Post-coup diplomacy and the money trail

[mikemac]

Thailand"s foreign policy is to carefully manage close relations with both China and the United States.

Looking at Thailand through Western eyes as black or white, meaning that Thailand could be ally with China and lose the US as an ally is not going to happen.

If the US & the West are going to draw a line in the sand & say "you are with us or against us"? that approach won't be helpful.

The fact that Thailand chose to not support the Invasion of Iraq by the Western Coalition ( US led ) shows that Thailand wants & needs to keep the US at a distance

yet once Iraq was occupied Thailand contributed 423 non-combat troops in August 2003 to nation building and medical assistance as a balancing act to show the US that Thailand wasn't totally non-supportive.

To suggest that Thailand can or could be communist is total fiction.

If the US & the West think they can browbeat Thailand into submission they don't know Thai.

as the OP stated Thai feel they should solve their own problems & with the Military Junta having around a 80% approval rating support in Thailand is very strong.

Not inviting the Thai Military general to July 4th celebration at US embassy shows a lack of respect but most of all shows the Thai Military leader can't be bought.

I get the impression that many of the posters here know their way around a Thai bar but know very little or want to know about Thailand.

The General not being invited to the July 4th soiree was no big deal really. Unlike Yingluck, who spent most of her working day shopping in overseas shopping malls while Rome burned, the General has work to do. Namely sorting out the mess the PTP created.

[Morch]

"Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned"

While Thaksin Fiddled the USA and the rest of the world did nothing...

I do not see the USA condemning Saudi Arabia or the Oman on not being democratic elected government or on their human rights.

Well, when rice will be a precious commodity as oil, they sure will.

Saudi Arabia is being criticized in various USA official reports (and as such, are on the same tier as Thailand when it

comes to human trafficking ranking), but for obvious reasons, not that much of a fuss is raised, really. That said, bottom

line, the USA's actual actions in response to the coup in Thailand weren't all that far reaching.

Would be interesting to think about a possible USA reaction to a coup/uprising in Saudi Arabia.

Not an ideal world we live in...

Edited July 6, 2014 by Morch

[Morch]

Have never been to The United States, and know little about the European Union, but I do know Australia and travel there for work sometimes. When you speak to the average Aussie about Thailand all they seem to know about is Phukhet, Bangkok, girls, bars, cheap food and watches, they know nothing about what has been going on their at the hands of the previous government/s.

The lousy Australian government is too busy trying to stay become popular anything it says about Thailand is just token anyway.

The Americans are famous for not knowing what is going on outside their borders, and the Europeans have their own problems to sort out.

My question is - Who cares what they think about Thailand ?

And who said Thailand was expecting sympathy in their quest to restore peace and happiness ? I believe the military had to step in before it was too late to sort out the mess left by the Shins, sympathy or no sympathy.

Good on them for doing so, I say.

So "average Aussies" (or at least, those you know, I've no idea about that) lack depth of knowledge and understanding when

it comes to things Thai, the Americans (a country you haven't been to) are "famous for not knowing what is going on outside

their borders"), and the Europeans (coming from the EU which you confess to knowing little about), well...they "have their

own problems to solve out".

My question is - why would anyone imagine that all of the people in any single country are the same, and why would anyone

make those wide ranging generalization while admitting to not really knowing these countries?

Governments do not always make decisions based on instant street polls. And there are usually at least some in each country

which are aware of things global. The USA/EU reaction to the coup were on the news there, yes - but of course, not with the

same intensity of coverage it gets here. Thailand just isn't that important on the global scale of things.

As for Thailand expecting sympathy and understanding - I could be wrong, but there were more than one references to this

by coup representatives, seeking to make things clear to foreign representatives etc. This has nothing to do with the army

going through with the coup, more something that happens post-coup. To say that they do not care what the world thinks is

silly, they wouldn't made so much noise about it if they did not care.

[Morch]

Thailand"s foreign policy is to carefully manage close relations with both China and the United States.

Looking at Thailand through Western eyes as black or white, meaning that Thailand could be ally with China and lose the US as an ally is not going to happen.

If the US & the West are going to draw a line in the sand & say "you are with us or against us"? that approach won't be helpful.

The fact that Thailand chose to not support the Invasion of Iraq by the Western Coalition ( US led ) shows that Thailand wants & needs to keep the US at a distance

yet once Iraq was occupied Thailand contributed 423 non-combat troops in August 2003 to nation building and medical assistance as a balancing act to show the US that Thailand wasn't totally non-supportive.

To suggest that Thailand can or could be communist is total fiction.

If the US & the West think they can browbeat Thailand into submission they don't know Thai.

as the OP stated Thai feel they should solve their own problems & with the Military Junta having around a 80% approval rating support in Thailand is very strong.

