America must not work against NCPO By W Scott Thompson There was a time when Thai-American relations were almost a love affair. The Americans got the kingdom off the hook with the British and French, who wanted retribution for Thai participation alongside the Japanese in World War II. The US sent a succession of distinguished ambassadors and more junior officers to Thailand, the best of whom always learned Thai and mingled in the provinces. For example, Ambassador Young, appointed by President Kennedy, whose son, Stephen Young, has recently written an essay on the US Embassy on Wireless Road. Stephen Young has given extraordinary evidence of the blindness at the embassy to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s completion of the conversion of Thai governance to money politics. But in fact, for 20 years students of Thailand have tried to warn the embassy that Thaksin was something different from the rest. When I mentioned at the embassy that Thaksin’s efforts to influence the media through his wealth, the reaction was, so what’s new about that? When his style of governance, revealed after 2001, that he planned to stay in government house forever, the embassy’s reaction was, He got the votes, didn’t he? But democratic theory nowhere in the world considers the mere accumulation of votes a sufficient condition of representative rule. The American problem is two folds. In the first place, diplomats get few points for knowing anything about a country to which they are assigned with the exception of language training, which still plays a role in representation. They are rewarded for getting scoops, in the same manner as journalists, and for being one step ahead with gossip on the diplomatic cocktail circuit. The second problem is that America is still, however diminished, such an international colossus that it can try to dictate a worldwide agenda. In the late 1970s, human rights became a priority. So assistant secretaries would traipse around the world inspecting human rights achievements. But it was a joke, governments would let out a few political opponents, and the revolving door then locked up a few others. Here in Bangkok, the ambassador worked closely with the very Thai government official appointed to put the best Thai face forward. The next stage was democracy. The entire world must be seen to be building democracy, and ambassadors got points in Washington if the country to which they were assigned was making progress. Here in Thailand, it became quite amusing. In 1980, the parliament came into being, replacing a military regime. In fact the parliament was not the location of power. But the appearance that Thailand was “building democracy” gave the then ambassador something to crow about in Washington. But in fact, he suffered the personal humiliation of not even being able to call on the Thai prime minister for as long as a year. But in Washington, his reputation went unblemished. Now we have the spectacle of the current ambassador, Kristie Kenney, opposing a change of governance in Thailand by much the same method that she showed her support in the Philippines in her previous ambassadorship, when the now imprisoned president, Gloria Arroyo, was seeking any road that might lead to her remaining in charge. Now it is true, in the words of a 17th century British diplomat, that an ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country. The operative word is country. It is not on the job description of an ambassador to promote herself or himself. It is on the job description, however, for the embassy to represent the home country honestly and honourably, at least as best it possibly can, and to report thoroughly on developments within the country that might impinge on the relationship between countries. In 50 years of watching, and occasionally participating in diplomacy in the third world, I have never seen an envoy get it so wrong as Ms Kenney. Of course it was a corollary that by definition coup détat were bad things. But we used to be somewhat discriminatory about coups. In 1966 I was in a small African country led by a Marxist dictator, who was overthrown by the army and police. The celebration of the American embassy was palpable. We just waited for one Western power to recognise the new army and the police regime to recognise it, and then to send it urgent supplies of the arms necessary to defend itself. The disguise as food aid was rather thin, given the weight of the boxes. We supported the coup détat because it was in our interest. There are numerous other such examples. There was understanding in Washington that not all countries were the same and a one size fits all policy simply couldn’t work. Now, however, the automatic condemnation of a coup détat has a knee jerk quality to it, and even the Europeans have come to see it the same way. The political elites in Thailand should bear in mind this ambassador’s background in the Philippines, and put in context the unique character of the American condemnation of the new government in Bangkok. The fact is that numerous American diplomats, academics, and NGO officials have worked with their counterparts in Thailand to nourish democratic roots. Thousands of Thais choosing to be educated abroad in democratic countries have also helped. True, there have been too many instances of blood-thirsty colonels soon to be field marshals who have thrown aside nascent democracies, for the sake of the prize at stake. But the recent Thai coup is in many ways the converse. Given the Night of the Long Knives that Thaksin set in motion, the revenge-oriented policies in the South that reignited the insurgency, and the continual enlargement of his family fortune, raises the question of whether Thaksin sees “democracy” as a tactic to ensure his perpetual rule. On the contrary, what I have learned about General Prayuth Chan-ocha is that he is a professional, from a modest family, his father a provincial teacher, with no evident interest in accumulating a fortune. He ascended the commanding military heights because he was seen as the best. He was always seen as a good man to have on your side, precisely because of his brains and professionalism. My guess is that he will be a significant force in Thai politics for at least five years, the minimum time needed to root out the personal allies of Thaksin. The past is prologue. The so-called “Bangkok elites” in the second half of the 20th century fostered policies that generated great wealth for the kingdom. It was slow to see the necessity of a fair distribution of the winnings. I do not know of a single example in history that is any different; countries that get rich quickly invariably permit those responsible for the growth to keep a disproportionate share for themselves. It is the story of America and Britain, following the industrial revolution and subsequent great surges in wealth. Today, in America, the biggest challenge is growing inequality. The innovators are getting richer and richer while the middle-class slips inexorably backwards. This engenders profound reactions, which will in the next decade inevitably force tax reform. America should be working with, not against, the new rulers. The kingdom faces painful and sensitive transitions in the next decade, and we should be grateful that there are strong hands at the wheels of change. ———————————————————————————————-W Scott Thompson, professor emeritus of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, is an expert on Southeast Asia now living in Bali and Manila.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:46:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015