UPDATE: Just saw that Fonzi blogged on this last week.

Last week, Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun had an op-ed in the Bangkok Post making some valid criticism of Thaksin's foreign policy, but then concluding:

Under the Abhisit administration, Thai foreign policy has undergone an extreme makeover. The Democrat-led government has rejected Thaksin's business-first mentality and re-introduced a seemingly principle-based foreign policy. This time principle, not profit, represents the mainstay of Thai diplomacy.

BP: Remember those words "extreme makeover" and "principle-based foreign policy".

Op-ed continues:

By denouncing Thaksin's past initiatives, the current government hopes it would also de-legitimise his foreign policy - a much-needed strategy to alienate Thaksin further from Thai political circles.

BP: Wasn't it a principled-based foreign policy? Or is it really just past of a strategy?

Op-ed continues:

Members of the academia and local media seem to have embraced Mr Abhisit's new direction in Thai foreign policy. His government has spent the past six months fixing the country's diplomatic missteps caused by Thaksin and his cronies.

BP: That members of academic and the local media would embrace someone other than Thaksin is hardly surprising.

Op-ed continues:

Thailand's cosy relations with her immediate neighbours, during the Thaksin years, were mostly built on personal relations, and sometimes did not necessarily reflect national interests. The Abhisit administration has re-invented Thai foreign policy to become more accountable, especially in the year Thailand is chairing Asean.

Because his government has no record of civilian supremacy, injecting a democratic principle in foreign policy might just redeem a sense of legitimacy it sorely needs in these hours of political turbulence.

Last month, the government issued a statement, on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, voicing grave concern at the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, in which she is charged with violating her house arrest rules by allowing American John Yettaw into her residence. Thailand saw the need to toughen its stance and that of Asean vis-a-vis the Burmese junta to prove the country's respect for democracy - a position extolled by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

BP: It has been fair to say there has been a shift in the rhetoric in Thailand (which BP does agree with), but Thailand took this position as the head of ASEAN. ASEAN itself has been slowly moving towards a harder line on Burma over the last 10 years. Is the new government approach an "extreme makeover"? An extreme makeover would be to deny Burma the natural resource revenue, impose sanctions, and/or do something which substantially affects the Burmese junta. A change in rhetoric is arguably a step in the right direction, but it is not some extreme makeover.

Op-ed continues:

Burma's response to the Thai statement was predictable. It reproached Asean's statement and criticised Thailand for breaching the non-interference rule. What followed was the Burmese army's attacks on the Karen National Union which disturbed the Thai-Burmese border by the influx of Burmese refugees fleeing the fighting, probably as punishment for Thailand's hard-line policy towards Rangoon.

BP: So it launched the response on the KNU to "punish" Thailand? The Economist's take:

The reasons for the junta’s sudden haste are typically murky. It is preparing for parliamentary elections next year, the first since an annulled 1990 poll, and wants around 17 ethnic rebel groups that have signed ceasefires to take part. The Karen National Union (KNU), the movement’s political wing, is a holdout. The generals, who want to consolidate power and neutralise armed threats, have proposed turning ethnic insurgents into border guards, under their command. They may reckon that the KNU can be similarly corralled. But a crushing military defeat would do just fine.

The offensive also appears timed to divert attention from the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained opposition leader. Thailand’s foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, has been more strident than most in publicly dressing down the junta about this farce, which is due to resume on June 26th. Thai diplomats suspect that its prickly neighbour is stirring trouble on the border as a poke in the eye.

BP: Surely Burmese domestic considerations make more sense than launching the offensive just to spite Thailand.

On Cambodia:

With Cambodia, Thailand may have continued to play a nationalistic card in the Preah Vihear temple case. At a deeper level, what the Abhisit government has done in "de-personalising" Thai policy towards Cambodia should be commended. Many Thai-Cambodian shady businesses were reportedly promoted by the Thaksin regime. This explains why Thai policy has often been held hostage by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.
...
More recently, Hun Sen confronted the Thai leadership, suggesting that Thailand should give up its Asean chairmanship because of its escalating domestic situation.

He himself is a devout nationalist, often speaking about the use of force against Thailand to protect so-called Cambodian sovereignty. His love for Thaksin remains evident.

BP: His love for Thaksin? Where was that love when Hun Sen cynically whipped up tensions that led to the ransacking of the Thai Embassy in Cambodia?

Op-ed continues:

The latest Thai opposition to the UN declaration at the World Heritage meeting in Spain, with a proposal that the grounds of the disputed temple be placed under joint Thai-Cambodian maintenance, could be perceived not only as a defence of Thai interests, but also a bold move in Thai diplomacy which refuses to become too elastic in accordance with the preferences of Cambodian leaders like in the past.

BP: If you are going to criticise Hun Sen for being a nationalist, how can you then defend the current government's position in relation to Preah Vihear? Is it also not nationalist? A week before Thailand decided to take its current position in relation to Preah Vihear, Abhisit went to Phnom Penh and had a bilateral with Hun Sen. He has conceded he never mentioned to Hun Sen that he was about to take this position. Is that really good diplomacy? Good diplomacy would mean you signal the position you are about to take so the other side is not surprised. This helps prevent a war of words in the media.

The government has taken a nationalist position for domestic political gain. There is nothing principled about the new government's foreign policy towards Cambodia.

Related Posts by Categories

Widget by Scrapur