How The Eu Offends

[Old Man River]

Just curious. Did the EU simply decide unilaterally that this would be right for Thailand and make a direct approach, or were they invited by someone (group) to talk to the government about acting as observers/monitors?

What do i know - i am not a EU diplomat.

Thailand though has a lot more to lose by offending the EU than the EU by offending Thailand. If the EU is not assured of stability in Thailand, then it will advice its corporations to be careful with investment here.

The only thing i know is that the mood towards Thailand's future stability in foreign embassies is lower than it was in decades, and promotion tours of the present government have seemingly not achieved their aim of assuring the rest of the world of its stability.

Colpyat, I would never accuse you of such a thing! I just wanted to know if they were invited or whether the EU has unilaterally decided to be the international authority on elections, armed with their MOU's.

It sounds a bit over the top. It is formalizing what has been an informal, friendly situation between governments. If it gets too formalized, then the US will require twice the documentation the EU requires and other counties will do the same. Soon, nobody will be invited, except maybe the Chinese.

[Mid]

Bush backs Thai return to democracy

(BangkokPost.com) - US President George W Bush gave moral support to Thailand in restoring democracy, Thai ambassador to Washington Krit Garnjana-Goonchorn said Friday.

snip

He also said that US representatives are interested in observing the upcoming general election, but that must be done under the election laws.

snip

BangkokPost.com

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, I would never accuse you of such a thing!

Problem is that military coups are not exactly internationally accepted solutions of political change, or the correct answer for a political crises. What most definitely has increased the problems were the many strange decisions of the present government regarding business laws.

And it also was recognized that the referendum was not handled in the most free and fair way. The reports of what could be considered as violations, such as arrest of opposition leaders, confiscation of campaign material, etc., have definitely been noted. Pro coup and pro government academics may refute those accusations, but more than a few internationally recognized academics have a different view on this.

The foreign embassies are very insecure about Thailand's future and return to democracy, and the EU as one of the largest investors in Thailand understandably will want to have observers. If Thailand did not invite them, then i would say that this was one of the many diplomatic failures of this puppet government of a military junta. Thai Nationalism may be agenda of the military, but on an international level - it does create insecurity.

The world is not a level playing field, and as important Thailand is regionally, its importance is decreasing with the economical opening of many previously closed countries in its neighborhood.

[Old Man River]

The foreign embassies are very insecure about Thailand's future and return to democracy, and the EU as one of the largest investors in Thailand understandably will want to have observers.

Wanting to have observers is one thing, coming in to save the day with their MOU, albeit negotiable, is something completely different. The EU may be one of the largest investors (FDI) in Thailand, but they are not the largest. I don't see Japan marching in with their MOU (they are #1), nor the US (#2). Electoral observation should remain informal and friendly, otherwise the whole process of observation runs the risk of becoming politicized.

However, if martial law isn't lifted this issue of observation becomes academic. The results of the election will never be viewed as free and fair regardless of who observes as questions will always remain.

Kudos for Abhisit for being at the forefront in calling for the lifting of martial law.

[ourmanflint]

nice to see things haven't changed in my absence from the forums...

Still see those that believe that Thailand is beyond any kind of criticism as to it's openness and democratic principles.. I really would have thought that the people of Thailand would welcome any independent body to "monitor" it's elections.

[Old Man River]

nice to see things haven't changed in my absence from the forums...

Still see those that believe that Thailand is beyond any kind of criticism as to it's openness and democratic principles.. I really would have thought that the people of Thailand would welcome any independent body to "monitor" it's elections.

Monitoring carries a degree of involvement that is greater than observing. It is one thing to politely observe what is happening and report it, it is something else to actively monitor the process and potentially interfere with it.

How about your country? Would they like foreign governments to come in and monitor their elections? Mine wouldn't.

[ColPyat]

The foreign embassies are very insecure about Thailand's future and return to democracy, and the EU as one of the largest investors in Thailand understandably will want to have observers.

Wanting to have observers is one thing, coming in to save the day with their MOU, albeit negotiable, is something completely different. The EU may be one of the largest investors (FDI) in Thailand, but they are not the largest. I don't see Japan marching in with their MOU (they are #1), nor the US (#2). Electoral observation should remain informal and friendly, otherwise the whole process of observation runs the risk of becoming politicized.

However, if martial law isn't lifted this issue of observation becomes academic. The results of the election will never be viewed as free and fair regardless of who observes as questions will always remain.

