A Victory For Thailand In Washington

[rubl]

The Nation comes out with 1 to 3 News Articles a day, either, like this one, going all GaGa about a yellow victory in the World's eyes, or, decrying the red propoganda.

Has anyone NOT told the Nation that Thailand is a fiercely independant Nation that gives short shrift to outside opinion???

They, the Nation I mean NOT Thailand, should not appear to be so grovelling to the court of World opinion.

Eyes down, crossing their toes, shrugged shoulders"nyah nahh, the reds did it"; they come across as having a 'guilt complex'.

Your right, but fortunately some Thais start to recognize that the world is bigger than just Thailand. Also if a larger part of your economy is based on export ignoring the outside world becomes almost like suicide (which is not painless as all lamenting about the bad economical situation can tell you).

Actually he's not right.

This thread's topic was carried by the international and Asian news outlets in addition to The Nation.

A sampling of what's out there:

Bernama:

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/bm/newsworld.php?id=510385

AFP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100701/pl_afp/thailandpoliticsuscongress_20100701180851

Xinhua:

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7050357.html

TAN Network:

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1031609

National News Bureau of Thailand:

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255307020055

OK, when I'm wrong I'm wrong Still I'd liked to have a few European sites referred, or American (I'm still looking). Only found a very recent article on americanthinker, but I'm afraid I'd bent forum rules if I posted a link.

[yesdavy]

People are taking far too much from this touchie feelie resolution. Please read the resolution. In particular, look at the request that the Thai government (along with protestors) renounce the use of violence. Yes the resolution supports the 5 point plan, but that support is for the promises Mr. Abhisit is making. A gangster can say that he likes puppies and I would agree, because I like puppies too. That doesn't mean that I support the gangster, just that i agree with his statement.

The resolution is not an endorsement of Mr. Abhisit. Wrapped up in the diplomatic language about reconciliation there is mention of timely free and fair elections and a free media. Anyone taking the resolution as anything more than support of basic freedoms is misguided.

H. Res. 1321

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 1, 2010.

Whereas Thailand became the first treaty ally of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region with the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, signed at Sia-Yut'hia (Bangkok) March 20, 1833, between the United States and Siam, during the administration of President Andrew Jackson and the reign of King Rama III;

Whereas the United States and Thailand furthered their alliance with the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, (commonly known as the 'Manila Pact of 1954') signed at Manila September 8, 1954, and the United States designated Thailand as a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally in December 2003;

Whereas, through the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations, signed at Bangkok May 26, 1966, along with a diverse and growing trading relationship, the United States and Thailand have developed critical economic ties;

Whereas Thailand is a key partner of the United States in Southeast Asia and has supported closer relations between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN);

Whereas Thailand has the longest-serving monarch in the world, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is loved and respected for his dedication to the people of Thailand;

Whereas Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has issued a 5-point roadmap designed to promote the peaceful resolution of the current political crisis in Thailand;

Whereas approximately 500,000 people of Thai descent live in the United States and foster strong cultural ties between the 2 countries; and

Whereas Thailand remains a steadfast friend with shared values of freedom, democracy, and liberty: Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That the House of Representatives--

(1) affirms the support of the people and the Government of the United States for a strong and vital alliance with Thailand;

(2) calls for the restoration of peace and stability throughout Thailand;

(3) urges all parties involved in the political crisis in Thailand to renounce the use of violence and to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue;

(4) supports the goals of the 5-point roadmap of the Government of Thailand for national reconciliation, which seeks to--

(A) uphold, protect, and respect the institution of the constitutional monarchy;

(B ) resolve fundamental problems of social justice systematically and with participation by all sectors of society;

(c ) ensure that the media can operate freely and constructively;

(D) establish facts about the recent violence through investigation by an independent committee; and

(E) establish mutually acceptable political rules through the solicitation of views from all sides; and

(5) promotes the timely implementation of an agreed plan for national reconciliation in Thailand so that free and fair elections can be held.

This is a a great reply. The USA resolution is so weak it almost looks like a form letter. It is not an endorsement of Abhisit or the prior and recent behavior of the government. In so many words it is simply saying 'do the right thing". But the Government is desperate for any endorsement at all latches on to this extremely weak paper to endorse everything they do, from censorship to corruption, to their desire to stay in power without elections.

