Us Visit Will Boost Thailand's Image: Pm

[geriatrickid]

Aren't you glad that it's Abhisit and not Samak or Chalerm are representing Thailand?

He's not only the best this country has to show, he's the only choice.

There is no argument that PM Abhisit is a gentleman and likeable man that will not embarass the country in public. Yes, it is better he be there than some of the other characters back home. However, the legacy of the military coup hangs over his head. The issue isn't whether he was involved or implicated, but one of other governments having to watch what they say and do because of their respective positions in respect to governments where there has been a coup. PM Abhisit suffers from the damage the coup caused. It's not his doing, but it's his burden to carry. Other countries realize he's a bit of a lameduck, hemmed and boxed in by various selfish political factions.

Indonesia and China are members of the G-20. Thailand is not. The ASEAN group does not have formal status at the G-20 meetings. There are several members of the ASEAN group in attendance so the interests of that group are considered to be accounted for. Who do you think will have more influence at the meetings? The ASEAN members of the G-20, or Thailand as messenger boy? If the ASEAN secretariat was considered important then it would have a formal place at the meetings like the President of the EU and would have received a formal participatory invite.

I really don't think the governments outside of the region give a flying F*k about Thailand - well at least anymore than they do about Ghana or Chile. The tip off is when you read language couched in diplomatic niceties on the foreign government websites that igive the impression that Thailand is a cesspool of crime. Governments that consider another country important do not post scathing, embarrassing statements like those seen on the Australian, Canadian etc. government websites. Read the material and you'll quickly get a good understanding of how foreign governments perceive Thailand.

[ballpoint]

We're certainly privileged here on TV to have so many foreign policy insiders from the major world powers to tell us exactly what their governments think of Thailand and Abhisit. I'm just trying to figure out which username belongs to Hillary Clinton. I know you're a member here maam, the insightfulness of some of the posts telling us the true feelings of the US towards Abhisit can come from no one else but you.

Or, is it just a case of sour grapes from some that Abhisit is out on the world stage, looking good, making intelligent speeches, and not dragging his knuckles when he walks, while their hero is reduced to phoning in to rallies, begging for a pardon and looking for a miracle, and whose last major global appearance was the pathetic whining of the preprepared speech he came up with on CNN during Songkhran?

[geriatrickid]

Uhh ballpoint, the issue here isn't Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Thaksin. PM Abhisit claims his visit to the USA boosts Thailand's image. Although the average Joe in a foreign street probably has no idea where Thailand is, for the minority of people that read or pay attention to current events, Thailand's image is one of turmoil, corruption and sex tourism. The true picture is obviously different, but we are dealing with perceptions. The perception of Thailand during Mr. Thaksin's reign would have been corruption and sex tourism.

Turmoil is what PM Abhisit has to deal with and by the fact that he was not deposed by the military or that there were no violent street protests as PM Abhisit went in search of photo ops, does give the impression that the heat on the stove has been turned down from boil to simmer. It doesn't boost Thailand's image in the foreign market. Thai politics can turn on a baht and you don't have to have graduated from the various foreign services training seminars on SE Asian politics to understand that. It's like a kid that's still in diapers being able to tell mommy that he made a poopie in his diapers. Yes, he said he was going to poop, but there's still poop in the diaper.

When a PM has to say that a photo op trip boost's the natioal image, the situation has to be rather grim don't you think?

[ballpoint]

When a PM has to say that a photo op trip boost's the natioal image, the situation has to be rather grim don't you think?

The situation is somewhat grim, but not as grim as it's made out to be by the red shirts, and, to a lessor extent, the yellows. When there is a loose cannon openly calling for the overthrow of the government; when various factions, who are by no means even the slightest majority of the people, regularly protest with or without violence, some at the behest of the loose cannon, some in opposition to him; when antigovernment propaganda, including lies about what the government has and has not achieved, is rampant, then of course the PM is going to milk any opportunity to show the country, his government and himself being accepted by the world community to the Thai people, and, if it helps to settle the present situation even in the smallest way, it is an appropriate thing to do. How many other world leaders have made sure photo's of themselves with Barack Obama are prominantly displayed on the front pages of their national newspapers this week? However distasteful those leaders may be to Mr Obama, his government is dealing with them, as it is dealing with Abhisit as the representative of the Thai government and people. And I'll wager that Abhisit ranks well down his list of distastefulness. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking by some posters here that Abhisit and Thailand are currently pariahs in the world community. It's almost as if these posters don't have any concern for the wellbeing of Thailand and its people, but would like the violence, political chaos and uncertainty to continue just so they can smugly say "told you so".

