Don Pathan
The Nation
Thailand's international standing has been declining steadily over the past year with the current administration showing no sign of changing its course.
Bangkok-based diplomats, analysts, and government officials blame the decline on the current administration's failure to incorporate the country's strong points - human rights, democracy, not to mention freedom of expression - into the government's foreign policy as if these things are something Thailand should be ashamed of.
"There is a saying that foreign policy begins at home," noted one Foreign Ministry official.
Another factor contributing to the decline is what many regards as a too-ambitious plan to turn Thailand into a major player in the global community.
In principle, turning Thailand into an international broker might not be such a bad idea. New diplomatic channels could open up and give more meaning to a multidimensional foreign policy, but Thailand could end up biting off more than it can chew because it doesn't seem to take into consideration the existing limitations, they say.
Observers say the current administration is unable to cope with the rapidly changing world that calls for swift and firm political maneuvering. The government's actions, they say, do not seem to be based on sound policies or rooted in any principles.
Indeed, from the Taleban's blowing up of the Bamiyan Buddha statues to the September 11 terrorist attack against the United States - and to the push to make Thailand the centre of gravity between East Asia and the subcontinent under the empty notion of "Asia Dialogue" - the Thaksin administration has displayed a serious lack of understanding as to what constitutes a sound foreign policy.
Panitan Wattanayagorn, a foreign-affairs expert at Chulalongkorn University, says Thailand is stumbling into unfamiliar terrain and may be putting itself in a very uncomfortable position in a tug-of-war among powerful giants like the United States, China and India.
Moreover, many others say this so-called Asia Dialogue forum has no chance whatsoever of becoming a serious arena that will command respect.
Consider the European Union, where common political culture and economic practices bring all the members of this ethnically diverse continent together under one economic and political powerhouse - there is nothing in Asia to serve as the basis to unite these countries in such a manner.
For the time being, the idea of creating an "Asian Dialogue" - a rejuvenation of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's dream of an East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) - is currently being floated around the world by Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai. Incidentally, it seems to have been forgotten that the reason the proposed EAEC failed the first time around was that it unnecessarily pitted the East against West.
Many Asian countries, such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, or Pakistan, either already have strong working ties with the United States or are on course to redefine their relations in light of the September 11 attacks.
Moreover, says one Bangkok-based diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, "There is no reason why South Asia and East Asia cannot come together themselves. They don't need Thailand to bring them together."
But convincing the world community that there is substance behind this "Asian Dialogue" will be difficult, unless of course, Thailand is satisfied with its becoming another talk shop.
"There isn't much commonality here in the region," said one observer, pointing to the absence of a uniform political culture or economic system in Asia.
There is also the issue of reforming the Foreign Ministry, turning it into a "proactive" body that would push the country into the global economic and political limelight.
"This may be good in principle. But the bureaucratic structure, the human resources, and the technical skills are just not there," Panitan said.
"This quick-fix attitude could inadvertently bring down the morale of the bureaucrats," he added.
There is also talk of engaging Russia and other former Soviet republics more forcefully. But after years of ignoring Moscow, no on seems to know anything about the former Soviet states, Panitan said.
Besides the "Asian Dialogue", there have been other incidents that show the new government lacks understanding of and sensitivity to political developments on a global scale.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shina-watra's inability to grasp politics at the international level was clearly displayed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Instead of going straight to the US Embassy to show the world that Thailand, too, would not hesitate in condemning this hideous crime that had taken the lives of some 3,000 people, Thaksin sent out memos to all Thai embassies to see how many other leaders visited American embassies in their respective countries.
"There wouldn't be any hesitation as to what the premier should do if we took up a position based on some sort of principle," Thai officials say.
The government's handling of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan also showed it was unable to grasp the political significance of the issue, thus allowing opposition leader Chuan Leekpai to make Thaksin's foreign-policy team look amateurish.
Chuan outmaneuvered Thaksin by contacting UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan directly, thanking him for taking a firm position against the Taleban following its decision to blow up the statues. He also wrote to the then Taleban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, urging him to preserve what was deemed a world heritage site.
Thaksin, on the other hand, extended this gratitude to Unesco, a UN technical body that deals mainly with the preservation of ancient artifacts.
"This case was not just about some ancient statues that needed to be preserved. It was bigger than that, and the Thaksin government failed to see the political significance and political dimensions of this case," one observer said.
No comments:
Post a Comment