US talking to all sides in conflict: Kenney

[MGP]

One can't help but notice the stark contrast between this interview and Surapong's press conferences. The U.S. regards the PDRC as a peaceful protest. Thaksin's cousin does not. The U.S. ambassador also says this :

" She said she agreed with US Secretary of State John Kerry that democracy consists of many elements, including the rule of law, transparency, strong institutions and an independent judiciary, besides the election, which she sees as an important factor. "

Indeed. The U.S. emphasizes that in addition to elections -

- the rule of law

- transparency

- strong institutions

- an independent judiciary

- are vital. And that is why Yingluck and Pheu Thai are in trouble. They want to get rid of the checks and balances that would impose transparency on them, and make them accountable. It's why people are on the streets. But more than anything, this indicates that the U.S hasn't bought into Surapong's narrative. They regard the PDRC as a peaceful protest, and the elements of democracy detailed here in this interview that are so vital and justify public discussion - that public dialogue - which the U.S. supports - is important.

+1

And it would also be amazing if the US would suggest open televised debates of the leaders.

It would be priceless, and a treasure for the positive development of this country, to see Yingluck and Suthep talking face to face and without predetermined agenda in front of the camera.

[than]

A new evidence that international community not believe Surapong claim.......

For US, PRDC protest is peaceful !

[rotary]

The yanks cannot even talk to the republicans (and viceversa) back home. What makes them think they can mediate Thailand's circus?

Apparently you didn't read the article or you are just taking pot shots at the (yanks). They stated clearly they were not trying to mediate any talks only wanting to encourage them to talk. Perhaps your Brit english can't fathom the context of this article?

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

America should pretend they are Swiss by keeping their mouth shut and minding their own business.

[Muhendis]

Kristie Kenny is a smart lady. Her job is to service the American interests and citizens in Thailand.

Reading her diplomatic responses, she seems to be saying that its not her (Americas) problem.

"Asked whether she thinks Thailand is at the point where it needs an outsider to help solve the political problems, Kenney said she is optimistic about the situation in Thailand and she believes Thai people will be able to find a way for peaceful dialogue and solutions."

​Her response to the allegations that America is taking sides (one way or the other) is, once again boringly diplomatic and can be read by all sides as support for the other.

"Kenney said the United States has issued several clear statements supporting the democratic process, freedom of expression and peaceful dialogue while calling on all sides to refrain from violence......She said she agreed with US Secretary of State John Kerry that democracy consists of many elements, including the rule of law, transparency, strong institutions and an independent judiciary, besides the election, which she sees as an important factor."

Including vote buying, intimidation, modifying the law in favour of your own agenda, preventing people from casting their vote, preventing people from registering etc. etc

[ginjag]

In interviews with Yinluck she is seen to be the biggest CRAWLER around, I have never heard her complain to the PM about the concern re transparency she speaks about, all the time it's been yes maam no maam 3 bags full. DOH

You have never heard her complain? You mean the Ambassador of the United States has not made the point to confer with you personally?? Unbelievable.

What are you on about ?? Read my post and not lie, without trying to be clearer read it again --I said she is a crawler--she never shows her concerns in interviews about polices here, she should as the affect Business USA or other.

I live here, watch TV listen to radio and read newspapers of many sorts.

She is too nice that's her problem, never wanting to rock the boat, if she does it will be less free dinners at top venues.

[Krataiboy]

Just thank your lucky stars Thailand doesn't have any oil.

[Krataiboy]

A scene from the White House Oval Office

Kenney to Obama: "Excuse me, Mr President. I'm flying out to Thailand shortly. What shall I tell them is our attitude to possible regime change?"

Obama: "Remind me, does Thailand have any oil?"

Kenney: "Afraid not, sir."

Obama (yawning): "In that case why are you wasting my frigging time?"

[Publicus]

"Kenney denied rumours earlier this year that she would be replaced. "My three-year [term] ended in January and I've been asked to stay longer by my government, probably until the end of the year," she said."

Mmmm....maybe having trouble finding candidate applications.....???

Easily there are several hundred qualified Americans to be ambassador to just about any country, to include Thailand, The attendant question is which one. After that comes the question of making the transition. Does the president want to transition U.S. ambassadors to Thailand under the present times, events, circumstances?