[Publicus]

Uhh ballpoint, the issue here isn't Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Thaksin. PM Abhisit claims his visit to the USA boosts Thailand's image. Although the average Joe in a foreign street probably has no idea where Thailand is, for the minority of people that read or pay attention to current events, Thailand's image is one of turmoil, corruption and sex tourism. The true picture is obviously different, but we are dealing with perceptions. The perception of Thailand during Mr. Thaksin's reign would have been corruption and sex tourism.

Turmoil is what PM Abhisit has to deal with and by the fact that he was not deposed by the military or that there were no violent street protests as PM Abhisit went in search of photo ops, does give the impression that the heat on the stove has been turned down from boil to simmer. It doesn't boost Thailand's image in the foreign market. Thai politics can turn on a baht and you don't have to have graduated from the various foreign services training seminars on SE Asian politics to understand that. It's like a kid that's still in diapers being able to tell mommy that he made a poopie in his diapers. Yes, he said he was going to poop, but there's still poop in the diaper.

When a PM has to say that a photo op trip boost's the natioal image, the situation has to be rather grim don't you think?

Who's kidding whom here?

Foreign governments and investors know the positions of the parties in the Thai parliament in respect to the major issues of improved government and governance in Thailand, and it's clear to any Western democracy that Abhisit and his party are pursuing the most improved path in Thailand since...since...since who knows when? In sharp contrast, the other parties are pushing more of the same old and destructive <deleted>.

Abhisit had the confidence in his position in office to travel abroad to address the UN General Assembly and on to the G-20 to present and represent the new thinking and aspirations in Thailand and to present himself as the fresh voice and breath of fresh air which is beginning to whisk in change they can believe in and in which leaders of government know the significant demographic groups advocate and believe in. I am confident Abhisit was both impressive and persuasive.

Conversely, the barrage of posts trashing Thailand clearly stand with the grubby business as usual crowd that have repelled democratic governmets and investors and which would happily further drag Thailand deeper into the deep muck and mire the old guard of Thailand has created and so much needs and enjoys to its own selfish and greedy advantage.

Abhisit is presenting to the world the possibility of a new Thailand on the move towards change. He faces a mountain before him which is very high and governments throughout the world know this. Let's give the guy the boost upwards he and his supporters need and deserve.

Who would be better as PM, Newin, Chalerm--Thaksin?!? Get with the new and positive dynamic instead of fighting it.

[cdnvic]

If you want your post to live, don't include insults against other members. If you can't make an intelligent arguement without personal attacks, keep it to yourself.

One post deleted.

[justanothercybertosser]

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking by some posters here that Abhisit and Thailand are currently pariahs in the world community. It's almost as if these posters don't have any concern for the wellbeing of Thailand and its people, but would like the violence, political chaos and uncertainty to continue just so they can smugly say "told you so".

Abhisit is not important enough to be either pariah or leader. He is a face that blathers the same speech he is supposed to hold since he has been made Prime Minister by his lords and masters.

It is quite undemocratic and even impolite that you imply that posters who do not share your political views may not have any concern for the "wellbeing" of Thailand. On the opposite - in a supposed democracy people are free to hold differing views. Not the elusive "unity" but diverse views have made democracies so successful and resilient, especially the freedom to question all and everything. That freedom we do not have in Thailand.

[david96]

Presidents, Prime ministers and their entourage are just "travelling salesmen" interested in their own inflated egos. All paid for by taxpayers. Most of these "summits" are not required.

All "up each other" in other words.

[hardy1943]

Compare and contrast:

Thaksin: doing "call ins" from a "nearby" country, agitating revolutionaries, running from justice, scrambling for passports

Abhisit: Standing man to man with Barack Obama, the most popular world leader in decades

Yes, I would say Abhisit has helped his cause. Very much.

You have to be joking that <snip> does not even belong in the same building as Obama

[Plus]

You ever thought to consider that support of Privy Council and the military could be viewed as a guarantor of Abhisit's weight and govt stability whereas some party with Thai style electoral mandate that wishes to overthrow the long existing orders is a bad news in every sense.

[animatic]

I guess it is not surprising that the lockstep anti Abhisit brigade is so up in arms over this.

Most all nations have a predominent force that hand picks a few choices for leadership that the electorate

votes on. In Parliamantary Governments horse trading and arm twisting by all vested interests is totally

typical, but who gets the final chair and how they act is of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.

When Bush the idiot son is all but laughing out loud at Somchai's blatherings, it is clearly ineffective.

Lets not forget Samak's truely ludacrous 'summit' and photo op with Bush in transit; a new low.

