Despite the hype over obama's visit, Thailand must take lead

Despite the hype over obama's visit, Thailand must take lead

Titipol Phakdeewanich

Special to The Nation November 15, 2012 1:00 am

US President Barack Obama will be making his first visit to Thailand this weekend as part of a wider tour of the region, where the focus will be on the East Asia Summit in Cambodia and a historic visit to Myanmar. No doubt there will be significant hype in the national media when President Obama arrives in Thailand, despite this aspect of his tour being primarily a diplomatic courtesy call to mark 180 years of Thai-US relations.

Because of this, we can expect little in the way of real substance to emerge out of any planned meetings with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra or other senior Thai officials. Today, the old cry of "What will the US do for Thailand?" has lost much of its meaning as international dynamics shift, and an up-to-date grasp of the way in which the world works becomes a key priority.

Back in 2011, before a bilateral meeting between Thailand and the US, President Obama stated: "The United States and Thailand are two of the oldest of allies. We have established a great friendship over the years. We have a wide range of areas of common interest and cooperation."

Despite the warm words of President Obama, however, in the post-global financial crisis period, where key players such as the US and China are busy reassessing their priorities and national interests, a country such as Thailand must be ever increasingly responsible in ensuring its attractiveness for international partners, both economically and politically.

At this time, the fragile state of Thailand's stop-start democracy is being brought into focus. The Pitak Siam Group plans to hold more protests on the November 24 in support of military intervention, once again. This issue will necessarily inform the context as the world's most powerful politician and most influential advocate for democratic progress is set to visit the country. 

What message, then, is inevitably sent out when Thailand is presented with such a rare opportunity to show a US president what the nation can offer? Inevitably - for as long as there continues to exist the possibility of another Thai coup - otherwise-willing international partners will adjust their level of engagement as and when relations become increasingly politically problematic. 

If President Obama remains concerted in his efforts to rebuild the moral authority of the US around the world - which suffered such damage to its reputation during the previous administration - he will be concerned to achieve consistency in his message when it comes to the issues of democracy, human rights and freedom of expression.

In attempting to better engage with a country such as the US, therefore, Thailand must firmly establish itself as a trusted and reliable democratic partner. This remains the responsibility of Thailand. Despite ongoing political instability, the six years that have passed since the last military coup of 2006 will have at least encouraged democratic nations to reach out towards a democratically elected Thai government. 

Notably this month, much of the focus on international relations will be centred around the East Asia Summit in Cambodia, and this has provided the current government with an excellent opportunity to place extra emphasis on building up Thailand's international status.

It is the busiest couple of weeks yet for Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on the international stage, since taking office last year. First, there was her audience in the UK with Queen Elizabeth, which will be followed by planned meetings with President Obama and then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. This sends out the message that although the Yingluck government's status continues to be questioned by many Thais, this government is fully recognised by Thailand's international partners. 

In politics it is tempting to focus effort where and when there is a greater likelihood of a political return, and for President Obama and his advisors there are a number of factors to consider when it comes to the Asia-Pacific region and Asean. Indonesia and Vietnam especially may appear to offer significant opportunities in this regard, as both nations continue their impressive growth rates and become more democratic. Continued progress on Myanmar also has the potential to be politically rewarding for President Obama.

Thailand’s perceived strategic advantage within mainland Southeast Asia, and economic development opportunities on its borders with Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, have been major incentives for leading actors such as the US, China and the European Union to make the effort required to engage with successive Thai governments. Thailand, however, will not want to risk being perceived as simply a regional transitory hub and strategic base for others.

Therefore, Thailand must act more effectively in proving itself a reliable ally, and in taking a leadership role with regard to international partnership agreements. For example, the Lower Mekong Initiative, which was announced in 2009 by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the foreign ministers of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam, has made little progress as of yet.

President Obama may now expect to persuade the Asia-Pacific region and the member countries of Asean to follow his vision in speaking out against political entrenchment, and in attempting to challenge the status quo. But with the ongoing colour-code politics strait-jacketing Thailand's democratic progress, how can any Thai political leader expect to be able to meet the US president halfway? 

Sentiments that remain at the core of US foreign policy were well stated by former president Bill Clinton during his own presidential visit to Thailand in 1996: "The United States will continue to stand with those who stand for freedom in Asia and beyond."

When all things are considered, we may quickly realise that nothing can be taken for granted in the 21st century. International policy-makers and political actors may shift their emphasis and attempt new approaches as they look towards the most promising opportunities and the latest beacons of hope. 