Although Amb Kenney's three year term expired in January, Prez Obama can be expected to keep her on to at least the end of the current year, 2014. As Kenney is a career diplomat, keeping her much longer than an additional year would hamper her career. Thailand is on the State Department's standing list of countries that get career foreign service officers as ambassadors, so Kenney's successor is very likely to continue in that policy.

The big names get the big capitals, such as former 32-year Senator Max Baucus just a few months ago becoming ambassador to the PRChina, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President Kennedy, currently ambassador to Japan. Moscow is a curious exception as they consistently get Russia experts.(with precious little to show for it).

Big money donors get the cushy capitals, such as Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Canberra, tropical Jamaica in the Caribbean and the like. The governments there are used to it.

[bigbamboo]

"Kenney denied rumours earlier this year that she would be replaced. "My three-year [term] ended in January and I've been asked to stay longer by my government, probably until the end of the year," she said."

Mmmm....maybe having trouble finding candidate applications.....???

Easily there are several hundred qualified Americans to be ambassador to just about any country, to include Thailand, The attendant question is which one. After that comes the question of making the transition. Does the president want to transition U.S. ambassadors to Thailand under the present times, events, circumstances?

Although Amb Kenney's three year term expired in January, Prez Obama can be expected to keep her on to at least the end of the current year, 2014. As Kenney is a career diplomat, keeping her much longer than an additional year would hamper her career. Thailand is on the State Department's standing list of countries that get career foreign service officers as ambassadors, so Kenney's successor is very likely to continue in that policy.

The big names get the big capitals, such as former 32-year Senator Max Baucus just a few months ago becoming ambassador to the PRChina, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President Kennedy, currently ambassador to Japan. Moscow is a curious exception as they consistently get Russia experts.(with precious little to show for it).

Big money donors get the cushy capitals, such as Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Canberra, tropical Jamaica in the Caribbean and the like. The governments there are used to it.

Why not keep Kenny on until things sort themselves out here. I can't see Yingluck being invited to the White House any time soon!

[Muhendis]

A scene from the White House Oval Office

Kenney to Obama: "Excuse me, Mr President. I'm flying out to Thailand shortly. What shall I tell them is our attitude to possible regime change?"

Obama: "Remind me, does Thailand have any oil?"

Kenney: "Afraid not, sir."

Obama (yawning): "In that case why are you wasting my frigging time?"

Thailand has 0.5 thousand million barrels of proven oil reserves as at 2009, while production was 330 thousand barrels per day, according to June 2010 BP Statistical Review of World Energy. However, consumption far outstrips production, and the country is the second net oil importer in South East Asia. Oil & Gas Journal has forecasted that Thailand’s oil and gas production will not be more than 250,000 bbl/d by 2011, although the country has purported 275,000 bbl/d last year.

[rubl]

Talking to all sides?

Doesn't the ambassador know that the Yingluck government, the police, the CAPO and the DSI has labeled those camping in Lumpini as undemocratic, insurrectionists, terorists and so on. Time for a peaceful red-shirt walk to the USA embassy methinks

[Publicus]

"Kenney denied rumours earlier this year that she would be replaced. "My three-year [term] ended in January and I've been asked to stay longer by my government, probably until the end of the year," she said."

Mmmm....maybe having trouble finding candidate applications.....???

Easily there are several hundred qualified Americans to be ambassador to just about any country, to include Thailand, The attendant question is which one. After that comes the question of making the transition. Does the president want to transition U.S. ambassadors to Thailand under the present times, events, circumstances?

Although Amb Kenney's three year term expired in January, Prez Obama can be expected to keep her on to at least the end of the current year, 2014. As Kenney is a career diplomat, keeping her much longer than an additional year would hamper her career. Thailand is on the State Department's standing list of countries that get career foreign service officers as ambassadors, so Kenney's successor is very likely to continue in that policy.

The big names get the big capitals, such as former 32-year Senator Max Baucus just a few months ago becoming ambassador to the PRChina, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President Kennedy, currently ambassador to Japan. Moscow is a curious exception as they consistently get Russia experts.(with precious little to show for it).

Big money donors get the cushy capitals, such as Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Canberra, tropical Jamaica in the Caribbean and the like. The governments there are used to it.

Why not keep Kenny on until things sort themselves out here. I can't see Yingluck being invited to the White House any time soon!

It's the principle of diminishing returns. Past a certain point in this kind of open conflict, Kenney or any incumbent U.S. ambassador in Bangkok is going to lose the ability to interact with all sides.