Not inviting the Thai Military general to July 4th celebration at US embassy shows a lack of respect but most of all shows the Thai Military leader can't be bought.

I get the impression that many of the posters here know their way around a Thai bar but know very little or want to know about Thailand.

Thailand's foreign policy is to do what is best for Thailand (or rather, for whomever currently runs the show, not always the

same thing). Thailand rarely exhibits diplomatic initiative, rather taking a more passive, reactive approach - see where the

wind blows and go along with the herd, are a better description.

I agree that chances of Thailand being decidedly committed to either world super power are slim. Just not the way Thailand

does things. Represents a rather sound strategy, even if it not formulated as such. Thailand going communist is surely a joke.

Drawing a line in the sand would certainly baffle Thai politicians, being a proposition not easy to manipulate as representing

something else, and not that easy to come up with face saving compromises. The thing is that in reality, no such line was

drawn yet, even if this is how things are presented in some editorial and opinion columns. No real browbeating as well.

With current restrictions on public speech, it might be a little difficult to assert what the majority of Thai people feel about this,

or if most of them even care that much. Same goes for the coup's public approval rating - they do a good and long needed job

on some fronts, and certainly many Thais are all for that, but with people not allowed to express different opinions, citing total

or almost total approval might be misleading.

[Baerboxer]

Totally different approach in Germany (I guess in some other EU countries, as well): the German parliament decide when and where to deploy military troops. The military fighting "internal enemies" is not only unconstitutional but also unthinkable! It is the responsibility of the police and only of the police. The majority of the people in Germany support this principal. I think it should be considered in Thailand, as well (if there will ever be an elected government again).

The role of the military in Germany, it's structure, deployment and controls, were defined after WW2; and not by Germany. The constraints and restrictions were in place for 2 very good historical reasons and to prevent a 3rd.

Germany no longer sees a military solution to its economic, social or political problems and and it is only fairly recently German troops have been allowed to be deployed in oversees combat roles. The German military does not occupy the dominant position in society it would did, thanks to the changes after WW2.

Germany enjoys a very professional and capable police force in which there is not widespread institutionalized corruption. Most German people, IME, respect and abide by the law. The judicial system, whilst not perfect, is on a par with peer countries in and out of the EU.

Comparing Germany and Thailand is like comparing apples and mangosteens.

[Baerboxer]

Certainly western powers are no saints when it comes to manipulating global politics. However, I think there is a basic understanding of the mechanics of Thai politics. In western democracies, the military is subservient to the elected government and it's main duty is to respond to issues of national defense. The differences in Thailand are obvious and glaring.

The first allegiance of the UK military is to the monarch, much the same I believe as Thailand.

It could be argued that the recent coup was a response to issues of national defence, The fact they were internal rather than external did not reduce the damage being done to the country.

Edit: Just saw the post by gchurch, pretty well the same thinking.

In most, if not all, democracies, martial law would be imposed by the executive branch of government to control situations that were beyond the capabilities of local law enforcement officials. The military would be acting in tandem with elected officials and local law enforcement authorities. In the UK, would the military have the unilateral right to impose martial law? Saw the pictures yesterday of Myanmar's Commander-in-Chief hugging Thailand's Supreme Commander. Thailand's Supreme commander said the Myanmar understood Thailand's problems because Myanmar had a similar situation in 1988. Makes it crystal clear to me what the Thai military thinks.

In most. if not all, democracies, an elected government that proceeds to lie, cheat, break the law, publicly refuse to abide by court rulings it doesn't like, refuse transparency and accountability, refuse to account for billions and billions of baht expenditure, openly operates a policy of nepotism and cronyism, and is more and more openly controlled and totally managed by an non electable convicted criminal fugitive would be removed. Would it not?

This situation doesn't happen in mature democracies as laws, check and balances and procedures are all designed to help prevent it, In Thailand, it falls to the military as the other pieces haven't yet been adequately put in place. Hopefully, the reforms will begin to address this.

Your crystal is somewhat cloudy.

[pookiki]

Certainly western powers are no saints when it comes to manipulating global politics. However, I think there is a basic understanding of the mechanics of Thai politics. In western democracies, the military is subservient to the elected government and it's main duty is to respond to issues of national defense. The differences in Thailand are obvious and glaring.

The first allegiance of the UK military is to the monarch, much the same I believe as Thailand.

It could be argued that the recent coup was a response to issues of national defence, The fact they were internal rather than external did not reduce the damage being done to the country.

Edit: Just saw the post by gchurch, pretty well the same thinking.

In most, if not all, democracies, martial law would be imposed by the executive branch of government to control situations that were beyond the capabilities of local law enforcement officials. The military would be acting in tandem with elected officials and local law enforcement authorities. In the UK, would the military have the unilateral right to impose martial law? Saw the pictures yesterday of Myanmar's Commander-in-Chief hugging Thailand's Supreme Commander. Thailand's Supreme commander said the Myanmar understood Thailand's problems because Myanmar had a similar situation in 1988. Makes it crystal clear to me what the Thai military thinks.