America seems to be covering its bases with this vacuous resolution, which looks like an "I told you so," exit contingency strategy in progress in case the political instability and violence recur, and in case the social injustice is not resolved, in case the media is not freed from restraints (including Internet censorship), in case there is no independent investigation, or in case there are no timely free elections. America appears to feel that Thailand and The Philippines, the traditional USA allies in the region, have backslid on human rights. Washington is developing relations with Indonesia, the world's fourth largest population and largest Muslim country, as the preeminent ally in SE Asia, giving America a stable ASEAN partner and helping to counterbalance China's increasing influence in the region. Indonesia has demonstrated substantial democracy and human rights growth, especially since 2004, and is key to regional security, particularly in the Malacca Strait, Gulf of Aden. On the heels of the military coup, in November 2006 at an APEC conference in Hanoi, Bush praised Indonesia and in the same breath pressed Thailand to restore democracy. Reaching out to Indonesia may have evolved because of human rights concerns and because Thailand has lost the strategic significance that existed when communism was taking a foothold. A National Security Report by the State Department on 27 May 2010 touted Obama's strategic SE Asian interests in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Thailand did not get mentioned and may be conspicuously absent. Not only have there been political instability and human rights shortcomings, as evidenced in the predicted downgrade to the Tier II Watch List for Trafficking in Persons, America may feel that there has been a lack of substantive cooperation in curbing software, pharmaceutical, and entertainment piracy, and their displeasure over the failure to extradite Russian arms trader Viktor Bout caused them to file new charges in an attempt to gain Thai cooperation. Obama spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and, had the gulf oil spill crisis not occurred, he would have been there earlier this month to move his agenda forward.

[Bagwan]

Somehow the US has to to stay neutral you never knows who will be the next government and Thailand and that's exactly what the letter is neutral.

Thailand is a very important strategic country for the US and its Military, being in the perfect position should they ever need to go to war again in Asia.

Do you, or anybody else, have any notion who the US will invade next? Given a nuclear powered carrier task force and missile carrying submarines, who needs Thailand? 

As for celebrating 175 years of cooperation, has WW2 been forgotten already?

This declaration brings to mind Shakespeare's words - 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Is this not a document couched in mealy mouthed diplomatic platitudes, spun and presented at this end through a magnifying glass?

[MAJIC]

People are taking far too much from this touchie feelie resolution. Please read the resolution. In particular, look at the request that the Thai government (along with protestors) renounce the use of violence. Yes the resolution supports the 5 point plan, but that support is for the promises Mr. Abhisit is making. A gangster can say that he likes puppies and I would agree, because I like puppies too. That doesn't mean that I support the gangster, just that i agree with his statement.

The resolution is not an endorsement of Mr. Abhisit. Wrapped up in the diplomatic language about reconciliation there is mention of timely free and fair elections and a free media. Anyone taking the resolution as anything more than support of basic freedoms is misguided.

H. Res. 1321

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 1, 2010.

Whereas Thailand became the first treaty ally of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region with the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, signed at Sia-Yut'hia (Bangkok) March 20, 1833, between the United States and Siam, during the administration of President Andrew Jackson and the reign of King Rama III;

Whereas the United States and Thailand furthered their alliance with the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, (commonly known as the 'Manila Pact of 1954') signed at Manila September 8, 1954, and the United States designated Thailand as a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally in December 2003;

Whereas, through the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations, signed at Bangkok May 26, 1966, along with a diverse and growing trading relationship, the United States and Thailand have developed critical economic ties;

Whereas Thailand is a key partner of the United States in Southeast Asia and has supported closer relations between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN);

Whereas Thailand has the longest-serving monarch in the world, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is loved and respected for his dedication to the people of Thailand;

Whereas Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has issued a 5-point roadmap designed to promote the peaceful resolution of the current political crisis in Thailand;

Whereas approximately 500,000 people of Thai descent live in the United States and foster strong cultural ties between the 2 countries; and

Whereas Thailand remains a steadfast friend with shared values of freedom, democracy, and liberty: Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That the House of Representatives--

(1) affirms the support of the people and the Government of the United States for a strong and vital alliance with Thailand;

(2) calls for the restoration of peace and stability throughout Thailand;

(3) urges all parties involved in the political crisis in Thailand to renounce the use of violence and to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue;

(4) supports the goals of the 5-point roadmap of the Government of Thailand for national reconciliation, which seeks to--

(A) uphold, protect, and respect the institution of the constitutional monarchy;

(B ) resolve fundamental problems of social justice systematically and with participation by all sectors of society;

(c ) ensure that the media can operate freely and constructively;

(D) establish facts about the recent violence through investigation by an independent committee; and

(E) establish mutually acceptable political rules through the solicitation of views from all sides; and

(5) promotes the timely implementation of an agreed plan for national reconciliation in Thailand so that free and fair elections can be held.

