BANGKOK — At the end of February, leaders from a Thai Muslim group delivered a message of reassurance to 40 anxious Uyghur men under detention: Thailand had no imminent plans to deport them.
Yet, within three days, these men found themselves aboard a plane to China’s Xinjiang region, a territory where the United Nations experts fear they might endure torture or harsh punishment. Thailand’s decision to deport these men had been made over a month prior, unbeknownst to the public, legislators, and religious leaders, based on parliamentary inquiries and reliable accounts. Consequently, the detainees and their advocates had no opportunity for a last-minute appeal before their unexpected repatriation to China.
The Thai administration now faces backlash from human rights activists and allies, following the decision that spurred parliamentary investigations and strained diplomatic ties with Thailand’s key military ally. The U.S. has responded with sanctions on several Thai officials, while the European Union and other countries have openly criticized the move.
Thai authorities, after visiting Xinjiang the previous week, reported that the deportees were treated well, asserting that their return was voluntary, contrary to earlier claims.
The Uyghurs, a Turkic ethnic group primarily practicing Islam, have suffered suppression of their cultural identity in Xinjiang, leading to Beijing’s harsh regimen, deemed genocide by some Western powers. The deportees were initially detained in Thailand in 2014 after escaping China, putting Thailand in a diplomatic tug-of-war between China and the U.S.
China labeled the Uyghurs as terrorists without presenting evidence, while activists and Western officials advocated for their resettlement elsewhere. Thailand, however, held these individuals in custody for over a decade until the change in leadership last year, when Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, whose father shares close ties with China’s top brass, took office.
Discussions to deport the Uyghurs began secretly in December, shortly after Paetongtarn’s meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, formalized through China’s request on January 8. Alarmed by the demand to sign deportation paperwork, the Uyghurs went on a hunger strike, drawing some temporary hesitation from Thai officials.
Nonetheless, on January 17, the National Security Council finalized its decision in a confidential meeting, involving defense and justice ministers, with assurances from China regarding the men’s welfare.
Afterwards, a series of denials follow. Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai claimed no immediate deportation plans existed post-meeting, echoed again at a January 29 parliamentary session.
Even though a meeting was held on February 24, where representatives from Sheikhul Islam communicated government assurances against deportation, three days later the men were discreetly moved in the night to await their flight to China.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn later confirmed deportation discussions with Beijing officials to reporters, yet neither her office nor the Ministry of Defense offered comments.
The fallout ensued as lawmakers like Kannavee, Angkhana, and Rangsiman demanded explanations and transparency, seeing official claims counteracted by offers from countries like the United States to accept the Uyghurs. Despite assurances from Thai officials about the men’s welfare, boundaries were notably overstepped, with select media access and managed narratives.
This situation has led to a diplomatic rift, as the U.S. imposed visa sanctions on Thai officials, although unspecified, and the EU released a resolution condemning the deportation. In response, China branded the U.S. sanctions as illegitimate, framing their actions within the scope of internal affairs and law enforcement.
The handling of the deportation and the subsequent international response underscore the complex interplay between regional diplomacy, human rights, and internal political dynamics.
