflicts through education, culture and tolerance.' 'France supports UNESCO, which backs several of its priorities at international level, particularly access to education for all, the protection of endangered heritage, the protection of our oceans, the responsible development of artificial intelligence and the fight against anti-Semitism and hate speech,' the French foreign ministry said.
The Diplomat
a day ago
- The Diplomat
Finding Truth Where Justice Is Rare
Ian Timberlake with two Indonesian paramilitary police members assigned to the African Union-United Nations peacekeeping mission in Darfur at the Abu Shouk displaced persons' camp in Darfur, Sudan, 2013. Ian Timberlake cut his teeth as a foreign correspondent in Timor-Leste where he initially worked as a stringer for Agence France-Presse (AFP). In the late 1990s, he witnessed the end of the Suharto regime in Indonesia and the atrocities that were inflicted in the former Portuguese colony amid the fight for independence. Over the next three decades he spanned the globe, working with AFP from bases in Jakarta, Singapore, Hanoi, and Hong Kong and then further out in Khartoum, Riyadh, Washington, and finally Nicosia, from where he has just retired. He is now back in Bangkok and takes an interest in white collar crime and money laundering. He does his best to keep up with the latest technological advances deployed by criminal syndicates and international law enforcement agencies alike. Timberlake, a dual Canadian-Australian citizen, spoke with The Diplomat's Luke Hunt about a career that began in 1986 on Ontario newspapers where he specialized in his great passion, crime reporting, and shared an award for investigative reporting. That career included stints working on the decks of an aircraft carrier during the invasion of Iraq and a fact-checking desk while taking on assignments in conflicts zones like Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Throughout it all, he says, justice is rare but journalists must speak truth to power and continue to hold world leaders accountable for their actions, despite the relentless assaults and issues confronting the press.
