National interest must be at the core of defence policies

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL
National interest must be at the core of defence policies
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Junta leaders must not allow a bruised ego to dictate changes in defence procurements

Thailand is looking to diversify its arms procurement and military hardware but the junta has yet to convince the public that they are doing it for the good of the nation.

Theoretically, diversifying military procurement is not a bad idea as it makes the country less dependent on any one particular nation or supplier.

But if the government does not have the interest of the nation at the centre of its policy and planning, then the outcome could be disastrous for the country's Armed Forces who will be left to deal with unfamiliar military hardware.

The issue of diversification of procurement comes amid talks of rapidly growing ties between Thailand and Russia. We are not talking about handshakes and official visits but two-way barter trade and military hardware procurement that Bangkok is looking to secure.

According to recent reports, Russian Commerce Minister Denis Manturov, a key member of the Russian delegation that accompanied Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to Thailand last week, said Moscow has high hopes for future relations with Bangkok, especially in the area of two-way trade.

In the pipeline are rail services, military aircraft, and the sale of three Sukhoi Superjet transport planes to Thailand, with the shipment expected late next year.

Russia is reportedly planning to buy at least 80,000 tonnes of rubber from Thailand early next year, four times what it had agreed to buy, in a government-to-government deal that would benefit Russia's automotive-tyre industry and poor Thai rubber tappers.

Needless to say, the moves come amid a sharp decline in relations between the United States and the ruling junta in Bangkok, which came to power through a coup in May last year.

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha maintains that the shift towards Russia's military weapons was not a reaction against the United States.

But given the political atmosphere between Washington and Bangkok, it is not difficult to see how this feeling has shaped the junta's decision.

Political insiders and military strategists said the shift was the junta's way of showing disapproval of Washington's attitude towards the coup in Thailand.

Casual observers of military modernisation could tell you that any military procurement projects must be in line with the existing main military platform and inventory because too many types of hardware could complicate maintenance and operation.

They would also tell you that military modernisation and upgrade requires policy-makers and defence planners to look two decades ahead and project what kind of security challenges the country might face.

In this respect, making decisions based on emotion rather than sound military strategy and a solid procurement policy should be a point of concern because these actions will have long-term consequences.

In this respect, the current junta leaders should consult a wide range of people, including their subordinates who will be the military leaders in the future, about any major shift or a complete overhaul of military weapons and hardware from one supplier to another.

Not only is this a potential technical headache for the people who will be using these weapons, it is also a very costly endeavour, financially speaking.

Thailand and the United States have been through thick and thin over the past half a century. From the Cold War era to the age of regionalism, both countries have enjoyed mutual respect and generally good relations.

But because Washington didn't have anything nice to say about the May 2014 coup, the current junta wants to implement some major changes that will affect the security foundation and arrangement of the country, seemingly unmindful of the fact that the new course could lead us into uncharted territory.

Already, there are talks of beefing up Sino-Thai Defence and Security Consultation with the introduction of a joint Thai-Chinese marine and air force military exercise.

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, at the invitation of the Chinese military, visited China last week. But at home, no Western diplomats want to have their picture taken with him.

Nevertheless, for the sake of Thailand's security future and international standing, the junta needs to put its ego aside and put national interest at the centre of its policy and strategy.

These generals may be here today. But they need to understand that sooner or later, the mandate will return to the people. And a new government with a mandate from the people could reverse the things that the junta had done while in power.

It wouldn't have to be this way if they put the country's interest at the centre of their decision-making process.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/National-interest-must-be-at-the-core-of-defence-p-30258261.html

-- The Nation 2015-04-19

[Strangebrew]

Really so to show displeasure with Thailand should US put in place Trade embargo? Mr PM the way to show good faith is Request to speak before Congress Or the UN and explain the reason behind the coup. In the US Congress controls the purse strings.

[NongKhaiKid]

What a novel idea, imagine Thai politicians or a handpicked illegal junta putting national interests ahead of their own ?

No, never catch on.

[rijb]

Congress doesn't care about petty cash.

[BSJ]

With the American military firmly placed in Australia with permanent bases the lose of Thailand as a good friend isn't a major drama. Plus the USA has bases in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Philippines so they aren't to far away from Burma or Thailand.

[JAG]

If a government with a mandate reverses a junta decision they will find them selves no longer a government!

[canuckamuck]

Of course Russian and Chinese weapons have a proven track record when used to control a countries own citizens. So there's that.

[JAG]

These big ticket purchases, large jet transports, fleets of main battle tanks, are items that one would expect to be in service for many years. When you buy them you also need to buy the spares packages, training, and maintenance facilities to keep them in service for many years. That can cost as much as the actual purchase of the new hardware. If you don't do that you're left with a selection of shiny new toys, which you can play with until they are broken, and then they will just gather dust.

Edited April 19, 2015 by JAG

[NongKhaiKid]

National interests first so LoS really needs submarines in case landlocked Laos mounts a seaborne invasion.

Well they could nip across the Mekong to Nong Khai but the submarine fleet will save the day.

[Caveat Emptor]

Big contracts, defence or otherwise, means big payments and i don't just mean those on the contract.

Nice business for some..

[Your Thainess]

I seriously doubt Thailand could put up much of a fight in armed conflict with anybody.

The army here is good at three things: wealth creation, coups, and killing fellow Thais. Protecting the country from external threats...let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[Srikcir]

With the American military firmly placed in Australia with permanent bases the lose of Thailand as a good friend isn't a major drama. Plus the USA has bases in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Philippines so they aren't to far away from Burma or Thailand.

The US may also negotiate leases for several of its former naval bases in Vietnam to help keep the China Sea open to international traffic and challenge illegal Chinese oil platforms off Vietnam on contested resource areas. Thailand with the shallow Sea of Andaman offers little geographical advantage.

[GinBoy2]

Said this before, but I guess I'll say it again. Thailand's position of one of those 'useful' regimes has had it's day in the sun, and the sun has long since set. The domino's have stopped falling, the Vietnam & cold war long gone. Those were the Golden Days for Thailand's military usefulness to the US.

You wonder why the US will criticize Thailand, yet keeps stumm about Saudi Arabia and it's ilk...the same rationale, there's the useful ones, against less useful you can speak your mind.

Doubt anyone in Congress gives the proverbial rats a** who the Hell Thailand buys it's military hardware from. They certainly aren't planning on it being of any strategic use in the region anyway, so I can almost hear some State Dept. official chuckling, "go knock urself out".

Thailand's military has always been considered an 'inwardly focused' entity, not a lot of use if you want an offensive ally to stop China in the South China Sea. Strange how things work out, but Vietnam has turned itself into a much more reliable ally in the region, and a Helluva lot more 'useful'

[JAG]

If the "national interest is at the core of defence policies" then Thailand does not need to buy a fleet of Russian main battle tanks, or anyone else's for that matter. If they are worried about a potential armoured threat to the country (not quite sure where from) then it would make much more sense both militarily and financially to invest in a large number of modern guided anti tank weapons. Easier to use, easier to train conscripts on, easier to replace once fired, and given the terrain any invading force will have to cross much more effective and flexible than MBTs.. You don't need large numbers of very large low loaders to move them to the battlefield, you don't need a large engineer operation to allow them to cross most of the bridges and culverts off the major roads, (because they are not too large or heavy for said bridges and culverts), you don't need a large and vulnerable logistic train to keep them in fuel, ammunition and to maintain them in the field. You don't need a complex and experienced command control and communications set up to fight them, All in all a much cheaper and more effective option.

Mind you they don't look as good on parades, and you cant park them on a roundabout in downtown Bangkok when you feel it is politically expedient!

But then the existing fleet of M48/M60 Pattons are good enough for that.

Edited April 19, 2015 by JAG

[Just1Voice]

Thailand needs heavy battle tanks and submarines about as much as I need a 3rd eye.

[ggt]

"National Interest" sounds remarkable like what the Americans use when they invade a sovereign nation who disagrees with US economic and militaristic policies...

[sirineou]

What constitutes "National Interest" is a highly arguable subject, in a undemocratic system that discourages open discussion this could be a problem.

[GinBoy2]

"National Interest" sounds remarkable like what the Americans use when they invade a sovereign nation who disagrees with US economic and militaristic policies...

...and which country exactly doesn't pursue policies in their own interest?

Clearly you must hail from the sole country in the world, that throws national interest, be that economic, social, military to the wind in order to benefit the global good. Grow Up man

[rametindallas]

Theoretically, diversifying military procurement is not a bad idea as it makes the country less dependent on any one particular nation or supplier.

Theoretically, you would then need different suppliers, different parts inventory, differently skilled maintenance workers, and differently skilled operators. Not a good idea in any country but Thailand especially.

[emilymat]

The article states that Thailand should be looking 20 years ahead in terms of any outside threat and that seems sensible. But, who the heck would want to invade this country and for what purpose?. However.....in 20 years time, or before, maybe the big brother up north might have some sinister designs.?

I agree with an earlier poster that it is difficult to see how the Thai army would cope with a sophisticated enemy. The stated prime purpose of the army is to ensure internal security of the country and people. (I've read that somewhere in an official statement) They certainly have had plenty of practise in this respect.

The only military involvement of the Thai army - of any significance, that I can find dates back to the Korean war, where, I fairness, they fought with some distinction, but as part of, and under the command of, a UN force. Others may know if they have been involved in any other major military campaigns since then, perhaps in the middle east.

I'm afraid it seems simply the desire to have modern weapons to parade in Bangkok etc. as other posters point out.

[Enoon]

"National Interest" sounds remarkable like what the Americans use when they invade a sovereign nation who disagrees with US economic and militaristic policies...

Or the Persians or the Romans, Chinese, Moors, Hapsburgs, Spanish, Ottomans, French, British, Germans, Japanese, Russians. There are plenty more.

As William Ewart Gladstone, 4 times Prime Minister of Great Britain between 1868 and 1894 said:

"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

It's the way of the world.

[kareona]

The article states that Thailand should be looking 20 years ahead in terms of any outside threat and that seems sensible. But, who the heck would want to invade this country and for what purpose?. However.....in 20 years time, or before, maybe the big brother up north might have some sinister designs.?

I agree with an earlier poster that it is difficult to see how the Thai army would cope with a sophisticated enemy. The stated prime purpose of the army is to ensure internal security of the country and people. (I've read that somewhere in an official statement) They certainly have had plenty of practise in this respect.

The only military involvement of the Thai army - of any significance, that I can find dates back to the Korean war, where, I fairness, they fought with some distinction, but as part of, and under the command of, a UN force. Others may know if they have been involved in any other major military campaigns since then, perhaps in the middle east.

I'm afraid it seems simply the desire to have modern weapons to parade in Bangkok etc. as other posters point out.

There were Thai soldiers in Vietnam too but I don't know how they performed there. The Thai army battled something like 3.000 armed communist insurgents in the North, the Isaan and the south between 1960 and 1980 and were beaten off many times. They were beaten also in the short border war with Laos (close to Phitsanulok) in 1987/88. They are not able to bring peace to the Deep South despite some 80.000 military personel there. They are indeed only good at suppressing their own people, like in 1973 and 1992.

[chilli42]

The national interest might be well served by a right sizing of the military

[englishoak]

The national interest isnt the point of the Thai military, interest in national control is.

[bangon04]

The national interest isnt the point of the Thai military, interest in national control is.

The National Interests of China are quite high up on Thailand's list of priorities, it seems.....

[Old Man River]

With the American military firmly placed in Australia with permanent bases the lose of Thailand as a good friend isn't a major drama. Plus the USA has bases in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Philippines so they aren't to far away from Burma or Thailand.

The US may also negotiate leases for several of its former naval bases in Vietnam to help keep the China Sea open to international traffic and challenge illegal Chinese oil platforms off Vietnam on contested resource areas. Thailand with the shallow Sea of Andaman offers little geographical advantage.

Thai based airports to support Chinese carriers and voila.