Kudos for Abhisit for being at the forefront in calling for the lifting of martial law.

It would have been more commendable if Abhisit would have demanded the same before the referendum.

If my country would have experienced a military coup - then i would hope to have international observers and monitors having a very close look at the elections.

[candoman89]

My goodness; who actually cares about democracy in Thailand...........everybody knows it doesn't exist. There will be vote buying and what will the EU (those arrogant whites) or the Election Commission (those xenophobic Thais) do about it? ..diddley squat.

Everybody knows this place is a banana republic (but I love it here and probably for that same reason) and nobody respects this current or previous governments. We all know the "elected" officials will strap on the feed-bag as soon as they get "elected" (same as they do in America) and it doesn't matter who exactly is elected anyways. They won't take responsibility and nobody will respect them anyway.

Off to meditate on the golf course

[jts-khorat]

will most likely provoke a public uproar and opponents will have a field day turning the issue into ammunition to launch against the government

what even the English-writing Bangkok Post commentator here does not get is: Thailand HAS CURRENTLY NO GOVERNMENT.

If the junta really would like to get the country back on track they should actually be extremely happy for any helping hand that somebody -- anybody -- will reach out to them.

[samran]

The foreign embassies are very insecure about Thailand's future and return to democracy, and the EU as one of the largest investors in Thailand understandably will want to have observers.

Wanting to have observers is one thing, coming in to save the day with their MOU, albeit negotiable, is something completely different. The EU may be one of the largest investors (FDI) in Thailand, but they are not the largest. I don't see Japan marching in with their MOU (they are #1), nor the US (#2). Electoral observation should remain informal and friendly, otherwise the whole process of observation runs the risk of becoming politicized.

However, if martial law isn't lifted this issue of observation becomes academic. The results of the election will never be viewed as free and fair regardless of who observes as questions will always remain.

Kudos for Abhisit for being at the forefront in calling for the lifting of martial law.

It would have been more commendable if Abhisit would have demanded the same before the referendum.

If my country would have experienced a military coup - then i would hope to have international observers and monitors having a very close look at the elections.

true, but I guess a related issue which over rides all of this is the issue of national soverignty. All countries in the world guard it jelously - to the extent that they'll fire shots at each other over a useless piece of 100 sqm land in a river that forms their common border. Diplomatic corps here in BKK flout road rules that even Thai's can't break....knowing that they can't be touched...the sacred concept of diplomatic immunity

This is no exception, democracy or not, I think you'll find that most countries will rebut any interference in their internal processes if it means a foreign party gets a say over them (unless their is some sort of trade off elsewhere....EU shrimp imports anyone??). That we have a junta running the show doesn't help the cause, but I don't think it is the source of the problem per se.

[Gravelrash]

Agree, most democratic countries wouldn't like to have monitors due to the message that conveys. Somewhat doubt the military dictatorship nor the parties planning to buy and manipulate votes here would be excited at the prospect, probably less so for the message it conveys rather than them getting in the way. All no doubt have their own shady game plans to ease noses into the trough and wouldn't want the interference.

Even if EU allowed and caught out inconsistencies, it would be smiles, wais and blaming farang evil interests attacking the purity of Thais to choose their own destiny etc etc. It would be undemocratic in fact.

I still believe democracy is the best form of government (just look at the alternatives), but realistically surely we all know darn well that vested interests back home donate to political parties because they expect and will receive the payback on the election of their favoured party. Furtermore TV has made the most personable, not most proficient leaders win elections, desire to better the community is hardly a factor. As such it is a pretty thin argument to attack Thai politicians who simply operate under the system that works here to get elected. Methinks we should clean our own house before throwing stones.

[Old Man River]

It would have been more commendable if Abhisit would have demanded the same before the referendum.

Sometimes the end simply has to justify the means.

In this morning's Burning Issue (Nation), Pravit Rojanaphruk brought up Gen. Saiyud's ignored report that the referendum had the fingerprints of the junta and the military everywhere in trying to direct the vote to go in one direction. For those that don't know, besides being P-Net's Chairman, Gen. Saiyud is also a former Supreme Commander of the Military and the military strategist that developed ISOC in its original form. Hence, when he issues such a report, you can be sure that is exactly what P-Net's 4,000 volunteers in 41 provinces witnessed. Abhisit understood this would be the case from the outset and decided the battle for democracy was best waged during the election, not the referendum that was going to pass one way or another.