In the aftermath of the coup, Thailand has had to withstand condemnation from foreign governments near and far that were critical of the power seizure. The US has severed military and economic assistance to Thailand. The European Union refuses to partake in diplomatic activities. Other countries were more vocal in some ways and then made up in other ways. These examples of hypocrisy fit very nicely with Thailand's unique political situation. Unfortunately, when it comes to Thai policy towards Burma, it's a different ball game.

As the international community, through the current effort within the UN Security Council, steps up pressure on Burma to ensure there is genuine democratic development in the country, Thailand's action or lack thereof in this regard will be under close scrutiny.

In recent weeks, Burmese students and democracy supporters have staged peace marches and lit candles to call for the release of all political prisoners in their country. These are believed to number about 1,500 and included the opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. This growing domestic pressure augurs well for efforts at the international level.

It is about time Thailand decided to review its Burmese policy seriously. Over the past five years, Thai-Burma relations were constructed through the prism of deposed Thaksin Shinawatra alone, and nothing else. That is why it was a flawed policy. One important drawback of this lop-sided policy was the compromises Thailand had to make to accommodate the former PM's initiatives in Burma. These had many facets, but the most troublesome has been on national security. Over the past five years, security along the 2,400-kilometre Thai-Burmese border has been quite lax, allowing drugs and human trafficking to prosper. When Surayud served as Army chief, security along the porous border was strong and vigilant. Once again there is an urgent need to review our security preparedness along the border.

At an informal brainstorming session on Burma held by senior Foreign Ministry officials early this year, the conclusion was that Thailand's Burma policy required some serious fine-tuning. The officials concluded, for instance, that Thailand needed to harden its position by refusing to shield Burma from international criticism. Burma has to defend its record on its own at the UN. Asean has refused to do so for the past two years after Burma was pressured to skip its turn at the rotating chairmanship of Asean. Consequently, the recommendation influenced Thailand's position on Burma. Bangkok was no longer opposing the US-led effort to put Burma's situation on the Security Council's agenda.

However, with a new government in power, it is imperative that Thailand sends a strong message to Burma's military junta that the Thaksin-initiated policies are not sustainable, will be reviewed and, if necessary, changed. It is hoped that when the government announces its domestic and foreign policies at the National Legislative Assembly this Friday, it will articulate a more focused approach towards neighbouring countries. It would be a shame if the current policy towards Burma remains unchanged merely for the sake of continuity, as this would immediately negate the justification for the coup.

The interim government has to see to it that the previous regime's legacy of a flawed policy on Burma is corrected as soon as possible.