• 
• 

Published on December 20, 2007

Political parties are attempting to raise their political score by emphasising the necessity to improve the living standards of Thais. It is the same old story heard during every election campaign.

As a Thai living abroad, I wonder why - as Thailand is transforming into a regional player and has been very active in the international arena - foreign policy has not been mentioned at all by any of the parties. Politicians might have assumed that Thais lack interest and knowledge in foreign affairs and that international diplomacy is something too intangible and unapproachable in the minds of the people. I think they are wrong to think in such a way.  

Over the past few decades, the Democrat Party has seemed to be the only party with a distinctive foreign policy platform. When it formed governments, twice in the last 15 years, such a platform was implemented, and successfully put Thailand at the forefront of regional politics, for good or bad. However, the Democrats appear to have fallen into the same trap of side-stepping foreign policy while focusing purely on domestic issues to satisfy the local audience.

Let's assume that the Democrats are lucky enough to lead the government after the election. The party leaders will have to readjust the foreign policy platform in order to catch up with regional and global realities. The Democrat's foreign policy of 2001, the last year when the party was in power, is no longer applicable in the face of he changing situation in Thailand and surrounding countries.  

It can be said that the Democrat's foreign policy platform is a continuation of the development of Thai democratic institutions and good governance. Democracy and human rights have been identified closely with the party's principles. Surin Pitsuwan, former foreign minister under the Chuan government, spoke of the need to promote democracy, not only within the Thai domain, but also within the region. The result of playing the role of a defender of democracy had a devastating impact on Thailand's relationship with certain neighbouring countries. Thai-Burmese relations exemplified how the Democrat's support of democracy could instigate conflict and heighten mutual distrust.

From 1997-2001, the Democrat Party initiated a flexible engagement policy toward Burma, based on the wisdom that whatever happened in that neighbouring country might have an impact on Thailand. The Thai government had a right to raise its concerns and do what it could to lessen such impact.

Other Asean members were discontent at the Democrat's approach toward Burma and called it a violation of the non-interference principle. In the context of Thai-Burmese relations, the Democrat's hardline policy was reciprocated by Rangoon. Burma blacklisted a number of Thai journalists and politicians. The junta accused the Democrat government of cooperating with Burmese dissidents when the latter seized the Burmese Embassy in Bangkok and held diplomatic officers hostage. Sukhumbhand Paribatra, then deputy foreign minister, complicated the situation by volunteering to accompany the Burmese dissidents to the border to set them free.

This is not to belittle the Democrat's foreign policy standpoint and its endorsement of democracy and good governance. The regional situation has however changed. Democracy is not the only question in the foreign policy constraints facing Thailand today.

After the Democrats lost power, Thaksin Shinawatra reinvented the country's foreign policy to suit his own political and economic appetite. The love of democracy and human rights disappeared in the mist of the aggrandisement of economic interests. Thailand, under Thaksin, was busy proclaiming itself as a centre of regional prosperity. It did not even hide the fact that it aspired to be a hegemon vis-a-vis neighbouring countries.  

The money-led policy yielded some positive consequences for Thailand.

Relations between Thailand and its neighbours improved, judging from the increased volume of bilateral trade and decreasing tensions along the border.

But the policy proved to be short-lived and unsustainable. Remember when Khin Nyunt, Burma's former PM, fell from grace; Thailand's relations with Burma almost went bankrupt overnight.

There must be a middle path in the conduct of Thai diplomacy if the Democrats take the lead in the government. Overly promoting democracy could drag Thailand behind its competitors in the region. Meanwhile, a foreign policy without the essence of democracy would in turn damage the country's credibility, especially after the coup of September 2006.

It is true that Thailand is surrounded by regimes with various degrees of despotism. Burma, the main supplier of natural gas to Thailand, cannot be bothered by the Thai crusade for democracy. China, despite being liberal in the economic realm, continues its silence following the Burmese crackdown on protesters. India, the world's most populous democratic nation, confidently revealed that democracy and economic interests are two unconnected entities, and that it would deal with Burma based entirely on national interests.

What the Democrats can do is identify the real national interests. Certain principles such as democracy and human rights should not be compromised in the conduct of foreign policy. But these principles must not act as a hindrance in Thailand's foreign relations, they must be treated as complimentary to the policy, which needs to be outward-looking and justifiable.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun

Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun is the author of "A Plastic Nation: the Curse of

Thainess in Thai-Burmese Relations".