• 
• 
• 

That was at the low end. Up the Beltway, Obama administration officials and US lawmakers are still trying very hard to put into perspective where Thailand is going from here and its role in the region. Is it still relevant? The recent trouble in the land of smiles has been quite a shock for American bureaucrats, who were used to the kingdom's political fluidity and uncertainties. They asked reluctantly whether Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, or for that matter any Thai leader, was in control of running the country's day-to-day affairs. Will the government last until the end of the year? Well, that was too optimistic, how's about next month?

On the other hand, the 176-year-old Thai-US relations are under test again. These ties are so ancient that both sides are taking one another for granted. After all, how could we explain the reasons why Thailand had not bothered to place an ambassador in Washington in the past 11 months? Granted the volatile situation in Thailand and its ties, that was the least Bangkok could do. They are simply tired of each other though without any ill-feeling. Now both countries are trying hard to revitalise their friendship. Indeed, another closed and intimate ally of the US in Asean, the Philippines, is also suffering from the same syndrome. In the US capital these days, a mere mention, or whispering of Indonesia or Vietnam will bring enthusiastic nods. "Yeah, Indonesia is rising. Vietnam is rising," was the common response.

Obviously, the Abhisit government wants to inject more value into relations with its oldest ally--also the world's most powerful nation. Since 2001, the Thai side constantly used the term "strategic partnership" to characterise their friendship. Really, it was a bit odd and a misplaced concept as the two countries are still security allies, which goes beyond the usual diplomatic jargon of strategic partners--normally reserved for countries which have found new trust and confidence.

When Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya went to Washington in April, he emphasised that both sides must from now on engage in strategic dialogue. Problem is,the past Thai policy makers, civilian or uniformed, lacked the imagination of political discourse and engagement that would enliven their longstanding ties. As a comparison to the current state of Thai-US relations, Singapore and Vietnam are the two Asean countries often referred to. Singapore is a small country and is not a military alliance- but it wields a big stick when it comes to negotiating with the US. The island participated enthusiastically in the post-Iraq war and global campaign on terrorism. Both had a free trade pact in place long ago. The republic's small bright red passport allows the holders entry to the majority of UN members without visas. Vietnam, a former US enemy, is now the little darling in the US these days. Political stability is the most cited quality of the region's fast going economies. Major American investors have skipped Thailand for Vietnam in the past several years.

In retrospect, the fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, former Thai prime minister (2001-06), was the shrewdest Thai leader in manoeuvring the US. He knew what the US wanted and was willing to offer and demand reciprocity. It was no secret that the fast-track free trade negotiation between Thailand and US, started in earnest in 2004, was a reward for Thaksin's active cooperation with the US war on terrorism, including the black prison. Subsequently, the free-trade talks broke down. Thaksin also knew how to pull the plug. For instance, while the Foreign Ministry supported Thailand's joining the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative to counter the widespread threat of weapons of mass destruction, Thaksin held back the decision as he was trying to use it as a bargaining chip for other undertakings. Such Machiavellian traits attracted US responses and engagement. Bilateral ties are healthier that way, even if they disagree or make no progress.

To retain relevance, Thailand must think outside the box,in strategic terms more than before in their external relations. Of course, it is easily said than done, given the horrendous situation the country has been caught up in during the past three years. Senior officials at the Saranrom Palace have been so cowed by ever-changing political winds sweeping their office that could make or even break their life-long careers. Their survival is more important than the country's. So, John Le Carre style stories about back-stabbing and betrayal abound. For them, staying the course and maintaining the status-quo has become the unavoidable motto.

Despite all past mishaps and the nincompoops associated with the Asean chair and summits, Thailand still has a chance to reclaim its regional and international creditability. In particular, a fresher and bolder approach to Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi's plight will be a first indicator of how this government and Asean, as well as the world, can collaborate further on such an issue. Bangkok has won kudos by calling for the end of her arrest. The Asean chair has to be firmer on Burma and take Rangoon to task for breaching the Asean Charter at upcoming meetings with Asean colleagues and dialogue partners. The Abhisit government must also set forth the highest benchmark for Asean when it comes to the charter's implementation.

Abhisit and his foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, have the God-sent opportunity to reshape and reset Thailand's geopolitical and economic imperatives from now on with their prudent actions and policies.