Both those boyo's were not just controlled by someone else, they were patently controlled by Thaksin,

while on the run.So please explain why THAT is a better situation than Abhisit being horsetraded into

the seat by TOTALLY LEGAL parliamentary means. Don't start on 'it's the army and elites' line, that's covered above.

There is now talk of a US/ASEAN summit, and that no doubt has a lot to do with Abhisit's demeanor,

while dealing with his counterparts and ASEAN solidarity improving a bit,. Hillery spent more time than

might have been expected checking out 1st hand how the situation has improved under his helm,

and the fruits of that are now being seen.

So now we will hear from the Anti-Hillary crew, the anti-Yomama conservative/racist crew,

the anti-amorphous elite crew, and no doubt the neo-postmodern high socialist crews,

and semi-dicrete anti-monarchist as worst elites crews: all will now weight in and flame me

about how BAD it is that Abhisit didn't get a street vote mandate, ignoring that he got a

legal and proper parliamentary mandate, and how we should return a Thaksin PROXY to power...

Even if this means purchased mandate of a puppet.. a return to Samak via Chalerm,

or a return to Somchai via that Bow Tied little cypher puppet party leader.

Neither is a way forward for Thailand, only a way back to the abyss.

Some times it is much better in life bigger gambles... to Stand Pat.

Edited September 28, 2009 by animatic

[Scott]

We do have posters who have worked in various capacities for the U.S. Department of State and the Embassy. I don't know if any currently do. So do be careful about discounting everyone's ability to know about the subject. There is also a a periodical which is available that discusses U.S. Foreign policy.

You can rest assured that the U.S. gov't as well as most other gov'ts know the ins and outs of Thai politics. From the U.S. side, they have long known that the real power that most affects them lies with the military and above. Much of the time it's the military keeping the PM in the loop, rather than the other way around. Examples of how this works are the 'not-so-secret' prisons and the Rohyinga situation. When the US needs to use the air bases here do you think they call the PM?

Investors are more interested in what the PM has to say and how he looks, but that said, they look at the reality, not the words.

Abhisit's trip did make him look good on the world stage, but this is more for local domestic consumption than anything else.

(Oh, and by the way, Thaksin made a trip to the White house as well).

[jayboy]

You ever thought to consider that support of Privy Council and the military could be viewed as a guarantor of Abhisit's weight and govt stability whereas some party with Thai style electoral mandate that wishes to overthrow the long existing orders is a bad news in every sense.

No never thought that not least because it's a topsy turvy Alice through the Looking Glass way of looking at the world.I suppose one could argue the same point the other way round, namely that a plausible PM like Abhisit with clean underpants and an Old Etonian tie gives weight and stability to a discredited military (political meddling,criminality, corruption and incompetence) and a Privy Council that in the politest possible way I can think of has perhaps exceeded its constitutional role.The "Thai style electoral mandate" you mention, flawed though it is, at least gives some major influence to the Thai people as opposed to some self appointed guardians whose record anyway is at worst appalling and at best self interested.

What do you mean by long existing orders anyway? If it's some veiled reference to the constitutional monarchy that's nonsense although the propagandists for the status quo always flings this accusation around (in the knowledge the subject is ultra sensitive ) .In fact the constitutional monarchy is one of Thailand's greatest strengths and there's no support for "overthrow" to use your term except from a tiny number on the loony left.If you mean the unsavoury collection of generals, monopolistic businessmen, fat cat bureaucrats , feudal functionaries and reactionaries who have caused so much damage to this country then I would tend to agree.These groups need a thorough shake up and a reminder they are the servants of the Thai people, and are accountable to them.

[Bagwan]

I agree that Abhisit has made a good impression and Thailand has made a step forward. However I cannot help but wonder how many foreign newspapers printed pictures of his handshake with the US Prez. I have to conclude that it wasn't an earthshaking event.

BTW didn't Thaksin have a US Embassy official fired because on his arrival there, there was no red carpet, band and guard of honour? Wasn't he ushered into the White House through a side (or the back) door?

[Scott]

Whatever power Thaksin may have, I can assure you he doesn't have the power to have a Department of State employee fired.

I don't exactly recall Thaksin's visit, but I don't think it fell into one of those big red carpet events.

[Thai at Heart]

If getting through a summit without a domestic crisis bringing the country to it's knees is an achievement, we are obviously aiming pretty low.

Well done Thailand.

[animatic]

I may remember incorrectly, but,

wasn't it the Thai Embassy guy in Washington who got fired

for not getting Thaksin enough of an Official Fanfare on his Washington visit?