Attest:

Clerk.

Not sure what you think a resolution is, but it literally means to resolve to do or to support something, and this is a staggering near unanimous resolution of 411 US lawmakers who,

calling the Kingdom of Thailand a strong and vital ally, a major ally and a key partner in Southeast Asia, a country with whom they have critical economic ties, a steadfast friend with shared values of freedom, democracy, all the way back to Andrew Jackson and King Rama III! (Lord of lords, the number 51 does come to mind)

.... resolve to provide strong support for Thailand, strong support for the monarchy, strong support for the government, and strong support for each every one of the 5 points of Abhisit's plan for reconciliation, and strong support for elections to be held in a "timely" manner, as expressed by the current prime minister, Mr. Abhisit..

(wave US flag above images of Thailand and the King, fade to Abhisit addressing the country)

This resolution leaves no legitimacy whatsoever for Thaksin and his thugs program of violence and disruption of the country. Thaksin's entire modus operandi is out the door. It also calls on Abhisit to be a man of his word and carry through with what he has said he will do.As long as he does, he will get strong US support. If Thaksin tries to further destabilize the country or derail the reconciliation with his money and violence, the resolution clearly states that the US will support Thailand and its institutions. The resolution is also the first step in the legitimization of any actions the US might take to prevent the derailment of a peaceful resolution, such as support to help stop Thaksin's activities if required.

Such a resolution does not happen by accident, but through careful diplomatic work. I strongly suspect that this is the work of the US State Department itself and Ambassador John and his staff here in Bangkok.

Then is would have been worded in a more decisive way. Is it a form letter resolution. The letter does not mention Thaksin at all. You are reading to much into it. You are acting the like the government looking for support even as weak as this. The USA will give full and more complete support to the "elected leader' of Thailand. Obviously you do not understand the workings of the US State Dept.

Hard to see your point! the massive vote spoke volumes,and if? we are reading too much into a very obvious endorsement of the Abhisit Government and the way forward, Then the non mention of Thaksin and his Rent a Mob in Diplomatic Terms means he is not worthy of even acknowledgement, a nonentity, and not even worth giving a reference to either,or any consideration in the equation at all for that matter. Yesterdays bad News!

[kissdani]

Dear Kissdani, your reply doesn't really seem to be on the remark quoted. Furthermore hiding behind someone else quote and in a 'by the way' you also insult, is not good nettiquette.

I am not hiding behind someone else quote but give exactly Jingthing that back what he repeatedly wrote at TVF. "GO HOME!!!"

That are the words of Jingthing - I am just holding a mirror.

Farangs telling Thai people in Thailand to 'Go HOME'. What kind of xenophobic paranoia is that?

You were quoting #69 JayJay0 !

Yes, and JayJay0 was quoting me,

S/he wrote comment to a reply I gave Jingthing. JayJay0 was objecting the "Go Home" phrase. S/he wrote: "You say If you don't understand go home. ..."

I just gave an explanation why I used that ugly "Go Home" phrase in a reply to this member from the USA.

Just read the previous entry. I am not quoting everything again and again if everybody can read what was said before just two entries above.

Do you read the other comments in the thread or just picking on my posts? If you do the later, you are missing the context and cannot see the connection.

JayJay0 kept on arguing with stereotyping the "Thai's" who have according to him the same attitude as "Americans". I am not a friend of stereotypes, so i ignored that part and clarified that i tossed that 'Go Home' phrase not at at random at a Foreigner with a different opinion, but gave that specific person his own words back.

Understand now?

[rubl]

Dear Kissdani, your reply doesn't really seem to be on the remark quoted. Furthermore hiding behind someone else quote and in a 'by the way' you also insult, is not good nettiquette.

I am not hiding behind someone else quote but give exactly Jingthing that back what he repeatedly wrote at TVF. "GO HOME!!!"

That are the words of Jingthing - I am just holding a mirror.

Farangs telling Thai people in Thailand to 'Go HOME'. What kind of xenophobic paranoia is that?

You were quoting #69 JayJay0 !

Yes, and JayJay0 was quoting me,

S/he wrote comment to a reply I gave Jingthing. JayJay0 was objecting the "Go Home" phrase. S/he wrote: "You say If you don't understand go home. ..."

I just gave an explanation why I used that ugly "Go Home" phrase in a reply to this member from the USA.

Just read the previous entry. I am not quoting everything again and again if everybody can read what was said before just two entries above.

Do you read the other comments in the thread or just picking on my posts? If you do the later, you are missing the context and cannot see the connection.

JayJay0 kept on arguing with stereotyping the "Thai's" who have according to him the same attitude as "Americans". I am not a friend of stereotypes, so i ignored that part and clarified that i tossed that 'Go Home' phrase not at at random at a Foreigner with a different opinion, but gave that specific person his own words back.

Understand now?

I guess we agree to disagree. That's enough, these trollish remarks only distract. Hope you have a nice nights sleep or watch the ongoing football match. Don't worry, the world and these posts will still be there tomorrow.

[MAJIC]

I've no doubt that the Red Apologies, sorry Apologists who are playing down the worth of this resolution would be singing a different tune had it gone the other way.

A classic example of personal self censorship. You only believe what you like to believe no matter what the truth is.

Whoa, let's get the mule back in the barn. The resolution is a statement of support for the nation of Thailand, not of any particular political faction. The red apologists as you call them fully support these positions. What's to criticize in a statement of support for free and timely elections, a free media and an end to violence? You agree with the sentiments stated in the resolution, right? Me too. I'm sure the object of your affections, Mr. Thaksin also agrees with these sentiments. What's not to like about a statement asking for a positive result and peace?

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, if the USA wanted to express support of a government it would have been written more clearly and specifically. You need only look at the statements of support that followed the London and Madrid bomb explosions to understand the difference.

Geriatric:

"Mr.Thaksin also agrees with these sentiments.What's not to like about a statement asking for a positive result and peace"

Credible up to that comment,then you lost me!

[geriatrickid]

Geriatric:

"Mr.Thaksin also agrees with these sentiments.What's not to like about a statement asking for a positive result and peace"

Credible up to that comment,then you lost me!

My point was that Thaksin can't come out and say he doesn't agree with the words. Who isn't in favour of the sentiments expressed in the resolution? Thaksin is probably disappointed because it didn't condemn the military coup, but the US House doesn't want to get involved in the internal politics of another country like Thailand now.

Maybe Thaksin would like to have his own coup and pronounce himself boss of the dung heap, I don't know. However, he cannot disagree with words written, since he's been saying the same thing all along. Ok, maybe he's insincere, I don't know. What I do know is that Thaksin is no less sincere than minister Korn and the whole gang that tried to pull the rug from under PM Abhisit. The resolution is in harmony with all factions public statements (except PAD which isn't too big on a free media).

Edited July 3, 2010 by geriatrickid

[kissdani]

U.S. Congress non-binding resolutions are a dime a dozen...usually at least a hundred issued every year. Basically a congressional resolution is a statement of position, has no legal authority, no force of law, etc.

They are issued for all types of things, from major issues to warm & fuzzy issues like a few shown at this web site...go ahead, take a look: http://www.dummocrats.com/archives/001595.php

Individual congressmen love to sponsor/submit them (whether they get approved or not) as the congressmen can them state during their re-election campaign that they got resolution XYZ passed...and to many unenlightened voters this would be very impressive. Too bad Congress abuses/overuses the resolution as it greatly degrades their serious, important resolutions.

Thanks for the short explanation, gives us non-is-american an idea what is that all about about.

I found out that it is possible to watch the session online.

http://houselive.gov/

click on video July 1, 2010. When the video stream starts skip to 2:53:00 on the time scale.

It looks quite different from the debate in the European Union Parliament.

Amazing show, how the US congressmen all work together (411-4). Devote their time and energy to help Thailand and to remind Thailand on the values of freedom, democracy, and liberty.

That no party should use violence but resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue. And not forget that reconciliation can only happen with participation by all parties involved in the political crisis, that it must be ensured that the media can operate freely and that the bloody crackdown must be investigated by an independent committee.

And most important - elections, free and fair election. Not rule by decree and lame excuses for further delays.

Sounds fantastic right? A bright future with the full package of freedom, democracy and liberty in Thailand.

Hush-a-bye, don't you cry, go to sleepy little baby. When you wake, you'll have cake, and all the pretty little horses puppies.

Thank you congressmen of the US of A. for all your efforts.