Presently, Kenney continues to have significant interaction with the PDRC and other yellows even though they have been ticked off at Kenney (the United States) for a long time, quite ticked off. However, the PDRC types, in talking with Kenney, can reference back three years in her personal experience in Bangkok, and Amb Kenney can in turn personally reference the time and events leading up to the present standoff, which even the PDRC respects and finds workable, viable.

Washington too finds Kenney's firsthand knowledge of the players, the issues, the atmosphere and environment, highly useful and, I'm sure, insightful.

Thais benefit personally from her personal knowledge and experience here too, as we see in the OP with the Nation pooyai Yoon kissing up to Amb Kenney in a nothing interview that nonetheless got him into her official residence for tea and a pleasant chat, not to mention - ahem - a lot of off the record discussion of the present state of affairs. (Yoon knows today his name is all over the cable sent last night to Washington from Bangkok.)

Save for the possibility of the NSA and the Pentagon, Amb Kenney in synergy with the embassy consul officers, CIA, FBI and other embassy experts knows more about what's going on here than anyone in the U.S. Government does, or could know. One hopes Amb Kenney really really likes what she's doing because she is here for the rest of the year full stop.

The diminishing utility is that by the end of 2014, after upcoming events have unfolded, few Thais will allow themselves to be seen anywhere near or talking to the devil incarnate, because no matter what Washington does or doesn't do, Bangkok Thais will know that Kristie Kenney will have either set up or called virtually every shot Washington signs off on, which will place her at the top of every Thai's list of fahlang, or as perhaps the runner up.

Kenney is a career diplomat so Washington knows and appreciates the principle of diminishing utility / returns, that Kenney in Thailand has a definite shelf life, and that a departing ambassador is supposed to leave 'em smiling and waving hands not fingers. Kenney was first woman ambassador to the Philippines, first woman ambassador to Thailand (Ecuador previously), so both Kenney and DepState know for a host of reasons they each have to get the rest of the year right.

[penwithcris]

The political unrest in Thailand is largely being ignored by the rest of the World community. Who cares who is in power?

Things will carry on very much as they have done before.

Politics in Thailand is all about personality. Policies are a very secondary consideration.

Any party that gains power will be totally self serving.

Read the posts 5 years from now. Little will have changed. Crime will probably be totally endemic, road casualties will continue to be among the highest in the World per capita. Debt will have spiralled, both national debt and personal debt

Nothing is going to change the live today forget about tomorrow attitude of the State and individuals

For all that the country will still remain a magnet for overseas visitors

As yet Thais have not managed to destroy all the natural beauty that exists

[Dap]

Just thank your lucky stars Thailand doesn't have any oil.

If you are keeping up with the current news, America seems to have more than enough

to go around including for export

[Fookhaht]

I find this picture embarrassing. Another ill timed selfie during a serious situation, the same as Obama when the wifey got upset.

The poster is out of touch with both American AND Thai culture. DOUBLE WHAMMY!

I sure hope you don't live in either place!

[Fookhaht]

"Kenney denied rumours earlier this year that she would be replaced. "My three-year [term] ended in January and I've been asked to stay longer by my government, probably until the end of the year," she said."

Mmmm....maybe having trouble finding candidate applications.....???

Easily there are several hundred qualified Americans to be ambassador to just about any country, to include Thailand, The attendant question is which one. After that comes the question of making the transition. Does the president want to transition U.S. ambassadors to Thailand under the present times, events, circumstances?

Although Amb Kenney's three year term expired in January, Prez Obama can be expected to keep her on to at least the end of the current year, 2014. As Kenney is a career diplomat, keeping her much longer than an additional year would hamper her career. Thailand is on the State Department's standing list of countries that get career foreign service officers as ambassadors, so Kenney's successor is very likely to continue in that policy.

The big names get the big capitals, such as former 32-year Senator Max Baucus just a few months ago becoming ambassador to the PRChina, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President Kennedy, currently ambassador to Japan. Moscow is a curious exception as they consistently get Russia experts.(with precious little to show for it).

Big money donors get the cushy capitals, such as Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Canberra, tropical Jamaica in the Caribbean and the like. The governments there are used to it.

Why not keep Kenny on until things sort themselves out here. I can't see Yingluck being invited to the White House any time soon!

It's the principle of diminishing returns. Past a certain point in this kind of open conflict, Kenney or any incumbent U.S. ambassador in Bangkok is going to lose the ability to interact with all sides.

Presently, Kenney continues to have significant interaction with the PDRC and other yellows even though they have been ticked off at Kenney (the United States) for a long time, quite ticked off. However, the PDRC types, in talking with Kenney, can reference back three years in her personal experience in Bangkok, and Amb Kenney can in turn personally reference the time and events leading up to the present standoff, which even the PDRC respects and finds workable, viable.

Washington too finds Kenney's firsthand knowledge of the players, the issues, the atmosphere and environment, highly useful and, I'm sure, insightful.

Thais benefit personally from her personal knowledge and experience here too, as we see in the OP with the Nation pooyai Yoon kissing up to Amb Kenney in a nothing interview that nonetheless got him into her official residence for tea and a pleasant chat, not to mention - ahem - a lot of off the record discussion of the present state of affairs. (Yoon knows today his name is all over the cable sent last night to Washington from Bangkok.)

Save for the possibility of the NSA and the Pentagon, Amb Kenney in synergy with the embassy consul officers, CIA, FBI and other embassy experts knows more about what's going on here than anyone in the U.S. Government does, or could know. One hopes Amb Kenney really really likes what she's doing because she is here for the rest of the year full stop.

The diminishing utility is that by the end of 2014, after upcoming events have unfolded, few Thais will allow themselves to be seen anywhere near or talking to the devil incarnate, because no matter what Washington does or doesn't do, Bangkok Thais will know that Kristie Kenney will have either set up or called virtually every shot Washington signs off on, which will place her at the top of every Thai's list of fahlang, or as perhaps the runner up.

Kenney is a career diplomat so Washington knows and appreciates the principle of diminishing utility / returns, that Kenney in Thailand has a definite shelf life, and that a departing ambassador is supposed to leave 'em smiling and waving hands not fingers. Kenney was first woman ambassador to the Philippines, first woman ambassador to Thailand (Ecuador previously), so both Kenney and DepState know for a host of reasons they each have to get the rest of the year right.

Astute as it is informative. Thanks for a great post!

[Amavel]

Stop whining and vote. It's much more effective. Nothing more powerful than the majority. If you aren't the majority...become one through policy.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[visionchaser45]

Whereas most Americans value the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, our government appears to value political expediency more. Since when has the right to self-determination of other sovereign states been high on our diplomatic agenda? Did we support self-determination for the Vietnamese? What about the Cubans? How about Iraq, Panama, Somalia, etc.? All the US government really stands for is access to markets and political stability to facilitate profit-making and global strategic positioning. There is no ideology in the equation. They are talking to "all" sides because they want to ensure they can do business with whomever comes out on top. They are not the least bit concerned about who that might be.

[BB1955]

This woman is an embarrassment to the USA ... Send her silly butt back where it belongs ....

[Thai at Heart]

"Kenney denied rumours earlier this year that she would be replaced. "My three-year [term] ended in January and I've been asked to stay longer by my government, probably until the end of the year," she said."

Mmmm....maybe having trouble finding candidate applications.....???

Easily there are several hundred qualified Americans to be ambassador to just about any country, to include Thailand, The attendant question is which one. After that comes the question of making the transition. Does the president want to transition U.S. ambassadors to Thailand under the present times, events, circumstances?

Although Amb Kenney's three year term expired in January, Prez Obama can be expected to keep her on to at least the end of the current year, 2014. As Kenney is a career diplomat, keeping her much longer than an additional year would hamper her career. Thailand is on the State Department's standing list of countries that get career foreign service officers as ambassadors, so Kenney's successor is very likely to continue in that policy.

The big names get the big capitals, such as former 32-year Senator Max Baucus just a few months ago becoming ambassador to the PRChina, and Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President Kennedy, currently ambassador to Japan. Moscow is a curious exception as they consistently get Russia experts.(with precious little to show for it).

Big money donors get the cushy capitals, such as Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Canberra, tropical Jamaica in the Caribbean and the like. The governments there are used to it.

Why not keep Kenny on until things sort themselves out here. I can't see Yingluck being invited to the White House any time soon!

It's the principle of diminishing returns. Past a certain point in this kind of open conflict, Kenney or any incumbent U.S. ambassador in Bangkok is going to lose the ability to interact with all sides.

Presently, Kenney continues to have significant interaction with the PDRC and other yellows even though they have been ticked off at Kenney (the United States) for a long time, quite ticked off. However, the PDRC types, in talking with Kenney, can reference back three years in her personal experience in Bangkok, and Amb Kenney can in turn personally reference the time and events leading up to the present standoff, which even the PDRC respects and finds workable, viable.

Washington too finds Kenney's firsthand knowledge of the players, the issues, the atmosphere and environment, highly useful and, I'm sure, insightful.

Thais benefit personally from her personal knowledge and experience here too, as we see in the OP with the Nation pooyai Yoon kissing up to Amb Kenney in a nothing interview that nonetheless got him into her official residence for tea and a pleasant chat, not to mention - ahem - a lot of off the record discussion of the present state of affairs. (Yoon knows today his name is all over the cable sent last night to Washington from Bangkok.)

Save for the possibility of the NSA and the Pentagon, Amb Kenney in synergy with the embassy consul officers, CIA, FBI and other embassy experts knows more about what's going on here than anyone in the U.S. Government does, or could know. One hopes Amb Kenney really really likes what she's doing because she is here for the rest of the year full stop.

The diminishing utility is that by the end of 2014, after upcoming events have unfolded, few Thais will allow themselves to be seen anywhere near or talking to the devil incarnate, because no matter what Washington does or doesn't do, Bangkok Thais will know that Kristie Kenney will have either set up or called virtually every shot Washington signs off on, which will place her at the top of every Thai's list of fahlang, or as perhaps the runner up.

Kenney is a career diplomat so Washington knows and appreciates the principle of diminishing utility / returns, that Kenney in Thailand has a definite shelf life, and that a departing ambassador is supposed to leave 'em smiling and waving hands not fingers. Kenney was first woman ambassador to the Philippines, first woman ambassador to Thailand (Ecuador previously), so both Kenney and DepState know for a host of reasons they each have to get the rest of the year right.

Have you read the vitriol that idiot Michael Yon has put about her on Facebook. I am not for patriotism, but openly laying into your ambassador in this context is cheap. Very cheap

[SICHONSTEVE]

Whereas most Americans value the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, our government appears to value political expediency more. Since when has the right to self-determination of other sovereign states been high on our diplomatic agenda? Did we support self-determination for the Vietnamese? What about the Cubans? How about Iraq, Panama, Somalia, etc.? All the US government really stands for is access to markets and political stability to facilitate profit-making and global strategic positioning. There is no ideology in the equation. They are talking to "all" sides because they want to ensure they can do business with whomever comes out on top. They are not the least bit concerned about who that might be.

Precisely!!!

[Publicus]

Whereas most Americans value the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, our government appears to value political expediency more. Since when has the right to self-determination of other sovereign states been high on our diplomatic agenda? Did we support self-determination for the Vietnamese? What about the Cubans? How about Iraq, Panama, Somalia, etc.? All the US government really stands for is access to markets and political stability to facilitate profit-making and global strategic positioning. There is no ideology in the equation. They are talking to "all" sides because they want to ensure they can do business with whomever comes out on top. They are not the least bit concerned about who that might be.

Precisely!!!

Whose self determination do you prefer, precisely?

In Vietnam the U.S. supported and fought with the Vietnamese whose idea of self-determination for Viet Nam was to ally with the U.S. and with Western values, i.e., the Vietnamese who fought against other Vietnamese whose own idea of Vietnamese self-determination for Viet Nam was to take Vietnam down the Marxist totalitarian road. Each side within Vietnam had its own Vietnamese idea of self-determination for Viet Nam by the Vietnamese, for Viet Nam.

Likewise in Cuba - the U.S. supports Cubans whose idea of self-determination are predicated on Western values versus the guys who won, namely Castro et al, whose idea of Cuban self determination is a Marxist totalitarian state. Each side consists of Cubans who have their own Cuban idea of Cuban self-determination by Cubans of Cuba.

In Iraq, Panama, Somilia - Thailand - Washington naturally aligns itself with the group(s) whose idea and programs of self-determination for their respective country are most consistent with our own.

In Thailand each side wants democracy - or so they say - and each grouping of Thais has its own Thai idea of precisely what Thai self-determination is for Thailand, what self-determination means for Thailand and where it takes Thailand. So which Thai created idea of Thai self-determination by Thais themselves for Thailand do you prefer? Or do you prefer the isolationist default mode, the ostrich school of foreign policy.