Side door, no red carpet, one photo op wit W. and Thaksin looking fair to looney:

like those bobbing head ducks into a water cup.... rather apropos actually.

I am quite sure Thaksin was subject to a multi-page report showing his shenanigans in stark relief.

[animatic]

So far we haven't seen the expected "nattering nabobs of negativism"

weighing-in all to light weight here, well the day's not done.

RIP Bill Safire,

great line had to use it!

[Jingthing]

If getting through a summit without a domestic crisis bringing the country to it's knees is an achievement, we are obviously aiming pretty low.

Well done Thailand.

All the sour grapes in this thread are getting me drunk. Not that I'm complaining. it was a good year.

[jayboy]

So far we haven't seen the expected "nattering nabobs of negativism"

weighing-in all to light weight here, well the day's not done.

RIP Bill Safire,

great line had to use it!

Wasn't "nattering nabobs" Spiro Agnew's line?

[Jingthing]

So far we haven't seen the expected "nattering nabobs of negativism"

weighing-in all to light weight here, well the day's not done.

RIP Bill Safire,

great line had to use it!

Wasn't "nattering nabobs" Spiro Agnew's line?

Agnew mouthed them. Safire wrote the nattering one.

Agnew was known for his scathing criticisms of political opponents, especially journalists and anti-war activists. He attacked his adversaries with relish, hurling unusual, often alliterative epithets — some of which were coined by White House speechwriters William Safire and Pat Buchanan — including "pusillanimous pussyfooters", "nattering nabobs of negativism" (written by Safire), and "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history".[5] He once described a group of opponents as "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."

Wiki Edited September 28, 2009 by Jingthing

[animatic]

Yes, Jing beat me too it.

Hated Buchanan always, still do,

but Bill Safire at least had some real class,

even if I didn't agree all the time.

[Plus]

If you mean the unsavoury collection of generals, monopolistic businessmen, fat cat bureaucrats , feudal functionaries and reactionaries who have caused so much damage to this country then I would tend to agree.These groups need a thorough shake up and a reminder they are the servants of the Thai people, and are accountable to them.

Yes, that's what I meant.

And the last thing the US need here is a "thorough shake up" of the existing order by some populist party with no credentials or a proven track record but full of "servants of the people" rhetoric that no one believes.

They (the US) weren't worried about Thaksin until it became evident that it's him or Thailand they you know choice.

[Publicus]

I agree that Abhisit has made a good impression and Thailand has made a step forward. However I cannot help but wonder how many foreign newspapers printed pictures of his handshake with the US Prez. I have to conclude that it wasn't an earthshaking event.

BTW didn't Thaksin have a US Embassy official fired because on his arrival there, there was no red carpet, band and guard of honour? Wasn't he ushered into the White House through a side (or the back) door?

Abhisit's visit to the US has been a multi-purpose one, splashing images of himself with Pres Obama throughout the Thai media being the most important personal one. Whether or not Abhisit and Obama shaking hands appeared anywhere in the media of, say, Estonia has zero bearing to anyone here (or there).

It was a Thai Embassy guy whom Thaksin fired. I know from my Army days in the Military District of Washington Command that there is a schedule of ceremonies which are appropriate to a visiting foreign dignitary, from head of state to head of government to foreign or defense minister to Interior Minister to Minister of Environment etc etc. Thaksin was a head of government but never got the full monty (as it were) of an arrival and departure ceremony involving bands, flags, crack ceremonial troops etc. Thaksin's compensation by Bush was to be ushered into the Oval Office through the door flanked by portraits of Washington and Lincoln, the photo and footage appearing in the Thai media (Thaksin looked less than pleased).

It's been a while since the king visited Washington but whenever he did he got the full military honors on the White House South Lawn and the full rendering of civilians' honors of a parade down Constitution Avenue which in his instance was lined by waving and respectfully applauding onlookers and a swarm of media. The king and queen sat on the back of a Cadillac convertable waving in appreciation while being appropriately regal.

The only way a head of government such as Thaksin was could get a US Foreign Service official fired is if the American might clumsily stumble into him and douse him with hot coffee or tea or somesuch.

(I recall being present one time Pres Johnson was leaving the White House for Camp David with accompanying entourage as three Marine Corps helicopters were waiting while whirring and Johnson got so turned around shaking so many hands he started towards the 'wrong' helicopter, so the Marine corporal standing at the steps said, "Excuse me, sir, but your helicopter's over there," which straightened up Johnson to smile and boom, "Boyh, they're ALL mah helicopters!" The worst the hapless Marine got of it was a bright red face.)

Edited September 28, 2009 by Publicus

[caf]

I agree that Abhisit has made a good impression and Thailand has made a step forward. However I cannot help but wonder how many foreign newspapers printed pictures of his handshake with the US Prez. I have to conclude that it wasn't an earthshaking event.

BTW didn't Thaksin have a US Embassy official fired because on his arrival there, there was no red carpet, band and guard of honour? Wasn't he ushered into the White House through a side (or the back) door?

Abhisit's visit to the US has been a multi-purpose one, splashing images of himself with Pres Obama throughout the Thai media being the most important personal one. Whether or not Abhisit and Obama shaking hands appeared anywhere in the media of, say, Estonia has zero bearing to anyone here (or there).

It was a Thai Embassy guy whom Thaksin fired. I know from my Army days in the Military District of Washington Command that there is a schedule of ceremonies which are appropriate to a visiting foreign dignitary, from head of state to head of government to foreign or defense minister to Interior Minister to Minister of Environment etc etc. Thaksin was a head of government but never got the full monty (as it were) of an arrival and departure ceremony involving bands, flags, crack ceremonial troops etc. Thaksin's compensation by Bush was to be ushered into the Oval Office through the door flanked by portraits of Washington and Lincoln, the photo and footage appearing in the Thai media (Thaksin looked less than pleased).

It's been a while since the king visited Washington but whenever he did he got the full military honors on the White House South Lawn and the full rendering of civilians' honors of a parade down Constitution Avenue which in his instance was lined by waving and respectfully applauding onlookers and a swarm of media. The king and queen sat on the back of a Cadillac convertable waving in appreciation while being appropriately regal.

The only way a head of government such as Thaksin was could get a US Foreign Service official fired is if the American might clumsily stumble into him and douse him with hot coffee or tea or somesuch.

(I recall being present one time Pres Johnson was leaving the White House for Camp David with accompanying entourage as three Marine Corps helicopters were waiting while whirring and Johnson got so turned around shaking so many hands he started towards the 'wrong' helicopter, so the Marine corporal standing at the steps said, "Excuse me, sir, but your helicopter's over there," which straightened up Johnson to smile and boom, "Boyh, they're ALL mah helicopters!" The worst the hapless Marine got of it was a bright red face.)

All countries have protocols for visiting dignataries. This thread is about Thailand's image. He puts a brave face on it but the world sees a lot of other images of Thailand which he doesnt comment about.

Can't really see why you mention Estonia, the Military District of Washington Command or Pres Johnon. You were either very close to him or have exceptional hearing.

[Publicus]

Yes of course all countries have protocols concerning visiting foreign dignitaries. Some posts seemed to indicate an unawareness of the fact or uncertainties regarding Thaksin's visits to the US.

The US Government exceptionally ignored its protocols when Thaksin visited.

In the instance of the king, the US Government always rendered full respect and all honors to include a parade in Washington DC.

P-r-o-t-o-c-o-l-s.

T-h-a-k-s-i-n.

[animatic]

You were either very close to him or have exceptional hearing.

He was and he does, if you must know.

And Johnson had a HUGE Texas style voice.

Abhisit isn't putting a brave face on he is putting the best possible face on it.

That's part of his job. No doubt Obama knows every thing happening here that matters,

and saw that the obnoxious crap as nothing he needs discuss in depth, since that isn't

the focus of this meeting. Stay on point, move things forward and see that ASEAN is

in the loop and on the same page.

Edited September 28, 2009 by animatic

[Bagwan]

Whatever power Thaksin may have, I can assure you he doesn't have the power to have a Department of State employee fired.

I don't exactly recall Thaksin's visit, but I don't think it fell into one of those big red carpet events.

What I meant to say of course was an official at the Thai Embassy in Washington. Thaksin, with his delusions of grandeur, wanted the whole nine yards of pomp and ceremony.

[Jingthing]

And no amount of posturing on the world stage by the PM cannot hide the problems that exist. The rest of the world isn't stupid.

That makes sense but the current PM is doing his job to do what he can do to calm the international investment community. Any entity seriously exploring Thailand for a major investment will learn the truth about the politically unstable fundamentals of the country very quickly.

[Rumfoord]

Compare and contrast:

Thaksin: doing "call ins" from a "nearby" country, agitating revolutionaries, running from justice, scrambling for passports

Abhisit: Standing man to man with Barack Obama, the most popular world leader in decades

Yes, I would say Abhisit has helped his cause. Very much.

aren't such kindergarten arguments also somewhat like flaming* the forum?

* 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.