In most. if not all, democracies, an elected government that proceeds to lie, cheat, break the law, publicly refuse to abide by court rulings it doesn't like, refuse transparency and accountability, refuse to account for billions and billions of baht expenditure, openly operates a policy of nepotism and cronyism, and is more and more openly controlled and totally managed by an non electable convicted criminal fugitive would be removed. Would it not?

This situation doesn't happen in mature democracies as laws, check and balances and procedures are all designed to help prevent it, In Thailand, it falls to the military as the other pieces haven't yet been adequately put in place. Hopefully, the reforms will begin to address this.

Your crystal is somewhat cloudy.

In most democracies, politicians are routinely caught lying, cheating, breaking the law, and refusing to abide by court rulings. Some get caught and others don't

In case you haven't noticed, military dictatorships prevent the civil liberties that prevent me from speaking freely on this matter.

In military dictatorships there are not checks and balances - just the will of one person who decides what is best for others - lest there be an invitation for an attitude adjustment. My crystal is very clear. Maybe yours need an adjustment.

Edited July 6, 2014 by pookiki

[mikemac]

In most democracies, politicians are routinely caught lying, cheating, breaking the law, and refusing to abide by court rulings. Some get caught and others don't

In case you haven't noticed, military dictatorships prevent the civil liberties that prevent me from speaking freely on this matter.

In military dictatorships there are not checks and balances - just the will of one person who decides what is best for others - lest there be an invitation for an attitude adjustment. My crystal is very clear. Maybe yours need an adjustment.

......................."caught lying, cheating, breaking the law, and refusing to abide by court rulings"........................

Four wrongs don't make a right.

........................"In case you haven't noticed, military dictatorships prevent the civil liberties that prevent me from speaking freely on this matter."...............................

Good. Pass it on to your friends. Will save the mods a lot of work.

.............................."In military dictatorships there are not checks and balances - just the will of one person who decides what is best for others"......................

As in Thaksin's iron fist rule ?

......................"invitation for an attitude adjustment".........................

PTP asked for it, the Military delivered !

[jope]

Totally different approach in Germany (I guess in some other EU countries, as well): the German parliament decide when and where to deploy military troops. The military fighting "internal enemies" is not only unconstitutional but also unthinkable! It is the responsibility of the police and only of the police. The majority of the people in Germany support this principal. I think it should be considered in Thailand, as well (if there will ever be an elected government again).

The role of the military in Germany, it's structure, deployment and controls, were defined after WW2; and not by Germany. The constraints and restrictions were in place for 2 very good historical reasons and to prevent a 3rd.

Germany no longer sees a military solution to its economic, social or political problems and and it is only fairly recently German troops have been allowed to be deployed in oversees combat roles. The German military does not occupy the dominant position in society it would did, thanks to the changes after WW2.

Germany enjoys a very professional and capable police force in which there is not widespread institutionalized corruption. Most German people, IME, respect and abide by the law. The judicial system, whilst not perfect, is on a par with peer countries in and out of the EU.

Comparing Germany and Thailand is like comparing apples and mangosteens.

Thanks for repeating/elaborating what I said in two previous posts (and thanks for the nice words about the German police)

Thailand is among those states that use the military for more than defending the country against enemies from the outside (quite a mellow way of describing their power within Thailand). Germany and others do not. That is the comparison I made.

My understanding of your post is that flaws in a system justify a military role that can take over power at any time without parliamentary or judicial control. That reenforces my opinion that Thailand should consider taming the military by constitutionally limiting their role to fighting against outer enemies. I very much doubt that the military will accept that...ever.

[mikemac]

Seems to me like military coups only seem to happen when political parties/people the likes of the Shinawatra regime get involved.

I can only hope the Military learned their lesson from the coup of 2006 and stays in control this time long enough to rid Thailand of the influence of the Shinawatra family. Altogether. Forever. Permanently.

After that I could not care less if the Raving Looney Nana Ladyboy Party won power, as long as they were "democratically elected" of course.

[Basil B]

"Raving Looney Nana Ladyboy Party"

Who's their leader? Ben Dover by any chance???

or "Picup Thesoap"

Edited July 6, 2014 by Basil B

[Paulzed]

The USA likes to harp on about democracy but does not like to stick to it.

Who voted that the USA should be the global police force?

The USA has used its military in many countries against UN Votes e.g. Iraq

And does as it pleases regardless of what the international community thinks.

Yet is happy to condemn Thailand's military when it stepped in to stop a potential civil uprising, that was most likely funded by an ousted and exiled criminal.

The USA and Australia are ignorant of how things are in Thailand, vote buying ,vote rigging, political corruption, proxy PM's put in place by deposed and exiled politicians, civil unrest etc... Is not Democracy and is not a democratic process.

The Junta is trying to restore democracy in Thailand and Western countries should pull their heads in and be proactive to this process not attacking and condemning this.

And if they were genuine about democracy they should reach out to The Junta and offer assistance to help in restoring democracy.

[jope]

The USA likes to harp on about democracy but does not like to stick to it.

Who voted that the USA should be the global police force?

The USA has used its military in many countries against UN Votes e.g. Iraq

And does as it pleases regardless of what the international community thinks.

Yet is happy to condemn Thailand's military when it stepped in to stop a potential civil uprising, that was most likely funded by an ousted and exiled criminal.

The USA and Australia are ignorant of how things are in Thailand, vote buying ,vote rigging, political corruption, proxy PM's put in place by deposed and exiled politicians, civil unrest etc... Is not Democracy and is not a democratic process.

The Junta is trying to restore democracy in Thailand and Western countries should pull their heads in and be proactive to this process not attacking and condemning this.

And if they were genuine about democracy they should reach out to The Junta and offer assistance to help in restoring democracy.

I do not know who in the US would vote for the world police role. But I do know that whenever something goes wrong in the world and the United Nations get involved they always turn to the US for help first (paying 60 % of the UN budget in the first place). And guess what, the US rarely turn them down. When Haiti was hit by an earthquake the US deployed a carrier, 10.000 soldiers and two former presidents more or less over night and received a rather supportive reaction from the US people, i would say. All in all, I would not be surprised if the majority of the people in the US would come to the conclusion that they do not have to vote for the police role. The US simply are because the world's problem come to them whether they like it or not.

In regard of UN resolutions: correct. NATO started the air strikes against Yugoslavia without a UN mandate. The Iraq war had no UN mandate either. Milosevic extradited a whole nation out of their own country. Saddam used gas (!!!) for mass murdering his own people. Well, "ends" and "means", do I have to say more? (I don't care about hidden agendas as long as the slaughterer is gone. Sounds familiar?)

I truly liked your last sentence! It would be so great to see the Military cringe and pretend they liked it. Of course, the answer would be clear: "Do not interfere in inner matters of Thailand. We know what we are doing". And that I will believe without any doubts.

[japsportscarmad]

Hmmm the perfect democracy in the West, where politicians lie to get their countries to go to war. I am not sure that the majority of people suport or trust their leaders in the West at all. Both the EU and America are not in good positions to chastise Thailand, and please separate the EU when you discuss UK policy on Thailand as it differs.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[jope]

Hmmm the perfect democracy in the West, where politicians lie to get their countries to go to war. I am not sure that the majority of people suport or trust their leaders in the West at all. Both the EU and America are not in good positions to chastise Thailand, and please separate the EU when you discuss UK policy on Thailand as it differs.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Whenever the EU deliver a common position it includes the UK. That might change in the future, but until then the UK is part of the EU. The Common Foreign and Security Policy knows common positions, common strategies and joint actions (as we will see in the Ukraine in the near future). Within that policy the UK is represented, can bring in their standpoint and will then support the outcome. National foreign policies might differ, but within the EU one cannot make any distinctions between EU member states.

[japsportscarmad]

Hopefully we will be soon rid of the EU. Ukraine is a different subject the EU has been poking the Russian Bear with a stick, and no one has the appetite to get involved as Germany in particularly get all it's gas from Russia. Again America has been trying to flex it's influence in Ukraine and like the EU helped overthrow a democratically elected leader in a less than bloodless coup, yet again they show their hippocracy when it comes to Thailand and the Coup. America World Police, not anymore they carry too much debt and China is the new super power.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[japsportscarmad]

But Jope you are correct this is an internal Thai problem to deal with. And yes the German police are quiet trusted but I do remember in Osnabrook to put some deuce marks in my driving licence in case of speeding, O the good old days when Germany had its own money and didn't need to bail out the rest of the EU (except the UK of course)

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[jope]

But Jope you are correct this is an internal Thai problem to deal with. And yes the German police are quiet trusted but I do remember in Osnabrook to put some deuce marks in my driving licence in case of speeding, O the good old days when Germany had its own money and didn't need to bail out the rest of the EU (except the UK of course)

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Alright then, a last remark, if you allow me: I personally cannot see that the UK will leave the EU. And to be honest, I really do hope you will stay in (look at my profile motto ). If not, I guess, it will be interesting to watch... Let's hope for the best.

[japsportscarmad]

Yes you may but am not sure what will happen I think it's 50/50 if we leave or stay but both have consequences, the problem as many see it is non elected officials making decisions, prob is UK does what asked and everyone else ignores. Anyway possibly no UK if Scott's go it alone, which I hope they do. Take Care my friend :-)

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand