• 
• 

In the old days, kings set the country's foreign policy direction and their words represented the country's official policy - no arguments. Under military dictatorships, a small group of leaders decided the country's foreign policies - no public scrutiny. With elected governments, the formulation of Thai foreign policy is no longer confined to a few individuals as it was in the past.

The roles of Parliament, opposition MPs, as well as pressure groups from various civil society organisations and media are now important components in the foreign policy decision-making process. Article 190 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to have oversight over proposed treaties and agreements with foreign countries.

On top of that, the recent Administrative Court's decision to suspend the Thai-Cambodian joint communiqué over Preah Vihear Temple was also a watershed moment in the annals of Thai diplomacy. With such judicial intrusion, diplomatic flexibility and pragmatism - the country's trademarks - will be harder to come by.

During the parliamentary debate on budgetary allocations last week, the government was quizzed intensely by opposition MPs over the proposed Bt700 million in funding requested by the Foreign Ministry for its well-known programme the Foreign Mission Integrated Project, which has been going on for years. They threatened to slash all funding, even though this is an ongoing project aimed at maximising and coordinating all Thai personnel overseas and other resources.

In a similar vein, the ratification of the Asean Charter, which was supposed to be completed last Friday, will be delayed further. The Samak government hopes to make an announcement this week of the charter's ratification before the first Asean standing committee meeting with Thailand as chair. Opposition MPs took the government to task for its failure to inform them about the charter, the process of ratification and the organic laws associated with the Asean Charter. The government wants Parliament to speed up the ratification process and complete three readings in one sitting. But the opposition prefers the routine procedure, which will be time-consuming.

It must be noted that the government and the Foreign Ministry have not yet taken the role of Parliament seriously. Otherwise, there would be prior briefing, discussion and sounding with the opposition MPs. It happens that the current opposition MPs - including Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and shadow foreign minister MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, as well as Kraisak Chonhavan, former chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee - are very keen on foreign policy issues. They have vast experience in foreign affairs, so they can raise serious questions and voice their concerns pertaining to policy and budgetary matters that demand ministry attention. Better institutional cooperation is required to set the country's active foreign policy.

During the heyday of the Foreign Ministry in the 1980s, the ministry had the confidence of the government and the public to coordinate and execute policies on national security issues without hindrance, especially during the Cambodian conflict. The integrity and honesty of former foreign minister Siddhi Savetsila, his integrity and honesty won wide supports inside the country and within Asean at large. That tradition continued unabated until the end of Democrat-led government in January 2001.

With Thaksin Shinawatra as prime minister in February 2001, foreign policy decision-making was turned upside-down. From foreign policy driven by the Foreign Ministry in close consultation with elected politicians as well as concerned agencies, it became a one-man show. His centrality in shaping Thai diplomacy was indisputable and nobody dared to raise any objection. He heeded no other voices. Thaksin's former Cabinet members, including former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai and retired diplomats, have already blown the whistle on Thaksin's malfeasance. Other chief articulators of Thai diplomacy took a secondary role, especially those dealing with national security questions.

Thaksin's penchant for arbitrary and selfishly motivated actions led constitutional drafters in 2007 to want to prevent such a scenario from recurring in future governments. It was rather unfortunate that Article 190 was put to the test so soon with such a sensitive issue. It is supposed to impose a check on the executive powers concerning national interests and security.

Without a proper understanding of the guiding principle of Article 190, Thai foreign policy, which is essentially about the country's commitments to bilateral or multilateral arrangements, could be further bogged down. With a better government in the future, trust and confidence could be instilled and nurtured between lawmakers and policy-makers. That would help facilitate Thai foreign policy and public interest in the age of democracy, with inputs from civil society groups and private sectors.

We live in a globalised world. Thailand's engagements with foreign countries and international organisations have also increased exponentially, especially in trade, economic and other trans-national issues. Under such circumstances, timely, flexible and pragmatic diplomacy could be a lifesaver if it is not saddled by the burden of legislative and judicial oversight.