G'bye
Post-coup relations in the deep freeze
It
is time for the US to reconsider its policy toward Thailand and seriously
contemplate either ending the alliance or severely curtailing the treaty
between the two countries. US policy toward Bangkok has been lost and
ineffectual since the May 2014 coup.
American officials have sought falteringly a
coherent policy approach to encourage the leaders of the military coup to
resume elections and dissolve the junta led by PM General Prayuth Chan-Ocha,
known as the National Council for Peace and Order.
Thailand and the US have maintained close ties
since their original alliance treaty in 1833, expanding bilateral trade and
military cooperation, while working to strengthen the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) multilaterally. Despite Thailand’s clear attempts to play
off its relationship with China tokeep the US off balance, the contemporary
crossroads demands a policy rethink and a reset in the relationship, pending a
return to peaceful democratic elections in Thailand.
The current state of affairs, in which Thailand
and the United States do not see eye- to-eye on human rights, democracy, and
civic freedoms, does not necessarily reflect a permanent rift between the two
countries. But in fact, US policy might benefit from a sharp reduction in ties,
or the abolition of the alliance treaty, and the US might find it has more
avenues to pursue effective policy toward Thailand if it first distances itself
from its wayward ally.
Here are four reasons why such a move would not
be so bad:
1. The military relationship between the US and
Thailand is already compromised. Following the coup in May 2014, the Obama administration suspended
$4.7 million in military assistance to the Thai government.
Defense cooperation is likewise limited. In February, the US reduced its troop presence in the annual Cobra Gold
exercises, held in Thailand, to 3,600 personnel, down from 8,400 in 2013.
Furthermore, the Defense Department refocused the exercises on humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief rather than on the use of lethal force, in the
hopes of signaling disapproval to the Thai junta.
Moving forward, the US will likely rely less on
Thailand as a defense partner as it boosts military relations with the
Philippines, Australia, Vietnam, and even Myanmar. Therefore, abandoning
Thailand’s military dictators will not weaken the overall US military presence
in the region despite Prayuth’s tilt to China. In fact, it would likely help
America’s image if Washington could be seen as aligning its actions with its
values.
2. US-Thai trade is not what it used to be, and
Thailand is not the economic powerhouse it once was. The steady flow of exports and imports between
the US and Thailand hit its
plateau five years ago, and in 2007, China overtook the United States. Today the US is Thailand’s third-largest export target. The US ranks
frourth as its biggest import partner.
The Thai economy has experienced a slowdown as
markets react to political instability triggered by the May 2014 coup. Factory
production (Thai companies manufacture clothes, cosmetics, cars, and auto
parts) has contracted every month except one since March 2013.
Furthermore, the Thai baht weakened by 6.4 percent this year, and spending has
slowed as consumer confidence hit a 14-month low in July.
Exports, which comprise 60 percent of the
economy, dropped by 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2015,
for the third year in a row. The Governor of the Bank of Thailand has said that meeting the national goal of 3 percent
GDP growth will be a struggle. Tourism, which is vital to the Thai economy,
slowed in the wake of the coup as well. Western businesses appear hesitant to
make long-term investments given the current political climate.
3. Thailand no longer represents a strategic
outpost for the intelligence community. The release of the CIA Torture Report in December last year revealed
details on the brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA, including
waterboarding, as well as the location of black sites, facilities the US used
for the detainment of terrorists.
When the CIA captured al-Qaeda mastermind Abu
Zubaida in March 2002 with the help of Pakistani intelligence officers,
President Bush quickly approved a detention facility inside Thailand. Due to
loud opposition from Thai officials at the time, the site’s location leaked.
Though the New York Times refrained from publishing details, by December, the
CIA was forced to close the facility.
While the US still
cooperates with Thailand on tackling narcotics smuggling and
human trafficking, Thailand is not an essential intelligence partner in the
global war on terrorism. Thailand’s increasingly close military relations with
China’s Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) complicate our ability to rely on the
Thai military as a trusted partner on defense and intelligence matters.
4. It’s not the Cold War: US geopolitical
strategy doesn’t need Thailand to contain China. Global political order has changed. Past Thai
dictators proved reliable partners in the Cold War, but the US does not need
strongmen in Bangkok to advance its interests in Asia.
The United States is no longer fighting a war
against international communism. Washington and Beijing have come a long way
since the 1972 overture brokered by Nixon and Kissinger on their secret trip to
China, meeting with Zhou Enlai. The US and China now hold an annual Strategic
& Economic Dialogue (SED), high-level discussions on bilateral relations.
The US has stepped up its partnerships with
other regional powers as well. The US and Vietnam now enjoy increasingly warm ties and closer military relations
since normalization in 1995. Australia and the Philippines have both acquiesced
to increased US troop presence on their soil. Washington has supported Manila
in its quest to resolve maritime disputes with China by submitting its case to
the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The US has also sought to strengthen the
multilateral Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and has used ASEAN
Regional Forum meetings to hold side dialogues with Chinese officials.
Finally, the US has a considerable opportunity
to promote Myanmar’s peaceful democracy and build closer ties with Naypyidaw.
Myanmar has made significant progress on democratizing since its army partially
stepped out of politics in 2010, making way for the country’s second general
elections in November this year.
Rights groups have urged the United States to
continue to work with Myanmar’s leaders to encourage further liberalization and
stability there. Enhanced cooperation with its partners in the Indo-Pacific
means less need for US reliance on Thailand as an ally in the regional
architecture.
For all these reasons, it is high time the US
contemplates suspending the Thai treaty alliance. Rising defense cooperation
with Australia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Myanmar, will obviate the US-Thai
security alliance, but need not permanently end military relations. If and when
the Thai generals move to restore democratic elections in their country, the US
can use military assistance as an incentive to reinvigorate the alliance.
As trade between the United States and Thailand
stalls, the US is working hard to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership, ensuring US stewardship
in regional free trade. A return to democratic peace in Thailand would
encourage foreign investors to come back to the country, boosting GDP and
providing opportunities for American businesses.
Lastly, the balance of power in Asia today has
shifted and no longer requires a Thai junta to quash Communist insurgencies in
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Burma. The US is not pursuing a policy of
containment regarding China, and Bangkok’s warming relations with Beijing need
not threaten US interests in the region. The United States benefits from a
plethora of alliances and strategic partnerships in the region, which China
does not enjoy.
America will for the foreseeable future be the
dominant power in the Pacific despite China’s pretensions. It must move away
from a policy based on insecurity, seeking to placate Thailand’s coup leaders.
The Thai generals might take more notice if the US cut the treaty alliance. The
irony of the situation is that Washington would wield more influence if it were
not beholden to its ally.
Hunter Marston is an independent Asia analyst based in
Washington, D.C. He has lived and worked in Thailand and was a senior
contributor and analyst for The Indo-Pacific Review.
ReplyDeleteThai elitism and hierarchy-Title and honour in Thailand’s latent caste system.
When I glanced through a Thai newspaper recently, I found almost everyone in the limelight of Thai society had a decorative name — be it military, police or academic rank.
This includes people with royally bestowed titles like Thanpuying Chanut Piyaoui, owner of the Dusit Thani Hotel chain and whose main hotel in Bangkok sits on land belonging to the royal family.
Another is Thanpuying Naraporn Chan-ocha, wife of General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the self-appointed prime minister of Thailand and junta chief. Earlier this year she was labelled as the ‘most able’ woman in Thailand.
And of course, there are lower royal rankings where a title can be purchased from a donation to various royally sponsored projects. This category includes Khunying Sasima Srivikorn, owner of the President Hotel chain who has donated millions and millions of baht to royal projects.
This penchant for prestigious titles is also typical of Thailand’s military.
Retired generals often fail to mention in any print media that they are a retired general, whereas in the UK, Australia or in the US their counterparts’ names are customarily followed with the word “retired.” Such practice is fair and decent so that people who may be dealing with the general know that he is no longer in active service and thus no longer in a position of power.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the prevalence of Thailand’s latent caste system, even low raking military and police personnel often refer to themselves with a title.
These examples reflect the prevalence of Thailand’s hierarchy, which places the royal family at the top of the pyramid.
The Thai King’s official name is Phra Bat Somdet Phra Poramintharamaha Bhumibol Adulyadej Mahitalathibet Ramathibodi Chakkrinaruebodin Sayamminthrathirat Borommanatbophit (in Thai พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช มหิตลาธิเบศรรามาธิบดี จักรีนฤบดินทร สยามินทราธิราช บรมนาถบพิตร).
The Queen of Thailand’s formal name and title is Somdet Phra Nang Chao Sirikit Phra.
As if their names and titles weren’t long and prestigious enough, through royal lobbyist efforts the royal couple have been bestowed with a number of honorary doctorate degrees from foreign universities, mainly in the USA.
For example, the Thai king was bestowed honorary doctorates in law from Tufts University and Ohio University in 1985 and 2000 respectively.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite a feat of scholarship; even more remarkable when it’s considered that King Bhumibol has not finished a bachelor’s degree from any college.
The Queen was given an honorary doctorate degree in Humane Letters from Tufts University and Georgetown University in 1981 and 1993 respectively. She received the same degree from Johns Hopkins University in 1995. The queen has never finished a bachelor’s level degree either.
As for Thai universities, the royal couple have been given honorary doctorates in all fields of knowledge by every university in the kingdom.
And in the world of Thai politics, politicians would also feel naked if she or he has no title preceding their name. Foreign universities’ doctorate degrees are the most sought-after by Thai politicians or other elitist individuals in the limelight of Thai society.
A number of Thai politicians shamefully call themselves “Doctor,” even though they purchased an “honorary” degree, not the conventional doctorate degree that requires them to conduct new research and complete a dissertation. Such behavior reflects the low quality of Thailand’s key leaders in Thailand.
Fortunately most decent universities would not sell their accreditation to any elitist Thai even when offered a huge amount of money.
I applaud the Australian National University for refusing to grant an honorary degree to King Bhumibol Adulyadej in August 1962, despite massive lobbying efforts by Thai diplomats and the country’s ambassador to Australia at the time.
Chatwadee Rose Amornpat is based in London. She was charged with lese majeste by the Thai junta in July 2014.