opinion July 15, 2017 01:00
By Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Naton
After long speculation on the future of Thai-US relations under the new administration in Washington, a phone call and invitation to the White House from President Donald Trump to Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha sent a clear message that Thailand remains America’s strategic partner.
Although the trip has been postponed, the invitation raised significant concerns among democracy advocates in Thailand. They are worried first that Washington’s new priorities could delay Thailand’s timeline for return to democracy, and second that Trump’s diplomacy is a de facto endorsement for the Thai military to extend its grip on power and gain legitimacy on the global political stage.
Trump has been clear all along with both the American people and the rest of the world that his administration is all about “America First”. His political rhetoric has been criticised both at home and abroad by many who fear his administration is eroding “American values”, specifically of democracy and human rights, and also US global leadership.
In Bangkok, the US Embassy has attempted to demonstrate that America does and will continue to support democracy and human rights within Thailand. However, the unpredictable nature of Trump leaves pro-democracy groups with significant concerns that Washington could make a U-turn in its foreign policy direction whenever it chooses.
Trump’s speeches typically contain keywords we normally hear from US presidents, such as “democracy”, and “shared interests and values”. Indeed, these are essentially template messages from US presidents and State Secretaries, mentioned repeatedly when they speak to their global partners. Nevertheless, “security” has emerged above these as the most important keyword that Trump uses to address his domestic and foreign audiences.
How far can the Trump administration continue to be a democratic partner with Thailand? Trump and General Prayut share a low tolerance of criticism, particularly from the media. With his war against US media giants such as CNN and the New York Times – which he describes as bastions of “fake news” – Trump has undermined the United States’ role in promoting global press freedom.
Between 2010 and 2015, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) implemented the Sapan Programme, which was intended to promote democracy in Thailand. One of the main objectives was to empower civil society and the media to function as a check-and-balance mechanism within the political system. Is Trump capable of convincing his Thai partner to believe in this very American democratic element?
Washington’s policy stance towards Bangkok under President Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama appeared to be shaped by principles of democracy and human rights. The Obama administration made clear it regarded human rights as integral to US foreign policy. This is a rather different tone from that we are hearing from the Trump administration.
Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated: “It is unreasonable to expect that every foreign policy endeavour will be driven by human rights considerations alone, especially when the security of the American people is at stake.” This statement is in line with Trump’s focus on security, and with Trump as a market-capitalist president – human rights shouldn’t get in the way of American businesses making money.
According to the US government website ForeignAssistance.gov, the 2017 plans forThailand under the Trump administration are weighted 58 per cent towards “Democracy, Human Rights and Good Governance” and 42 per cent towards “Peace and Security”. Although these figures may boost hopes for American democratic engagement with Thailand, scepticism remains.
Pursuing security issues might be attractive for the Thai military government, but not necessary for the vast majority of Thais. If Trump’s bilateral dealings with Thailand are overshadowed by US policies on wider regional security issues, particularly the South China Sea and North Korea, then Washington cannot afford to overemphasise its military strength, since this could rekindle memories of its infamous military engagement during the Vietnam War. Today, a generation of Thais politicised by that war and other events of the 1970s remains sceptical of the US role, and questions its commitment to democracy.
“I thought I was free to read and believe in what I wanted regarding democracy. I didn’t understand why the Americans and the Thai army went after us, when we believed in communism, if they [America] said that democracy is freedom of expression. I had to choose between escaping to China or being killed like my friends in my hometown [Amnat Charoen],” said a woman who fled Thailand on foot to live in exile in China for almost 18 years during the US insurgency against communism in Indochina.
Before Trump became president Thailand saw occasional protests against the US, especially by Thais annoyed at its “unwelcome” opinions on the state of democracy and human rights here. One might assume these protesters were part of an anti-American movement. However, closer analysis reveals they fall primarily in to two categories – namely anti-American and anti-democracy.
In order to advance the interests of the US and protect American people in a country like Thailand, the exercise of soft power should be emphasised.
With respect to contemporary American history, most secretaries of state under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations acknowledged and highlighted the importance of US soft power, “smart” power, and people-to-people diplomacy.
In 2006, Secretary Condoleezza Rice introduced her idea of “transformational diplomacy”, a move away from depending exclusively on state-to-state relations. Instead, Rice suggested it was time for diplomacy to go beyond foreign capitals, using people-to-people contacts to enhance America’s reputation and interests.
Accordingly, social media have enabled the US Embassy in Bangkok to reach out and engage with young people, in addition to their conventional diplomacy in the capital. This younger generation generally celebrates liberty and freedoms, and craves for a more democratic environment.
Washington must not dismiss younger people from the equation of Thai-US relations, since they are the driving force for Thai democratic progress. And after all, promoting democracy within Thailand is not only in the interests of the country and the Thai people, but it also serves to benefit US engagement within the region.
By Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Naton
After long speculation on the future of Thai-US relations under the new administration in Washington, a phone call and invitation to the White House from President Donald Trump to Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha sent a clear message that Thailand remains America’s strategic partner.
Although the trip has been postponed, the invitation raised significant concerns among democracy advocates in Thailand. They are worried first that Washington’s new priorities could delay Thailand’s timeline for return to democracy, and second that Trump’s diplomacy is a de facto endorsement for the Thai military to extend its grip on power and gain legitimacy on the global political stage.
Trump has been clear all along with both the American people and the rest of the world that his administration is all about “America First”. His political rhetoric has been criticised both at home and abroad by many who fear his administration is eroding “American values”, specifically of democracy and human rights, and also US global leadership.
In Bangkok, the US Embassy has attempted to demonstrate that America does and will continue to support democracy and human rights within Thailand. However, the unpredictable nature of Trump leaves pro-democracy groups with significant concerns that Washington could make a U-turn in its foreign policy direction whenever it chooses.
Trump’s speeches typically contain keywords we normally hear from US presidents, such as “democracy”, and “shared interests and values”. Indeed, these are essentially template messages from US presidents and State Secretaries, mentioned repeatedly when they speak to their global partners. Nevertheless, “security” has emerged above these as the most important keyword that Trump uses to address his domestic and foreign audiences.
How far can the Trump administration continue to be a democratic partner with Thailand? Trump and General Prayut share a low tolerance of criticism, particularly from the media. With his war against US media giants such as CNN and the New York Times – which he describes as bastions of “fake news” – Trump has undermined the United States’ role in promoting global press freedom.
Between 2010 and 2015, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) implemented the Sapan Programme, which was intended to promote democracy in Thailand. One of the main objectives was to empower civil society and the media to function as a check-and-balance mechanism within the political system. Is Trump capable of convincing his Thai partner to believe in this very American democratic element?
Washington’s policy stance towards Bangkok under President Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama appeared to be shaped by principles of democracy and human rights. The Obama administration made clear it regarded human rights as integral to US foreign policy. This is a rather different tone from that we are hearing from the Trump administration.
Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated: “It is unreasonable to expect that every foreign policy endeavour will be driven by human rights considerations alone, especially when the security of the American people is at stake.” This statement is in line with Trump’s focus on security, and with Trump as a market-capitalist president – human rights shouldn’t get in the way of American businesses making money.
According to the US government website ForeignAssistance.gov, the 2017 plans forThailand under the Trump administration are weighted 58 per cent towards “Democracy, Human Rights and Good Governance” and 42 per cent towards “Peace and Security”. Although these figures may boost hopes for American democratic engagement with Thailand, scepticism remains.
Pursuing security issues might be attractive for the Thai military government, but not necessary for the vast majority of Thais. If Trump’s bilateral dealings with Thailand are overshadowed by US policies on wider regional security issues, particularly the South China Sea and North Korea, then Washington cannot afford to overemphasise its military strength, since this could rekindle memories of its infamous military engagement during the Vietnam War. Today, a generation of Thais politicised by that war and other events of the 1970s remains sceptical of the US role, and questions its commitment to democracy.
“I thought I was free to read and believe in what I wanted regarding democracy. I didn’t understand why the Americans and the Thai army went after us, when we believed in communism, if they [America] said that democracy is freedom of expression. I had to choose between escaping to China or being killed like my friends in my hometown [Amnat Charoen],” said a woman who fled Thailand on foot to live in exile in China for almost 18 years during the US insurgency against communism in Indochina.
Before Trump became president Thailand saw occasional protests against the US, especially by Thais annoyed at its “unwelcome” opinions on the state of democracy and human rights here. One might assume these protesters were part of an anti-American movement. However, closer analysis reveals they fall primarily in to two categories – namely anti-American and anti-democracy.
In order to advance the interests of the US and protect American people in a country like Thailand, the exercise of soft power should be emphasised.
With respect to contemporary American history, most secretaries of state under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations acknowledged and highlighted the importance of US soft power, “smart” power, and people-to-people diplomacy.
In 2006, Secretary Condoleezza Rice introduced her idea of “transformational diplomacy”, a move away from depending exclusively on state-to-state relations. Instead, Rice suggested it was time for diplomacy to go beyond foreign capitals, using people-to-people contacts to enhance America’s reputation and interests.
Accordingly, social media have enabled the US Embassy in Bangkok to reach out and engage with young people, in addition to their conventional diplomacy in the capital. This younger generation generally celebrates liberty and freedoms, and craves for a more democratic environment.
Washington must not dismiss younger people from the equation of Thai-US relations, since they are the driving force for Thai democratic progress. And after all, promoting democracy within Thailand is not only in the interests of the country and the Thai people, but it also serves to benefit US engagement within the region.
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.
