Prayut’s trip to Washington confirms US non-interventionist foreign policy opinion
October 03, 2017 01:00 By Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha answered President Donald Trump’s invitation yesterday by paying a call at the White House.
The trip cannot be simply treated as a restoration of US-Thai relations that were soured by the 2014 coup staged by Prayut and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).
The meeting between the two leaders in fact signals a departure from America’s role as democratic champion in Thailand and Southeast Asia, while establishing a comfort zone for the military government to operate both in the Thai political landscape and in US-Thai relations.
The Trump administration is now establishing a non-interventionist foreign policy in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world, echoing China’s foreign policy stance since the mid-1950s.
In the diplomatic language of the White House, Trump and Prayut were to “discuss ways to strengthen and broaden bilateral relations and enhance cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region”, with Thailand hoping that this would re-energise their relations.
The photo opportunity for Prayut and Trump, against the backdrop of the world’s most powerful office, reaffirms speculation that Trump’s “America First” foreign policy platform is putting US national interests above the promotion and protection of democracy and human rights.
Whether intended or not, the White House yesterday endorsed the NCPO’s “Thai-style democracy” – characterised by the suppression of political freedoms and free expression – and also accepted its rhetoric that Thailand is “not ready for democracy”. This could result in further delays in the Thai democratic timeline set by the NCPO.
The meeting rejects the democratic principle in the US constitution embodied in the words “We The People”, while endorsing the authoritarian and elitist model of governance in Southeast Asia.
Despite growing criticism of Trump’s democracy and human rights record, the US remains a global leader of liberal democracy. As such, a meeting with the US president is a visa for dictators and strongmen to enter the democratic world and whitewash themselves and their records. It enables them to legitimise their position at home and redefine democratic norms in a way that fits their regimes.
Thus, democracy without liberty and freedom is labelled illiberal democracy. Is this the form of democracy that best fits Thailand? Is this a form of governance that the US seeks to promote across the globe, following its engagement in the infamous Vietnam War it claimed was for democracy?
Washington’s imitation of Beijing’s “non-interference policy” not only undermines democratic progress in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world, but it also raises questions about America’s competence to review and criticise the state of democracy and human rights in foreign countries.
The US State Department’s 2017 Trafficking in Persons report kept Thailand on the “Tier 2 Watch List”, due to its failure to meet minimum standards. Yet Thailand is working hard to meet benchmarks set by the US, which proves that criticism from outside can improve human rights in the country.
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright emphasises that the promotion of democratic freedoms beyond America’s borders is a duty of the US government. Thus, if the US decides to compromise on the current state of Thai democracy and human rights, it will work in favour of the junta and against the Thai people.
In his inaugural speech at the United Nations, Trump said “we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch”. Nevertheless, the president must understand that protecting universal values of democracy cannot be considered as intervening in a foreign country’s affairs, while lending support to a dictator certainly constitutes intervention.
The US Embassy in Bangkok has remained aloof to persisting anti-American and anti-democratic sentiment in Thailand, especially in the Thai political divide of the past decade.
Trump’s compromise with the Thai junta will help soften anti-American sentiment among conservative Thais, while damaging the United States’ core foreign policy values – democracy and human rights.
“I don’t think the US should have invited him [Prayut] to the White House, because he did not come to power by an election. As such, he cannot represent the country”, comments a student from a university in the Northeast of Thailand, speaking anonymously.
Although US non-interference is not entirely a replication of its Chinese counterpart, Washington appears to be leaning further towards Beijing’s understanding of foreign policy.
Today, the world is increasingly concerned that Trump’s “America First” actually means “America Alone”, especially since the US departure from the Paris Climate Agreement. Under Trump, invitations to the White House are primarily intended to serve private US interests, while traditional American values and concern at the human rights records of allies take a back seat. One glaring example is the invite extended to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, whose war on drugs has seen at least 7,000 people assassinated in extra-judicial killings.
If the Trump administration wishes to maintain US leadership in promoting democracy beyond its borders, then it must reconsider its non-interference foreign policy stance. Otherwise the US will become just another China in Southeast Asia.
TITIPOL PHAKDEEWANICH is dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University, and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in England.
