Usa Is Reviewing Its Aid To Thailand

[gbt71fa]

Could the Americans please kiss and make up, or at least giggle together? As the American Rodney King asked, "Can't we just get along?"

I think I remember the first verse of "Kumbayah" and "We Shall Overcome".....

Alright, but I won't giggle...gave that up I hit puberty. A soldier prays for peace but prepares for war. Believe war does suck...you see, nothing negative here...I even happy face on right now

I alway loved hippie music and hippie girls...I do miss college at times

[sbk]

To have kept your comments on topic, richard, would have been to actually mention aid in there somewhere too.

Lets try to keep this on topic instead of digressing into anti-US diatribes.

[PeaceBlondie]

I don't think that Thailand needs US aid (military or other) so badly that the kingdom will fail without a few dozen million dollars. Of course, wasn't 90% of the tsunami aid from "America" private, not from the national treasury?

I seem to recall the prior American ambassador say that the US aid included educational money used to coordinate something. He first came to Thailand as a Peace Corps teacher of English. How many ex Peace Corps hippies do we have here? Ask not what your country can do for you......I met a Peace Corps worker in a northern province a few years ago; she was a professor of education in the USA.

[Old Man River]

I have no intent to get involved in a disagreement between fellow Americans, but there is a law that does prohibit the US from officially recognizing a foreign government which comes to power by toppling a democratically elected government. I believe this law preceeded Pres. GW Bush. What it does is add more hurdles for direct and indirect aid and sharing of information. Still, Thailand and the US remain close allies, especially as it relates to the war on terrorism. I do not believe this relationship will change given the nature of Thailand's current leadership.

[thohts]

Sounds like standard procedure to me.

If the US can give aid to the Taliban, they can sure give aid to Thailand.

[/quote

The Taliban did not come into power until the collapse of the soviet puppet governement. Then foreign groups came in and that became the taliban. The u.s. did supprt the northern alliance which was in existance then. Study your history before you bash my country, you dolt.

My country, too.

And about history.. "he who hath the gold makes the rules" (and rewrites history)

[thohts]

gbt71fa, how about this one:

If the US can give foreign aid to Hussein, Noreiga, and corrupt regimes in Africa, surely it can give aid to Thailand.

or, shall I go and read my state-approved schoolbooks again, Mr. History?

[phibunmike]

gbt71fa, how about this one:

If the US can give foreign aid to Hussein, Noreiga, and corrupt regimes in Africa, surely it can give aid to Thailand.

or, shall I go and read my state-approved schoolbooks again, Mr. History?

you forgot bin Laden and Pol Pot....

[jdinasia]

gbt71fa, how about this one:

If the US can give foreign aid to Hussein, Noreiga, and corrupt regimes in Africa, surely it can give aid to Thailand.

or, shall I go and read my state-approved schoolbooks again, Mr. History?

you forgot bin Laden and Pol Pot....

and Kaddafi ..... and every right-wing death squad in Central America .... the guy's history is sadly missing ....

oh did we forget the triangle trade with Iran-contra?

or the first Bush arranging for US Cit's to be held in Iran until AFTER the Reagan election?

[lannarebirth]

I don't think that Thailand needs US aid (military or other) so badly that the kingdom will fail without a few dozen million dollars. Of course, wasn't 90% of the tsunami aid from "America" private, not from the national treasury?

I seem to recall the prior American ambassador say that the US aid included educational money used to coordinate something. He first came to Thailand as a Peace Corps teacher of English. How many ex Peace Corps hippies do we have here? Ask not what your country can do for you......I met a Peace Corps worker in a northern province a few years ago; she was a professor of education in the USA.

When Thailand was surrounded and infiltrated by communists,(both Vietnamese and Chinese sponsored) it was the King who asked for and accepted Americas aid. When the King no longer wished them here, they were asked to leave, which they did. It was the wisest use of the American military I've ever seen.

[PeaceBlondie]

The topic is American aid to Thailand, as a result of the change in the Thai government. This topic gets one more chance. Moderators can delete off-topic posts even when we're involved in the discussion, trying to keep it on topic or calm things down. The topic is controversial enough without making it worse. Five posts have already been deleted for being off topic.

Now, I'll try again to drag the discussion back to the topic: how much money are we talking about? Surely not 50 billion dollars of investment; surely more than a mere 14 million dollars per year. Can the price even be estimated with reasonable accuracy? And if the USA is only reviewing the matter, we're just speculating in any event.

[pap]

The topic is American aid to Thailand, as a result of the change in the Thai government. This topic gets one more chance. Moderators can delete off-topic posts even when we're involved in the discussion, trying to keep it on topic or calm things down. The topic is controversial enough without making it worse. Five posts have already been deleted for being off topic.

Now, I'll try again to drag the discussion back to the topic: how much money are we talking about? Surely not 50 billion dollars of investment; surely more than a mere 14 million dollars per year. Can the price even be estimated with reasonable accuracy? And if the USA is only reviewing the matter, we're just speculating in any event.

I think the 14 million that is being bandied about is aid through governement Channels. The amount of potential business investment is in the Billions. The purpose of reviewing the investment to Thailand is a stalling manuever. The US Governement and gradually the people are starting to understand this coup is not the same as other coups. The stalling is due to international law and US law that prohibits money and funds to Military Junta's. That is why the Thais need to get the government back into the peoples hands. This is not just the US money. It is international law. There can also be issues with respect to where a given company is listed on a stock exchange. Meaning they have to be cognizant of all laws that may apply.

Businesses are a completely different issue. They are less forgiving. American business or otherwise. If this results in more stability the business will continue to do business providing laws to business do not change. This is especially true of projects already in the pipe so to speak. But...and here is the big but.... projects not yet in the pipe will be put on hold well past the new government stepping into power. This is simple prudence. We are talking solely from a foreign investment perspective here. We are in a global economy now and if it suddenly becomes more economically viable to do business in another country that will happen. This is not a personal thing between countries although the effects can be very personal to the individuals whose jobs go somewhere else. This happens routinely today. If suddenly you are not viewed as stable many companies go elsewhere. You can say you want all foreigners to go away but that takes you full circle back to wether or not you are a growing economy or contracting one. Its better to be growing. 4 percent which Thailand has is not a gangbuster growth rate for Asia right now. That means more business goes to India. Providing more jobs, more schools, more colleges more businesses, more business being taken from countries that can't keep up. thats Life in our global economy. Simple economics. No matter how much I happen to love Thailand..which I do... jobs will go where the best bang for the buck is. Thats how it is. Not sure I always like that but thats how it is.

[jdinasia]

The topic is American aid to Thailand, as a result of the change in the Thai government. This topic gets one more chance. Moderators can delete off-topic posts even when we're involved in the discussion, trying to keep it on topic or calm things down. The topic is controversial enough without making it worse. Five posts have already been deleted for being off topic.

Now, I'll try again to drag the discussion back to the topic: how much money are we talking about? Surely not 50 billion dollars of investment; surely more than a mere 14 million dollars per year. Can the price even be estimated with reasonable accuracy? And if the USA is only reviewing the matter, we're just speculating in any event.

the 50 billion referred to ... 2 days after the coup .... THAT was funny .... like ANY major businesses can respond in 36-48 hours about their future

[Old Man River]

That is why the Thais need to get the government back into the peoples hands.

Pap, not just in the people's hands, but in the hands of a democratically elected government (which is probably what you meant). While the upcoming appointment of a civilian government will be welcomed (especially the people rumored to be selected), foreign democratic governments will have to take a step back until democracy returns to Thailand.

I think your analysis on new business investment is spot on for western countries, but a lot of foreign direct investment coming to Thailand these days comes from the east. Long term Asian investors may view the situation differently (time will tell).

[on-on]

I tried to cover some of the controversial ground and then tie this all back together without wandering too far afield. I hope it meets the 'stay on topic' criteria.

You don't have to dig through history, right now we financially support Musharraf in Pakistan, for instance, as well as Mubarak in Egypt and the Sauds in KSA. We also have agreements that may or may not involve some form of economic or financial support (depending on your interpretation) with Karimov, Al Bashir and other folks who have nothing to do with democracy. The list doesn't stop there. One need not go so far as to assign motive or pass judgement on our (America's) foreign policy to cite evidence that discounts another's argument. Personally I'd call our approach currently hypocritical, but that's transitory per administration strategy and also misses the larger argument of what's right in each situation. Supporting Musharraf is an entirely different thing than supporting, say, Karimov or, worse, inking an intelligence deal with Al Bashir's intelligence services in the Sudan. Anyway, I just wanted to jump in and point out that we are not at all required to support or not support a country based on any political system. We may currently extoll the virtues of democracy and freedom, but in practice our approach has been entirely Realist since at least the beginning of the Cold War, if not dating back to the Monroe Doctrine or further.

What's dangerous about right now isn't that we're employing different foreign policy in different countries, but that our internal approach to foreign policy has been turned on its head and the effect that has had not only on people and individual countries, but also on the stability of the world and the soft power (and hard power) we're able to project, has been tragic in some cases and debilitating in others. So, to get back to the point of the thread, punishing Thailand for getting rid of what amounted to a highly corrupt pseudo-autocrat in favor of what should be a temporary and very mild military junta would be not only hypocritical (which isn't important and doesn't cost anyone anything at this point), but also destructive to the country for no long term good reason. That's the barometer I try to use when possible - if we punish Thailand, does that reinforce some lesson that's positive in the long run or is it punishing just for the sake of looking strong when the country is already going to correct itself? There's no doubt in my mind that Thailand's people and the King would like to move right back to democracy, but that they require a cooling off period before doing so as well as some adjustments to avoid the electoral and political issues that stymied internal resolution previously. That doesn't mean that I support subverting democracy, but events being what they are and the arc of Thai mdoern history being what it is, it's hard to imagine that the point of all this is to return to some kind of martial government. That just doesn't make much sense in terms of the historical arc of the nation and its monarch as far as I can tell. Therefore, punishing the Thai people and the government for something they will fix on their own seems egregious.

Not that I'd put anything past the current folks running the show here in DC, but I really doubt that they'll take any action on this one. Flogging Thailand won't get them much credit and, as far as I know, there are no powerful Senators who have taken a set against the Kingdom (unlike neighboring Cambodia, where 'Saddam' Hun Sen - my former PP motodop's nickname for him - has provoked the ire of the IRI - a shadow hawk foreign policy outift - and, particularly, it's member Mitch McConnell [who is a douchebag of epic proportions]). For the most part, the only reason we do things like punish countries economically is if it satisfies a sizeable chunk of a domestic political constituency (e.g. - Cuba, Palestinian Authority), if we have some longstanding beef with the country (e.g. - DPRK, Iran), if it gets our name in the papers because of current events (e.g. - Iraq '91-'03, Venezuela) or because an ally or a powerful politician here wants us to. In the case of Thailand, it's situated perfectly to avoid any problems, not having pissed off anyone. So, the only reason they might try to do it is to score cheap democracy-points, but I doubt it will come to that since flogging Thailand by revoking aid wouldn't be a big enough news item to make much of an impact. Only time will tell though when you roll the dice of liberty!

[phibunmike]

Pap, not just in the people's hands, but in the hands of a democratically elected government (which is probably what you meant). While the upcoming appointment of a civilian government will be welcomed (especially the people rumored to be selected), foreign democratic governments will have to take a step back until democracy returns to Thailand.

I think your analysis on new business investment is spot on for western countries, but a lot of foreign direct investment coming to Thailand these days comes from the east. Long term Asian investors may view the situation differently (time will tell).

Democracy in Thailand is still very new, and will take some time to work itself out. Recent events are part of that process, the process of establishing a true democracy, and, IMHO, it is wrong for we westerners to judge harshly the ways that new democracies strive for their path (not talking about Thailand necessarily, and remembering current rules....)

edit> trying to get the quote properly formatted...

edit again> given up... too much beer...

edit yet again> think I spotted it....

edit> yes !!!!

Edited September 26, 2006 by phibunmike

[pap]

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in and point out that we are not at all required to support or not support a country based on any political system.

This may seem like a detail but there are US and international laws with respect to a coup. This is completely seperate from supporting Despots or dictators. You are correct the US can support any type of government (except) in the event of a coup. Once governments are "normalized" that changes and our government and all others are free to support whomever they wish dispite their type of government. That is why most governments are in a holding partern currently.

Hope this clarifies.

[pap]

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in and point out that we are not at all required to support or not support a country based on any political system.

This may seem like a detail but there are US and international laws with respect to a coup. This is completely seperate from supporting Despots or dictators. You are correct the US can support any type of government (except) in the event of a coup. Once governments are "normalized" that changes and our government and all others are free to support whomever they wish dispite their type of government. That is why most governments are in a holding partern currently.

Hope this clarifies.

This is specific to military aid for specific situations. There are many such docs on other situations prohibiting different kinds of funding. You can check the CFR's for other references of what is prohibited.

www.basicint.org/pubs/Joint/EUUSemReport.pdf

Hope this helps.

[on-on]

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in and point out that we are not at all required to support or not support a country based on any political system.

This may seem like a detail but there are US and international laws with respect to a coup. This is completely seperate from supporting Despots or dictators. You are correct the US can support any type of government (except) in the event of a coup. Once governments are "normalized" that changes and our government and all others are free to support whomever they wish dispite their type of government. That is why most governments are in a holding partern currently.

Hope this clarifies.

This is specific to military aid for specific situations. There are many such docs on other situations prohibiting different kinds of funding. You can check the CFR's for other references of what is prohibited.

www.basicint.org/pubs/Joint/EUUSemReport.pdf

Hope this helps.

Right, both of you are of course legally correct. We've been having this discussion on a rather non-partisan current events forum I frequent (which is an odd smattering of political stripes) and my point there was that it's partly a semantics game and partly not. I admit that I didn't realize that there were legal restrictions specifically on arms export, having thought it was simply on "military aid" (which would, naturally, be largely comrpised of arms, munitions and parts). However, if we want to keep funding Thailand with exports or with greenbacks it's not a tough accounting game to play - one we play quite a bit - to route the arms circuitously to make sure that things continue uninterrupted. You bring up an interesting point though, because now, I suppose, the onus shifts back to us as to whether we want to continue as opposed to discontinue. My guess is still that nothing will change, not just because of our large presence there in the form of JUSMAGTHAI and various other missions, but also because we've no real reason to want to alienate the Kingdom. And, actually, I would think that the US lawmakers would see Thaksin's departure as a positive thing specifically in the area of military aid given his brinksmanship over the Russian planes and what not.

On a side note, I'm kind of curious what will happen to Thaksin' remaining family. I would hope nothing untoward (meaning nothing that isn't legally deserved), but I'm not really familiar with how things like this work in Thailand and having only lived there for most of a year, during the protests and the earlier election crisis, it's still not something that came up in my discussions and reading.

[Storekeeper]

Deleted ... I'll police myself.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Storekeeper

[Crushdepth]

The US might withhold 14 million dollars. In the big scheme of things, that doesn't sound like much. I would tell them to keep it.

And $6 million of that is being spent on a large project to rehabilitate tsunami-affected communities in Ranong. If they cut that they will look like real <deleted>.

Never stopped them before, I guess...

[NovaBlue05]

The US might withhold 14 million dollars. In the big scheme of things, that doesn't sound like much. I would tell them to keep it.

And $6 million of that is being spent on a large project to rehabilitate tsunami-affected communities in Ranong. If they cut that they will look like real <deleted>.

Never stopped them before, I guess...

Interesting juxtaposition to go from the reality of a good outcome resulting from US aid to the opinion of them being <deleted>....and all in 2 sentence fragments

excellent

[backflip]

"You are correct the US can support any type of government (except) in the event of a coup"

With the many exceptions where the US instigated, or supported the coup.

[pap]

"You are correct the US can support any type of government (except) in the event of a coup"

With the many exceptions where the US instigated, or supported the coup.

Agreed. For some reason it does seem like it is ok if the CIA is the actual cause.

Al Bashir was given as an example earlier as to the US supporting bad guys. This was an easy call because he can be cited as bad and good depending on which portions of his reign you look at. Not only has the US cut off aid to him but they have also aided him. We have done both.

Nothing is as simple as it seems. For example. Part of the aid "On November 29, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed a law allowing the US government to provide direct food aid to the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA)." was to help starving people. The people of the area were in 1 of three groups. All starving. This aid went to all factions. Including factions that later committed genocide. Apparently you guys here know which starving guys the food should go to so instead of blaming everything on the US why don't you send them a sandwich. Careful though. It may turn out later that whoever gets the sandwich doesn't like somebody else.

I ain't sayin the US doesn't account for a lot of misery. But at least use examples that are slightly more astute. 2 sides to every coin. Unless you throw in the circumference. Then the calculations become more complex.

Good luck.

[African]

****Update****

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Thursday it had suspended nearly $24 million in aid to Thailand because of its military coup.

"In response to the military coup ... in Thailand, the United States has suspended almost $24 million of assistance to the Thai government," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

He said the action was taken in accordance with U.S. laws restricting aid to countries that undergo military coups and indicated the assistance would be restored once Thailand -- a U.S. treaty ally -- reinstates a democratically elected government.

McCormack said the suspended funds affected military training, peacekeeping operations and arms purchases. Other funding, for humanitarian purposes, will continue, he said.

U.S. officials have said the coup was a "very sad development" for Thai democracy and a step backwards for the country.

Thailand's military looks set to loom large over an interim civilian government despite pledging it would step back two weeks after ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup.

With the 1997 "People's Charter" abolished by the coup leaders who seized power on September 19, legal experts are putting the final touches on a draft interim constitution to be submitted for royal approval on Saturday.

Details of the draft circulated in the Thai press have raised concerns that the generals will have too much influence over the new civilian administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060928/wl_nm/...nd_usa_aid_dc_2

Edited September 28, 2006 by African

[IMA_FARANG]

The US plans to abandon the free trade agreement in the works with Thailand and establish tariffs on all Thai imports to the US.

"The US is currently advising its residents to avoid investing in Thailand until the current situation is resolved. Several large corporations are already planning to move their Thai operations to more stable neighboring countries - including Singapore and Malaysia. Thailand is expected to lose US$50 Billion from American investors over the next 6 months."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060921/pl_af...us_060921160821

UPDATE:

Your information is incorrect.....or based on the wrong assumption.

For the latest update and correct information go to the BBC World Service news and read the latest update info.

I am not saying further to comply with restrictions on reporting comments regarding the current Thai political situation.

Go look up the article and see.

[jing jing]

I wonder how much this wrist-slap is because Dubya and Thaksin were buddies, sorta, being cut from the same crony-capitalism cloth so to speak, and Dubya is all sore that his little buddy was so unceremoniously ousted.

The parallels between the Dubya and Thaksin administrations are many, including vote-buying tactics amongst the less-educated country folk ("look Marge, we just got us a $200 tax refund while the country is going trillions of dollars into debt, isn't that Dubya fella wunnerful?" And he loves Jesus and hates homos just like we do!), and blatantly handing out plum government jobs and no-bid contracts to well-connected cronies and political contributors.

Wouldn't it be interesting to read the love letters being written between Dubya and Thaksin right about now?

Yeah, I reckon this suspension of American aid to Thailand has something to do with Gee Dub's affection for the ousted former Sam Houston State University grad, Mr. Thaksin.

[John K]

Without reading all the posts this looks like a do it by the book response from the USA. I don’t think they bothered to check that Democracy was just the name on the mailbox. Thaksin has gutted the house and the coup is at least for now the hired help to restore the house and perhaps install a burglar alarm too.

Not all medicine tastes good.

[billaaa777]

Deleted ... I'll police myself.

This might be the best post ever at the site!!! VERY Funny!!!

[Richard-BKK]

The United States has suspended almost 24 million dollars of assistance to the Thai government, guess the Royal Thai army is not going to order the 16 new helicopters in the USA.

http://farang.pai-nai.com/article.php/Unit...topsmilitaryaid

I'm not an expert on the price of a helicopter, but I have a bit the feeling that 16 Black Hawks cost more then 24 million dollar (I can be wrong on that).

Edited September 29, 2006 by Richard-BKK

[NovaBlue05]

The United States has suspended almost 24 million dollars of assistance to the Thai government, guess the Royal Thai army is not going to order the 16 new helicopters in the USA.

http://farang.pai-nai.com/article.php/Unit...topsmilitaryaid

I'm not an expert on the price of a helicopter, but I have a bit the feeling that 16 Black Hawks cost more then 24 million dollar (I can be wrong on that).

I doubt you could buy spare parts and maintenance on one Blackhawk for $24M. That's couch cushion change in the defense industry.