Any discussion of self-determination in U.S. foreign policy has to include mention of Woodrow Wilson and you guys have managed to completely avoid doing precisely that.

[1Ping1]

My God..........

All swords have two sides........................... Meaning you best be careful what side of the bed you roll out of each day. As it seems to switch from day to day for some members.

End of the world for Thailand coming per some TV members.................... Meaning I suspect in the long run this is a minor event in the grand scheme of things and truly doubt the end of the world for Thailand as we know it.

Want China for my Bitc................... for others......................... Well, simply please move there and stop wasting my air as you are breathing far to much "free" air.

All because the US is trying to let Thailand handle this "small" issue (on a larger global approach to the world) without getting involved.

I would call that "Dammed if you do, dammed if you do not"....................... There, Done............................ My God.......................

Suggest you move to China and bend over, and then, for a bonus, do not bitc................. when it comes...................... lol

[wwest5829]

In interviews with Yinluck she is seen to be the biggest CRAWLER around, I have never heard her complain to the PM about the concern re transparency she speaks about, all the time it's been yes maam no maam 3 bags full. DOH

You have never heard her complain? You mean the Ambassador of the United States has not made the point to confer with you personally?? Unbelievable.

What are you on about ?? Read my post and not lie, without trying to be clearer read it again --I said she is a crawler--she never shows her concerns in interviews about polices here, she should as the affect Business USA or other.

I live here, watch TV listen to radio and read newspapers of many sorts.

She is too nice that's her problem, never wanting to rock the boat, if she does it will be less free dinners at top venues.

And that is what an Ambassador should do in public. The relations between countries are based on more than opinion of the various political interests. The U.S. Is condemned when no public stand is taken, we are condemned when we do take a stand. What am I on about? Leave off condemnation of a diplomatic non-pubic statement which will only irritate one side or the other. This is Thailand ... work it out, as an indepentent American, I would favor doing so through democratic means ... Political parties and elections.

I too read, study and subscribe to various Thai and international information services. As my only residence, I wish Thailand well but I do recognize the various issues. Sorry, but for my money, it is a long term issue needing a lot of education to bring about a democratic, vibrant society.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Whereas most Americans value the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, our government appears to value political expediency more. Since when has the right to self-determination of other sovereign states been high on our diplomatic agenda? Did we support self-determination for the Vietnamese? What about the Cubans? How about Iraq, Panama, Somalia, etc.? All the US government really stands for is access to markets and political stability to facilitate profit-making and global strategic positioning. There is no ideology in the equation. They are talking to "all" sides because they want to ensure they can do business with whomever comes out on top. They are not the least bit concerned about who that might be.

Precisely!!!

Whose self determination do you prefer, precisely?

In Vietnam the U.S. supported and fought with the Vietnamese whose idea of self-determination for Viet Nam was to ally with the U.S. and with Western values, i.e., the Vietnamese who fought against other Vietnamese whose own idea of Vietnamese self-determination for Viet Nam was to take Vietnam down the Marxist totalitarian road. Each side within Vietnam had its own Vietnamese idea of self-determination for Viet Nam by the Vietnamese, for Viet Nam.

Likewise in Cuba - the U.S. supports Cubans whose idea of self-determination are predicated on Western values versus the guys who won, namely Castro et al, whose idea of Cuban self determination is a Marxist totalitarian state. Each side consists of Cubans who have their own Cuban idea of Cuban self-determination by Cubans of Cuba.

In Iraq, Panama, Somilia - Thailand - Washington naturally aligns itself with the group(s) whose idea and programs of self-determination for their respective country are most consistent with our own.

In Thailand each side wants democracy - or so they say - and each grouping of Thais has its own Thai idea of precisely what Thai self-determination is for Thailand, what self-determination means for Thailand and where it takes Thailand. So which Thai created idea of Thai self-determination by Thais themselves for Thailand do you prefer? Or do you prefer the isolationist default mode, the ostrich school of foreign policy.

Any discussion of self-determination in U.S. foreign policy has to include mention of Woodrow Wilson and you guys have managed to completely avoid doing precisely that.

