He told the new Cabinet, sworn in last week, that when foreigners commented that Thailand was not good, this needed to be corrected or else the reputation of the country and the people would be tarnished.

He was speaking from the vantage point of a King who had just gone through a week-long commemoration of becoming the world's longest reigning monarch - a rare, historic event. Thailand's reputation reached its zenith only three months ago, with the country bathed in an indescribable glorious state. Contemporaneously, the grand ceremonies attracted much attention around the world, and subsequently microscopic scrutiny of His Majesty's role in economic and political development.

However, at the government level, the message transmitted remains ambiguous at best. When newly appointed Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram met the foreign and Thai media last Wednesday, they expected him to spell out clearly the so-called "dos and don'ts" of Thai diplomacy in the next one year.

Instead, he continued with diplomatic niceties as if this were an ordinary time in an ordinary country - business as usual, so speak. It is not. Thailand just has had a coup, the country is under martial law and the media are facing restrictions. Our policy towards Burma is abnormal. The whole world is watching: will Thailand go on with its refractory diplomacy? Bluntly put, our reputation rests on these issues.

At the press conference, Nitya reiterated that Thailand needed to promote a better understanding overseas. The conduct of foreign affairs, he added, is non-partisan to serve national interest and needs continuity. This has been the basic foundation of Thai diplomacy for centuries. He did not address the specific syndromes that led to the power seizure and aberrations in Thai diplomacy over the past five years.

At this juncture, an urgent strategic audit of foreign policy is needed regarding ties with neighbouring countries (Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Malaysia), major powers (China, US, India and Japan) and international and regional organisations (Asean, Apec etc). The Foreign Ministry has to assure the public and international community that the country's foreign policy is well thought out.

After all, in the next one year, as Nitya put it, Thailand will be pursuing a "just" foreign policy that has moral and ethical values "taking into full account the interests and welfare of the people and ensuring transparency". Indeed this is a great diplomatic manifesto for a developing nation such as Thailand. But in the age of globalisation, foreign relations is the sum total of domestic and external factors.

When Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont met the Bangkok-based diplomatic community last week, the US and EU urged the lifting of martial law and called for a general election as soon as possible. The Thai side begged understanding of the unique circumstances that the interim government is caught in.

At first, December 5 was tentatively set as the date for lifting martial law. However, some senior military officials argued that it might remain necessary, as the situation, while calm, was still volatile, especially among pro-Thaksin elements in the Isaan region. They urged the public and foreign nations to be patient and judge not by the prescriptions of textbook democracy but rather on the practical enforcement of martial law.

In 1991, the National Peacekeeping Council lifted martial law after two months and 10 days (February 23-May 3, 1991). The situation was different then. The armed forces were not divided as they are today. The overall political situation was much more under control as rural voices were subdued. The coup leaders were able to consolidate power without the kind of political residues confronting our current leaders.

Apparently, Thailand will have to live with this persistent criticism of its current state while making sure there are no violations of human rights or freedom of expression. Recently a serious mistake was made in shutting down the Midnight University website. This has been readily used by human right organisations as a measure of the lack of tolerance and openness on the part of the power wielders.

In addition, Thai policy towards Burma needs to be amended quickly. Soft-pedalling on Burma will further damage Thailand's image at a time when the international community has strengthened its efforts at the UN to pressure Burma to move on with democratisation. Worse, it will directly affect the prime minister's reputation. As a former Army chief, Surayud was known for his toughness against Burma's oppression of minorities living along the Thai-Burmese border and his strong support for fleeing ethnic Karen. Troops under his command several times fought and repelled invading Burmese soldiers in hot pursuit of Burmese minorities.

So far, the prime minister displayed diplomatic finesse on his trips to Laos and Cambodia, and the importance Thailand attaches to them. Malaysia is next on Surayud's visit list, as ending the southern violence is one of his priorities.

Interesting, there were internal discussions last week on whether, during a series of the upcoming summits, Surayud should use the opportunity to explain Thailand's case in bilateral meetings. Indeed, there is no need to do so. Why should we preach to the converts instead of focusing on our vision and what Thailand plans to do for the region? Except for Singapore, no Asian country has questioned or suffered adversely from the bloodless coup.

The viewpoint from beyond the immediate region is that as long as martial law is in place and elections have not been held, democratic conditions are not met. Thailand has to live with that and move on. What is surprising is the Foreign Ministry's attitude regarding its role over the next one year. Nitya has readily admitted that there is not much the ministry can do. Arguing for such limitation definitely does not augur well for the kind of urgent and pro-active policy that Surayud is asking for.

Kavi Chongkittavorn