Despite the two resolutions in the US Senate and House of Representatives putting Thailand’s political situation on the spot, a former Thai foreign minister insists that there is no evidence that the US executive branch has interfered in Thailand’s domestic affairs, as feared by critics of the Move Forward Party which is on its way to forming the core of the next administration.
Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat has said that, under his leadership, Thailand will need to rebalance its foreign policy, which is currently seen as favouring China.
His critics fear that his pro-western policy would bring Thailand under the US influence. Late last month, a group of royalists rallied in front of the US Embassy in Bangkok to protest what they see as American interference in Thai internal affairs, following the submission of two separate draft resolutions to the US Senate and House of Representatives that essentially demand the abrogation of Article 112 of the Thai constitution, more commonly referred to as the lèse majesté law, and the release of people arrested for their political activities. They also warn against political intervention by the military and the monarchy.
The Move Forward Party has made amending Article 112 one of its election campaign policies and is seen as being anti-establishment by its critics.
In an interview with Thai PBS World, Dr. Kantathi Suphamongkhon, who served as foreign minister during the Thaksin government from 2005-2006, said there is no evidence that the US administration has an intention to interfering in Thailand’s domestic affairs.
Following is an excerpt of the interview with Kantathi, who currently serves as a member of the advisory board of Rand Corporation, a non-profit US research organisation.
Q: Move Forward Party has been accused by its critics of pursuing a pro-American foreign policy which could invite foreign interference in Thailand’s domestic affairs.
A: It’s important for Thai people to look at the evidence. Everything has to be evidence-based and requires the application of critical thinking. Nowadays, when you read the news, misleading information can come out very easily.
I have seen no evidence that the executive branch of the US government, which is actually the (part of) government maintaining foreign policy around the world, wants to interfere or has interfered at all.
Now, one may refer to Capitol Hill. You have the Senate as well as the House proposing resolutions before the election, urging Thailand to do certain things.
We must understand that US congressmen (and women) and senators have a tendency to do that, but it’s important to emphasise that these resolutions in the Senate and House are not legally binding on the government. It’s just an expression of opinions. These resolutions did not become news in the US at all, but became news here. So, there is no degree of influence by the US at all. The general public in the US probably did not even hear about it.
To interfere, one has to look at what type of interference. Is the country trying to manipulate voting? There’s no evidence of that. There is no evidence that the US would like to manipulate voting or anything along that line at all.
Q: The two resolutions essentially call for an abrogation of Article 112 and warn against an intervention by the military or the monarchy. Critics see this as US interference.
A: Again, this is not coming from the executive branch. So, it’s not coming from the US government as we know. It is coming from the representatives of the American public and, of course, these are views of certain senators, views of certain people in congress, so we have to put that into context. It is unlikely that it would be translated into US policy and acted upon by the US administration.
Q: How do you see Move Forward Party leader Pita’s “3Rs” (revive, rebalance and recalibrate) that would guide his foreign policy?
A: I think we have already practiced the 3-Rs. In fact, when I was foreign minister, we covered all the 3-Rs in practice and we were not under the umbrella of any major power.
In the older days we used to be part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation) and, of course, we were under one umbrella. Now we have to make sure that we have good relations with all countries with which we have relations, especially major countries.
We should have our own good relations with China. The US understands that, and we have to have good relations with the US. China, I’m sure, understands that. So, it’s a balanced approach to protect our national interest. Maybe we are just seeing the continuation of the 3-Rs in the incoming administration.
Q: Has Thailand been too close to China, as many people believe, especially those in Washington DC?
A: In some circles yes, following the coup d’état. The US, in contrast to China, took a position against the coup d’état and imposed some degree of sanctions on Thailand, making it difficult for the Thai government under the leadership of the military to be close to the US.
So, there was a tendency for Thailand to get a bit closer to China, which has a policy of not mentioning anything that happens domestically anywhere else. So, it did not criticise what happened in Thailand and that led to an increased degree of activity between the two countries, but I would not say that Thailand was going to jump into the Chinese camp.
Q: Under the Prayut government, Thailand adopted “quiet diplomacy” in dealing with the crisis in Myanmar. How effective has it been?
A: Quiet diplomacy has a role but, if it’s too quiet and without results, that’s a problem. I remember when I was in office, I had to negotiate quietly with Myanmar for it not to chair ASEAN, because of its problems with human rights, taking quiet diplomacy to the generals in Myanmar, and they actually agreed to postpone their chairmanship as a result of quiet diplomacy. So sometimes, quiet diplomacy is helpful, but it has to produce results.
So, with Myanmar, I think we have a good role to play, a constructive role. With ASEAN, we also can play a very constructive role there. So, don’t blend into the background. You have to stand out sometimes and Thailand has the ability to do that, if we have the right person in place.
In dealing with the crisis in Myanmar, Thailand needs to coordinate very closely with all ASEAN countries. We should not act too much alone, but we should be able to get all on board, especially countries that may want a bit more results in Myanmar. It’s also important to try to engage all stakeholders in Myanmar.
Q: Given the challenges facing the incoming administration in the foreign policy arena, what kind of qualifications should we look for in a new foreign minister?
A: First of all, you have to be knowledgeable about foreign affairs in a comprehensive way. In diplomacy you don’t just go and read notes, or follow the talking points. You have to be able to interact impromptu with all your counterparts, while waiting for a meeting, while having meals together, while traveling. You can make friends that way.
So, it’s the talk outside the conference hall which becomes very important. In the past, we have seen Thai leaders with no ability to do that. Everything has to be on a piece of paper with talking points.
You need that spontaneous interaction, you need that skill but, in order to do that, you have to be informed about not only issues close to home but you have to be informed about all important global issues.
(This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity)