So you don't think that the US looks for solutions that are consistent with results that favour themselves and provides the most benefits to them (particularly regards energy security)!! They (America) also visualise scenario's that hold benefits for themselves without even considering the consequences on the countries involved.

The US should concentrate in putting it's own house in order and butt out of other countries problems!!

[Publicus]

Whereas most Americans value the ideals of democracy and the rule of law, our government appears to value political expediency more. Since when has the right to self-determination of other sovereign states been high on our diplomatic agenda? Did we support self-determination for the Vietnamese? What about the Cubans? How about Iraq, Panama, Somalia, etc.? All the US government really stands for is access to markets and political stability to facilitate profit-making and global strategic positioning. There is no ideology in the equation. They are talking to "all" sides because they want to ensure they can do business with whomever comes out on top. They are not the least bit concerned about who that might be.

Precisely!!!

Whose self determination do you prefer, precisely?

In Vietnam the U.S. supported and fought with the Vietnamese whose idea of self-determination for Viet Nam was to ally with the U.S. and with Western values, i.e., the Vietnamese who fought against other Vietnamese whose own idea of Vietnamese self-determination for Viet Nam was to take Vietnam down the Marxist totalitarian road. Each side within Vietnam had its own Vietnamese idea of self-determination for Viet Nam by the Vietnamese, for Viet Nam.

Likewise in Cuba - the U.S. supports Cubans whose idea of self-determination are predicated on Western values versus the guys who won, namely Castro et al, whose idea of Cuban self determination is a Marxist totalitarian state. Each side consists of Cubans who have their own Cuban idea of Cuban self-determination by Cubans of Cuba.

In Iraq, Panama, Somilia - Thailand - Washington naturally aligns itself with the group(s) whose idea and programs of self-determination for their respective country are most consistent with our own.

In Thailand each side wants democracy - or so they say - and each grouping of Thais has its own Thai idea of precisely what Thai self-determination is for Thailand, what self-determination means for Thailand and where it takes Thailand. So which Thai created idea of Thai self-determination by Thais themselves for Thailand do you prefer? Or do you prefer the isolationist default mode, the ostrich school of foreign policy.

Any discussion of self-determination in U.S. foreign policy has to include mention of Woodrow Wilson and you guys have managed to completely avoid doing precisely that.

So you don't think that the US looks for solutions that are consistent with results that favour themselves and provides the most benefits to them (particularly regards energy security)!! They (America) also visualise scenario's that hold benefits for themselves without even considering the consequences on the countries involved.

The US should concentrate in putting it's own house in order and butt out of other countries problems!!

You presume to put your words in my mouth, which is contemptible. Don't presume to say what I may think or not think. If you have a concern, ask the question, don't make an accusation out of the blue by pronouncing that I don't know, think or believe something specific. It's obvious and self-evident the U.S. Government seeks friends and allies abroad, Thailand as a formal treaty ally being one of them, North Korea is not.

I would remind you that Ambassador Kenney and Thailand are the topic of the thread. Try to keep your mind better organized, sorted out and focused in these matters.

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What a load of unadulterated rubbish. The Americans in unison with the British are behind this and backing the overthrow of the democratically elected government to replace it with their own puppet. They have done this in many countries and still doing it today. The New World Order want to have a foothold in SE Asia before ASEAN commences, Thailand is their bunny and will be followed by Cambodia. Unfortunately the moronic Thaksin and his equally intelligently challenged sister and senior MPs of PTP are making it easy for a takeover. To all you plastics who have previously posted in support of the most stuffed up country in the universe, do some research on your beloved deranged American politicians and see what they are up to. So far all the events and happenings in Thailand has followed the NWO script perfectly. Think I am wrong, history has proved it in the past and history will again prove it in the future. So all you bar stool academics, take your red or your yellow monkeys of your back and get with the program, Thailand is heading for a holocaust.

Don't take off that tin foil hat or else those cosmic rays will get you

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The yanks cannot even talk to the republicans (and viceversa) back home. What makes them think they can mediate Thailand's circus?

Where did it say that the United States was to mediate???

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about the U.S. wanting to mediate, somtam is just another ignorant thai visa poster who has "America envy" disease That illness seems to reach epidemic proportions here on thai visa frequently

[VegasVic]

It never ceases to amaze me just how many bitter farangs there are here on thai visa, threads like this seem to get large numbers of them off their barstools

[rotary]

Who cares, what real difference would it make to the quality of life?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand