US Cuts Off Millions In Military Aid To Thailand

[ColPyat]

P.S.

Where,s the evidence that the selection is not a good one, i haven,t read one article about him that,s negative, quite the contrary

That question will have to unanswered here as the answer would go very much against present laws and forum rules...

[gburns57au]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the suspension of aid by the US is automatic where a military coup displaces an elected leader....It is not a push by the US to force anyones hand.

Nothing personal GB

But what happened with the statemen made by the State Department spokesman Sean McCormack!

Why didn,t he say just that along with all the other admin. spokespeople to re enforce your observation and the "fact " you mention ???????????????????????????????????

Sorry but i think your off mark with why they are making these negative quotes and taking the present actions.

It,s not due to what you quote as it really would have been an easy way to distance itself from the politics.

Just another case of minding somone else,s store instead of puttting their own in order ( = meddle )

This is Thailands affair not the U.S,s don,t you think.

marshbags

P.S.

Where,s the evidence that the selection is not a good one, i haven,t read one article about him that,s negative, quite the contrary

It was what I read either on News.com or in the paper this morning....I dont know or neither care much about US politics

[A. BOOZER]

can you name a country that is NOT true about?

CHINA

[jdinasia]

can you name a country that is NOT true about?

CHINA

wrong ...

just can't be bothered to correct his quotes ....

Edited September 30, 2006 by jdinasia

[marshbags]

can you name a country that is NOT true about?

CHINA

Pardon

marshbags

[Greer]

The cut in military aid is nothing more than symbolic. It just puts people on notice that a coup is not considered a good idea. If the country runs into the least bit of a problem, the US will be here in an instant to help.

And just who would they help? How would they justify coming into a country, picking a side to back and imposing their values on the people of that country? Isn't that what happened in Viet Nam?

You are speaking with tongue in cheek regarding the justification I take it?

As far as I can work out, the word doesn't exist in any US military manual - just a guess based on their dreadful record starting with Vietnam, including several other little "assistance packages" they have delivered, and culminating in the military pinnacle of success that is Iraq!

And that useless pile of dog-droppings Tony Blair is following the smell of Bush's anal crack...I expect the UK will follow suite and cut something in sympathy with the US!

Thailand should simply smile and say thank you...but never forget...

[ilyushin]

Show the US gov. lacks proper intel and also rank high on dip skills.

No need to worry Thailand can barter trade.

[dave_boo]

To ratcatcher:

The difference being that all of those former presidents (and current one) had prior military connections. They weren't at the time in charge of the military, which changes the whole make up of a coup. Most coups that involve non-military people are generally less bloody and offer freedoms quicker than those that are initiated by the military.

As far as Thaskin having the military more or less in his pocket, I'm not sure that did him much good now did it? Having said that, is there any country where the military doesn't fall under the prime minister/president?

[Ricardo]

can you name a country that is NOT true about?

CHINA

One suspects also Vietnam, Laos & Burma, might be on the list too ?

What I find suprising, is that the military-aid continued under Thaksin, when Thailand was moving in an un-democratic direction, plus also being very supportive of the long-term military-regime in Burma. Yet was immediately cut here, following the peaceful change-of-government, and this may damage Thai perceptions of the USA longer-term.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Ricardo

[ColPyat]

What I find suprising, is that the military-aid continued under Thaksin, when Thailand was moving in an un-democratic direction, plus also being very supportive of the long-term military-regime in Burma. Yet was immediately cut here, following the peaceful change-of-government, and this may damage Thai perceptions of the USA longer-term.

Thailand became supportive of Burma's junta long before Thaksin entered the political scene. From 1988 onwards Thailand changed its Burma policy from the buffer state policy and openly supporting the different rebel groups towards the constructive engagement policy which was first so expressed, i believe, under the Anand government.

There were certain hick-ups along the way, but no Thai government, including the Chuan governments, have made significant changes to the constructive engagement policy, and have since 1988 supported the Burmese government.

But why let facts spoil a good story?

[Old Man River]

The cut in military aid is nothing more than symbolic. It just puts people on notice that a coup is not considered a good idea. If the country runs into the least bit of a problem, the US will be here in an instant to help.

And just who would they help? How would they justify coming into a country, picking a side to back and imposing their values on the people of that country? Isn't that what happened in Viet Nam?

Thailand should simply smile and say thank you...but never forget...

It is not uncommon for senior Thai military personnel to have received military training in the US. These guys continue to communicate with each other. Senior Thai military personnel fully understand the US's political rhetoric and how to deal with it. Remember, the US pulled military aid from Thailand in 1991, following that year's coup, but the Thai and US military remained close. Thailand is now one of a handful of countries carrying the status of non-Nato alliance partner with the US. The millitary puts up with political interference, but understands how to deal with it.

[jdinasia]

can you name a country that is NOT true about?

CHINA

One suspects also Vietnam, Laos & Burma, might be on the list too ?

Nope .. the USA has an Embassy those places too ....

Edited October 1, 2006 by jdinasia

[Ricardo]

What I find suprising, is that the military-aid continued under Thaksin, when Thailand was moving in an un-democratic direction, plus also being very supportive of the long-term military-regime in Burma. Yet was immediately cut here, following the peaceful change-of-government, and this may damage Thai perceptions of the USA longer-term.

Thailand became supportive of Burma's junta long before Thaksin entered the political scene. From 1988 onwards Thailand changed its Burma policy from the buffer state policy and openly supporting the different rebel groups towards the constructive engagement policy which was first so expressed, i believe, under the Anand government.

There were certain hick-ups along the way, but no Thai government, including the Chuan governments, have made significant changes to the constructive engagement policy, and have since 1988 supported the Burmese government.

Thanks for the background-info - you've obviously been following it, for longer than myself.

But why let facts spoil a good story? Sorry, I don't quite follow, what you're getting at ?

[ColPyat]

What I find suprising, is that the military-aid continued under Thaksin, when Thailand was moving in an un-democratic direction, plus also being very supportive of the long-term military-regime in Burma. Yet was immediately cut here, following the peaceful change-of-government, and this may damage Thai perceptions of the USA longer-term.

Thailand became supportive of Burma's junta long before Thaksin entered the political scene. From 1988 onwards Thailand changed its Burma policy from the buffer state policy and openly supporting the different rebel groups towards the constructive engagement policy which was first so expressed, i believe, under the Anand government.

There were certain hick-ups along the way, but no Thai government, including the Chuan governments, have made significant changes to the constructive engagement policy, and have since 1988 supported the Burmese government.

Thanks for the background-info - you've obviously been following it, for longer than myself.

But why let facts spoil a good story? Sorry, I don't quite follow, what you're getting at ?

Sorry, just being a wisearse. Don't put too much attention to my snides.

But yes, i have been following the Burma issue over the years, at times closely, at other times not so. I have been many times illegaly in Burma, spent time in Mannerplaw before it fell, been legally in Burma, and once even officially - the only way to get into the very tightly closed Wa State.

The only thing i can say is that there is no easy solution as much as one might wish to see it.

IMHO a complete boycott will only play into the hands of the extreme hardliners who would prefer complete isolation, and contribute to the suffering of the people, while the problem with ASEAN, in particular Thai, style of constructive engagement was only taking adavantage of business opportunities.

It is fashion now, and especially on this board, to blame all evil in Thailand on Thaksin alone, forgetting that before there was a whole lot going wrong in Thailand as well. For a lot of people in this country Thaksin meant their first opportunity of getting a taste of democracy because the only sort of proper political party - the Democrats - have left the rural areas of the North and Isaarn largely to selfserving godfather parties.

Unfortunately these people were not allowed to learn their own democratic lesson that voting for a populist crook will not be to their benefit in the long term. Which, without interference, they would have, sooner or later. And then democracy would have had a chance to advance significantly here.

Well, it's back to square one now.

[Plus]

The US simply can't publicly cheer a military coup, whether it's a good or a bad one. They have to stick to the principles, if only on paper. Imagine what the world reaction would be if they endorsed a military junta from the fist day? Why risk PR disaster when nothing will really change - the aid will be resumed, annual exercises will continue, business as usual.

"###### if you do, ###### if you don't" case. That senator is world only chance to force some changes in Burma, btw.

Colpyat, didn't Chuan government treat Burmese as "humantarian" problem, rather than "illegal immigrants" problem, like Thaksin?

[DragonLad]

The US simply can't publicly cheer a military coup, whether it's a good or a bad one. They have to stick to the principles, if only on paper. Imagine what the world reaction would be if they endorsed a military junta from the fist day? Why risk PR disaster when nothing will really change - the aid will be resumed, annual exercises will continue, business as usual.

"###### if you do, ###### if you don't" case. That senator is world only chance to force some changes in Burma, btw.

Colpyat, didn't Chuan government treat Burmese as "humantarian" problem, rather than "illegal immigrants" problem, like Thaksin?

I wonder if the revolutionary war that started the US would be considered a coup?

[ColPyat]

Colpyat, didn't Chuan government treat Burmese as "humantarian" problem, rather than "illegal immigrants" problem, like Thaksin?

Under the Chuan government the Thai Army allowed, after the fall of Mannerplaw, and the split of the Buddhist Karen from the KNU, that the Buddhist Karen and the Burmese army attacked countless refugee camps in cross border incursions, making the Mae Sot - Mae Sariang highway nearly impassable for over a year. Many refugee camps on Thai soil were burned down, KNLA leaders were killed, camp leaders were kidnapped.

Regardless of political rethoric of whoever was in power - reality on the ground was dominated by "constructive engagement". And trust me - this will not change in the foreseeable future, regardless who is in power here or there. Far too much money is to be made.

[Patex]

To ratcatcher:

The difference being that all of those former presidents (and current one) had prior military connections. They weren't at the time in charge of the military, which changes the whole make up of a coup...

To davie:

...Retired general Surayud Chulanont,63..., so what??

[Crushdepth]

The US simply can't publicly cheer a military coup, whether it's a good or a bad one. They have to stick to the principles, if only on paper. Imagine what the world reaction would be if they endorsed a military junta from the fist day?

Unless its a US-backed/led military coup?

When the US invades / ######s up liberates a country it is "freedom and democracy". When a country liberates itself, its a "junta".

The only positive thing I have to say about US foreign policy is that their taxpayers are paying through the nose for it. Will they never learn?

[dave_boo]

To ratcatcher:

The difference being that all of those former presidents (and current one) had prior military connections. They weren't at the time in charge of the military, which changes the whole make up of a coup...

To davie:

...Retired general Surayud Chulanont,63..., so what??

Yes the current Prime Minister is former military, and was appointed by the current commander of the military (i.e., not elected by a democratic process). You can not see the difference?

[nikster]

To ratcatcher:

The difference being that all of those former presidents (and current one) had prior military connections. They weren't at the time in charge of the military, which changes the whole make up of a coup...

To davie:

...Retired general Surayud Chulanont,63..., so what??

Yes the current Prime Minister is former military, and was appointed by the current commander of the military (i.e., not elected by a democratic process). You can not see the difference?

It's all about the people. Reuters and BBC news which took over the Reuters report verbatim say that the guy has a reputation for being incorruptible.

Frankly, that's all I need to know. I wish him luck and that he gets all the support he needs. He is definitely the right choice. Thailand needs incorruptible leaders more than anything else.

Corruption is the reason the previous "democratic" government was such a farce.

[pantarei]

I think Thailand in response to this should cancel Cobra Gold and start doing joint military training operations with the Chinese.

Finally, close down JUSMAGTHAI (Joint US Military Advisory's Group Thailand http://www.jusmagthai.com/) in Bangkok.

Absolutely brilliant! Have you informed the Thai government of your plan?

Minor detail- The Chinese military may stay in LOS for a looong time after Dragon Gold is over – of course, by invitation of the government elected by the Chinese “Peoples” Army. The wars mentioned below (there are more) were initiated by the peace-loving Chinese communists - still in power. And the Tiananmen Square incident was caused by the CIA, wasn't it?

Quote:

"India: Remember the 1962 Sino-Indian War? The Chinese quietly acclimated an assault force, preparing infantry for high-altitude operations, then conducted a savvy offensive that punished the Indian Army.

Tibet: Mao attacked and occupied Tibet. (Kazakhstan and Mongolia, take note.) Mao claimed Tibet as a "lost Chinese province." The Tibetans still resist Han Chinese domination.

Vietnam: In 1979, China and Vietnam fought a brief but bloody border war. That war told even hard-core Vietnamese cadres that Communist brotherhood was kaput. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Vietnam lacked a major power ally to make the Chinese "colossus to the north" think twice. Hanoi complains of U.S. imperialism, but Asia has experienced millennia of Chinese imperialism." source:

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20010412.asp

Also:

"The State Department says the U-S will suspend 24 (m) million in military funds because U-S law bars sending some kinds of aid to governments that take power by force." source:

http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=547...mp;nav=0Rcx3aIN

[h90]

I think Thailand in response to this should cancel Cobra Gold and start doing joint military training operations with the Chinese.

Finally, close down JUSMAGTHAI (Joint US Military Advisory's Group Thailand http://www.jusmagthai.com/) in Bangkok.

Absolutely brilliant! Have you informed the Thai government of your plan?

Minor detail- The Chinese military may stay in LOS for a looong time after Dragon Gold is over – of course, by invitation of the government elected by the Chinese “Peoples” Army. The wars mentioned below (there are more) were initiated by the peace-loving Chinese communists - still in power. And the Tiananmen Square incident was caused by the CIA, wasn't it?

Quote:

"India: Remember the 1962 Sino-Indian War? The Chinese quietly acclimated an assault force, preparing infantry for high-altitude operations, then conducted a savvy offensive that punished the Indian Army.

Tibet: Mao attacked and occupied Tibet. (Kazakhstan and Mongolia, take note.) Mao claimed Tibet as a "lost Chinese province." The Tibetans still resist Han Chinese domination.

Vietnam: In 1979, China and Vietnam fought a brief but bloody border war. That war told even hard-core Vietnamese cadres that Communist brotherhood was kaput. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Vietnam lacked a major power ally to make the Chinese "colossus to the north" think twice. Hanoi complains of U.S. imperialism, but Asia has experienced millennia of Chinese imperialism." source:

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20010412.asp

Also:

"The State Department says the U-S will suspend 24 (m) million in military funds because U-S law bars sending some kinds of aid to governments that take power by force." source:

http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=547...mp;nav=0Rcx3aIN

yes but account it with the US things: from south america, asia, supporting bin laden (against sovjet).........

in compare I don't see why they shouldn't be friendly with China. Or Thailand just tells how about the double 48 million or we make a nice group with Birma, Lao, Kambotscha (and Malaysia which is also not very us friendly) with big daddy china.

And the USA will open their wallet and Sonthi will be the best democrat ever. Strategic it would be a disaster to have such a hugh block of countries out of US controll.

My guess is, they first try it on the hard way: If you don't we don't pay....

If that is not working they try it on the soft way....

[Plus]

Even Musharaff, the current best buddy dictator, was not welcomed right away, and his image is similar to Surayud - incorruptible.

They'll get over it. Thailand is too important, major Non Nato ally and all that.

[jdinasia]

It is kind of a moot point ..... in the past the Republicans have funded groups that actually were far from the ideals of how the US thinks of itself. Congress got a hold of this and passed a law saying that no funds for the military would be available to governments that overthrow a democratically elected government. The only choice in this matter is for the US to change the law.

However .... humanitarian aid etc etc etc doesn't get restricted under this US law.

[pap]

The US simply can't publicly cheer a military coup, whether it's a good or a bad one. They have to stick to the principles, if only on paper. Imagine what the world reaction would be if they endorsed a military junta from the fist day?

Unless its a US-backed/led military coup?

When the US invades / ######s up liberates a country it is "freedom and democracy". When a country liberates itself, its a "junta".

The only positive thing I have to say about US foreign policy is that their taxpayers are paying through the nose for it. Will they never learn?

So whose foriegn policy do you beleive is right? Simple fact is that it is easy to find flaws in every countries. If my memory holds very few countries historically speeking seem to have this down. I would have to say Iceland probably has the best but when no one is watching your mistakes go unnoticed.

When you stub your toe big time in front of a crowd its hard to miss. Especally when a. the crowd wants you to screw up and b. You have a clumsy leader.

So by your definition sending food to Africa would be wrong if it came from the US. I would say the negative outwieghs the positive currently but discounting all the good because it is currently exceeded by bad is a pretty simplistic view. Its also pretty handy when you don't have to articulate better ideas.

Back to point, the aid the US provides Thailand will not effect it in a very negative way. Other chanels will be explored to keep Thailand as allies for a multitude of reasons.

Thailand should be more concerned with business losses than economic aid packages from any country. Those are negligible and will probably be reinstated down the road anyway.

[ding]

The US simply can't publicly cheer a military coup, whether it's a good or a bad one. They have to stick to the principles, if only on paper. Imagine what the world reaction would be if they endorsed a military junta from the fist day?

Unless its a US-backed/led military coup?

When the US invades / ######s up liberates a country it is "freedom and democracy". When a country liberates itself, its a "junta".

The only positive thing I have to say about US foreign policy is that their taxpayers are paying through the nose for it. Will they never learn?

No, not as long as the media is one huge propaganda organ. Americans are easily fooled, I oughta know.

The Bush government wants the corporatist Thaksin back in so he can follow suit. Dupe the serfs and loot the country.

[Johpa]

Colpyat, didn't Chuan government treat Burmese as "humantarian" problem, rather than "illegal immigrants" problem, like Thaksin?

Under the Chuan government the Thai Army allowed, after the fall of Mannerplaw, and the split of the Buddhist Karen from the KNU, that the Buddhist Karen and the Burmese army attacked countless refugee camps in cross border incursions, making the Mae Sot - Mae Sariang highway nearly impassable for over a year. Many refugee camps on Thai soil were burned down, KNLA leaders were killed, camp leaders were kidnapped.

Regardless of political rethoric of whoever was in power - reality on the ground was dominated by "constructive engagement". And trust me - this will not change in the foreseeable future, regardless who is in power here or there. Far too much money is to be made.

Yes, the likes of Chavalit and his ilk will continue to seek profit from inside Burma, working with the psycho Burmese government, and will still sell out (for short-time) Thai soveignty over land to the Burmese to help facilitate those profits.

It should be noted that the US has finally agreed to bestow refugee status upon the Karen along the border and the first families have already been relocated over the past month.

[ding]

I think Thailand in response to this should cancel Cobra Gold and start doing joint military training operations with the Chinese.

Finally, close down JUSMAGTHAI (Joint US Military Advisory's Group Thailand http://www.jusmagthai.com/) in Bangkok.

Absolutely brilliant! Have you informed the Thai government of your plan?

Minor detail- The Chinese military may stay in LOS for a looong time after Dragon Gold is over – of course, by invitation of the government elected by the Chinese “Peoples” Army. The wars mentioned below (there are more) were initiated by the peace-loving Chinese communists - still in power. And the Tiananmen Square incident was caused by the CIA, wasn't it?

Quote:

"India: Remember the 1962 Sino-Indian War? The Chinese quietly acclimated an assault force, preparing infantry for high-altitude operations, then conducted a savvy offensive that punished the Indian Army.

Tibet: Mao attacked and occupied Tibet. (Kazakhstan and Mongolia, take note.) Mao claimed Tibet as a "lost Chinese province." The Tibetans still resist Han Chinese domination.

Vietnam: In 1979, China and Vietnam fought a brief but bloody border war. That war told even hard-core Vietnamese cadres that Communist brotherhood was kaput. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Vietnam lacked a major power ally to make the Chinese "colossus to the north" think twice. Hanoi complains of U.S. imperialism, but Asia has experienced millennia of Chinese imperialism." source:

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20010412.asp

Also:

"The State Department says the U-S will suspend 24 (m) million in military funds because U-S law bars sending some kinds of aid to governments that take power by force." source:

http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=547...mp;nav=0Rcx3aIN

The Reagan governemt (Republican) broke the US constitution when it broke the Bolen Amendments and illegally funded the Central American coup. If the powerful want to fund, they fund. The law be damned.

The Bush government does not want to fund. They have established that they are willing to break anything. They don't want to fund Thailand's leaders who have shown the world that military can throw off a corrupt leader with a stranglehold on power.

[Scott]

God, I can't believe some of these responses. $24 million is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. There is no embargo on military hardware or spare parts. These the things with muscle.

Politicians are scared witless of a military coup, it's like an outbreak of crabs in a whorehouse!

There will always be repercussion for such things.