This ought to suggest that Thailand must be careful to avoid missing this key opportunity to re-establish itself at the heart of progress and democracy within the region.

Why money politics is such a challenge to all of us

Why money politics is such a challenge to all of us

Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation November 2, 2012 1:00 am

Just five years ago, during his famous address to announce his campaign for the US presidency, Barack Obama stated: "The cynics and the lobbyists and the special interests who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play ... they think they own this government. But we're here today to take it back."

But it is now anticipated that incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, now in their final week of the 2012 presidential campaign, will each manage to spend a new world record of US$1 billion as they battle for the top job in politics. Seemingly then, after four years of Barack Obama's presidency, there is very little sign of a decline in the influence of these lobbyists. It is as though, despite the apparent attempts of the president, they are here to stay after all.

It is often said that money is indeed the root of all evil. Then, in an era of money politics, what does this say about current political systems both in the US and also in Thailand?

Hardly a day goes by without another revelation about the questionable financial affairs of a Thai politician or his business associate. So there is clearly a need to bring reform to the ongoing problem of political corruption here at home.

The approach taken by the US has been to formalise the flow of finances between politicians, corporations and business insiders through the lobby system. Its apparent pitfalls still include the opportunity for big business to insinuate itself ahead of the electorate, within the political process. Nevertheless, this system does at least attempt to increase financial transparency by bringing money from under the table into the light of day. In doing so, such a system provides voters with the opportunity to both scrutinise and hold their political representatives more fully accountable.

Of course, the fact that no system is ever perfect cannot be a valid justification in refusing to entertain new approaches to the question of reform. This applies especially when the evidence for success can be found in other political systems overseas.

Thailand's democracy is somewhat modelled on the British system, where money politics is apparently less of an issue. Even in the case of the historic UK parliamentary scandal of 2009, corruption can still be measured in the thousands of pounds. This is hardly the case in either the US or Thailand, where the figures far exceed that, and where we are talking about millions rather than merely thousands. 

One of the reasons for these differences, and especially between the US and the UK, is to do with the nature of the political career itself. In the UK, one rarely enters politics in order to make a buck, and highly qualified individuals often take a pay cut to enter parliament.

The same cannot be said of either Thailand or the US, however, where the suspicion always remains that individuals are tempted into politics because of a desire for power and the opportunity for wealth that it brings.

Regardless of the political system, however, vested interests will always attempt to find ways to subvert the existing checks and balances. Just as worryingly, such interests are also actively involved in both stalling and subverting any serious future attempts at challenging the ongoing problem of political corruption.

So then, what are we to do? As we become increasingly frustrated at political stagnation, corruption and failed policies that are all reinforced by the entrenched patronage system, positive progress appears less likely. And yes, it would indeed seem to be a daunting and unrealistic task if we are to expect overnight success in much-needed reforms. 

Clearly, in the case of Thailand, it is the patronage system itself that must be thoroughly challenged if we are to resist the tendency to fall yet again straight into the vote-buying scenario come election time.

The Election Commission of Thailand has ultimately failed in its task of ending vote-buying at both the national and local levels. And the evidence that this significant problem persists can be found in the many cases that continue be publicised across Thailand. 

Just this October, in Si Sa Ket, it was revealed that one local candidate running for head of a tambon administrative organisation spent over Bt1 million in the campaign. And even this wasn't enough to secure electoral victory. Most of this spending was for vote-buying, at Bt500-800 per vote, and it went undeclared. But such a scenario is, of course, an old story.

If Thailand is to successfully forge its own system, then a new degree of flexibility in embracing a range of approaches will improve the odds. To a great extent, the real opportunity for political scrutiny begins when there is a raised awareness amongst the population of the possible solutions. In this regard, developing a more formalised lobby system is one thing, and increased respect for due process is another. In addition, term limits may help to dissuade the opportunists who seek a "return on investment" in building a political career over the long term. 

Critically, it is the mindset of the public that ultimately must shift. For as long as it remains normalised in one's mind that the problems are unfixable, and that no change is possible, then this apathy only helps to reinforce systemic problems.

We all know that "money talks". But in the recent words of the US politician Barney Frank, who was one of the more prominent reformers in the wake of the global financial crisis: "When you equate money with speech … the equality principle gets eroded."

Whatever system Thailand ultimately decides upon, it must guarantee that the voices of its people are louder than the noise generated by money as it changes hands.

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.