[cdnvic]

Flames and name calling deleted.

[Groongthep]

America appears to feel that Thailand and The Philippines, the traditional USA allies in the region, have backslid on human rights. Washington is developing relations with Indonesia, the world's fourth largest population and largest Muslim country, as the preeminent ally in SE Asia, giving America a stable ASEAN partner and helping to counterbalance China's increasing influence in the region. Indonesia has demonstrated substantial democracy and human rights growth, especially since 2004, and is key to regional security, particularly in the Malacca Strait, Gulf of Aden. On the heels of the military coup, in November 2006 at an APEC conference in Hanoi, Bush praised Indonesia and in the same breath pressed Thailand to restore democracy. Reaching out to Indonesia may have evolved because of human rights concerns and because Thailand has lost the strategic significance that existed when communism was taking a foothold. A National Security Report by the State Department on 27 May 2010 touted Obama's strategic SE Asian interests in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Thailand did not get mentioned and may be conspicuously absent. Not only have there been political instability and human rights shortcomings, as evidenced in the predicted downgrade to the Tier II Watch List for Trafficking in Persons, America may feel that there has been a lack of substantive cooperation in curbing software, pharmaceutical, and entertainment piracy, and their displeasure over the failure to extradite Russian arms trader Viktor Bout caused them to file new charges in an attempt to gain Thai cooperation. Obama spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and, had the gulf oil spill crisis not occurred, he would have been there earlier this month to move his agenda forward.

yesdavy is correct and well informed on the state of US relations in SE Asia. Thailand has seriously diminished any credibility they may have once had and now even their government's legitimacy is in serious question. The country hasn't been of any real strategic interest since the Vietnam era and has now become just another 3rd rate little fiefdom of no real concern. Further, it is correct that the Congressional resolution that this whole thread is premised upon was of so little importance it wasn't even reported in any major US media source.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Groongthep

[bangkokburning]

I can guarantee that all (99%) of Thai's abroad are not in support of red shirts. They are the elites that have got themselves out of this place. So aside from that Issarn bar girl that married some bloke in Ohio, The deference is to the yellows. Then you have all the importers (of Thai goods) - business men.

This resolution is non-binding and broad. It is a vote of support for the current gov't - to sort the situation out.

It means nothing because the situation is at many levels irreconcilable and thus more anger and blood required.

I would have more sympathy for reds, but they are nothing more than anarchists paid by the hour, a lot of really ignorant people and all of it funded by a really crooked self serving person. But is this not the drama of Asia and the 3rd world writ large?

[LomSak27]

Geriatric Kid posted

People are taking far too much from this touchie feelie resolution

Thailand is just using it for a PR/soundbite pitch. Soundbites are like street cars; one comes along every ten minutes. In the US this generated less interest than funding public toilets on Nebraska Interstates.

[Groongthep]

I can guarantee that all (99%) of Thai's abroad are not in support of red shirts.

I agree, but probably around 40%-60% do. It's true that lots of elites escaped Thailand to find better business exploitation opportunities in the US but there is a very significant number of lower echelon Thais in America too. They tend to petition to bring their entire families over as well. I suggest you attend a local Thai wat in your area and ask a cross-section of the attendees about their feelings on the red-yellow issue. You'll learn that there are a lot more red shirt supporters out there than you think. There's also a startling number (of particularly young Thai-Americans) who have little or no knowledge of the conflict at all and who seem totally disinterested as they now consider the US their home and see Thailand as some far off back water of little consequence.

[Insight]

I can guarantee that all (99%) of Thai's abroad are not in support of red shirts. They are the elites that have got themselves out of this place. So aside from that Issarn bar girl that married some bloke in Ohio, The deference is to the yellows. Then you have all the importers (of Thai goods) - business men.

Just how much a per month/year do you have to be earning exactly before you're considered an "elite"? This "elite" club is sounding less and less exclusive the more you guys harp on about it...

[march]

I can guarantee that all (99%) of Thai's abroad are not in support of red shirts.

I agree, but probably around 40%-60% do.

You agree with something, but then continue to go on and say he's over half wrong?

[Groongthep]

I can guarantee that all (99%) of Thai's abroad are not in support of red shirts.

I agree, but probably around 40%-60% do.

You agree with something, but then continue to go on and say he's over half wrong?

He said he guarantees that all Thais abroad are not red shirt supoorters. I agreed with him but qualified that from my experience somewhere around half of them do. What's so confusing about that?