The new strategic environment in East Asia, caused by recent leadership
changes and growing nationalism, coupled with the rising confidence of
Southeast Asian nations, will severely test the tenets of Thai foreign policy.
As the only independent country
in the region without any baggage of colonisation, Thailand has pursued a well-known
diplomacy of "mai kao kang krai" or "not siding with
anyone". In other Thai diplomatic discourses, the term "yuen throng
klang" or "stay in the middle" is also applied. But with the
small twist, though, that Thailand will definitely change sides if there is a
clear winner. Thailand's dramatic alliance with Japan during World War II and
its turn around, as well as the close military collaboration with Communist
China during the Cambodian conflict in the1980's, were prime examples.
This policy approach has been
quite useful for Thai diplomacy to take advantage of the external environment,
which has clearly defined players and outcomes. Over the past six decades, as
an American ally, the country's foreign policy has followed the strategic path
set by Washington along with its power projection and perceived threats.
Thailand was at the forefront of
fighting against communism. Since the unification of Vietnam in 1975 and peace
in Cambodia in 1991, Thai strategic values in the eyes of Western countries
have receded quickly to the point of insignificance. Instead, Thailand's
neighboring countries, which were once enemies or isolated, have been quickly and
systematically building up their relations with existing super powers and
emerging continental powers.
It's sad but true, Thailand is no
longer the key regional player it used to be or often boasted of being. Pundits
often blamed ongoing political uncertainties and polarisations that have
further handicapped the country's diplomatic versatility and flexibility.
Frankly speaking, throughout Thai
history, the country has often been confronted with internal turbulence and
infighting. Successive Thai governments, both elected and non-elected, are used
to adopting day-to-day survivalist policies. In retrospect, Thailand actually
thrives in chaos. The quality of day-to-day resiliency, which the country holds
dear, is becoming a huge liability in the globalised world of the 21st century
with its many aspiring rising powers and competitors.
In this region, continuity and
change is a great virtue. However, in the case of Thailand, the countries which
have dealt with it would quickly conclude that there is only change but not
continuity. In a nutshell, Thai policies, indeed any policies, are defined by
continued change, all is indefinite. In comparison, Myanmar, as the region's
latecomer, has won accolades throughout the world with its reform efforts.
Despite its past atrocious record, the international community has expressed
strong support for the societal transformation there. There is no sense of
ambiguity related to the Thein Sein government's policies and future plans.
Next year, three outstanding
issues will severely test Thai diplomacy. First, the Thai-Cambodian conflict
over the Khao Praviharn/Preah Vihear Temple. Second, the role of Thailand as
the country coordinator for Asean-China relations and finally, the management
of the porous Thai-Myanmar border and myriads of issues associated with the
2,400 kilometre frontier. Of course, at the moment, there is a sense of deja-
vu among the Thai top leaders that the relatively calm situation along the
Thai-Cambodian border and the camaraderie-ties between Prime Minister Hun Sen
and de facto Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra would positively influence
the outcome of the International Court of Justice hearing in The Hague.
In mid-April next year, Thailand
will put forward the final defence of its position on the Hindu temple.
Whatever the court's verdict, which is expected later at the end of 2013 or
early 2014, it will serve as the template for future Thai-Cambodian ties.
Failure to comply with the decision will greatly affect the region's stability
and damage community-building in Asean. So far, the personality-led diplomacy
has trumped the one led by perceived national interest. Nobody knows how it
will play out eventually.
As the Asean-China fixer,
Thailand has dual roles for the next three years (2013-2015). Its first
priority is to ensure there is tangible progress on their common effort to
draft the bidding code of conduct in the South China Sea. Mutual trust between
the two sides must be restored as soon as possible.
As such, Bangkok must also set
paths through the Asean process for future engagements of major powers
crisscrossing the resource-rich maritime areas. Whether Thailand can pull this
off, granted its excellent ties with China, remains to be seen. In the 1980's,
Bangkok was criticized by serving as a conduit for Beijing's southward
expansion which is increasingly visible today. Thailand is not a sea-faring
nation. Except for the 1979 Thai-Malaysia joint development project in the Gulf
of Thailand, Bangkok does not have a good record in managing maritime borders
with its neighboring countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia and
Vietnam). Challenges related to efforts to expand maritime territories,
particularly over resource-rich areas, will occupy the Asean agenda in years to
come.
Beyond the Asean-China nexus, it
would be less complicated if Thailand was not a military alliance with the US.
Whatever Thailand does, on its behalf or Asean's, will obviously be viewed with
skepticism in the Western countries, especially in Washington. The tenets of
Thai foreign policy as mentioned above will be tested, especially the notion of
"stay in the middle". This concept has guided Thai diplomacy for
centuries. In Thai thinking, it simply means that no decision will be made
until there is a clear winner.
If the prevailing wind allows and
the weather is clear, Thailand will jump on any triumphant ship. If such diplomatic
behavior remains unchanged, the ambivalence of Thai positions and perceptions
will impact on the overall Asean position as well. Therefore, Thai policymakers
must come clean in defining the Thai national objectives and those of Asean at
large. In this case, Thailand is not choosing sides but it must make its
security views known. So, both the Asean countries and concerned players know
Thailand's limits and potential.
Finally, managing the
Thai-Myanmar border in years to come will be the most difficult diplomatic task
the country has to face. Although Thailand has long experience with displaced
persons and refugees, with more than three million Indochinese refugees
throughout the 1970's and 1980's, the situation along the Western flank is a
different ball-game. Armed ethnic minority groups straddling the frontier have
not yet reconciled and integrated with the greater society in Myanmar.
Any attempt to strike a deal
bilaterally between Thailand and Myanmar without taking into consideration the
interests of ethnic minority groups would have negative consequences in the
long run.
The future of an estimated four
million workers, legal and illegal, along with their families would be another
major headache. Thailand's resistance to join the 1951 Refugee Convention
remains a big blind spot. Other transnational issues including criminal and
various forms of trafficking—narcotics, human, wildlife, teak—also require
participation of all stakeholders. Lest we forget, Thailand and Myanmar have
engaged in border skirmishes several times over demarcation line disputes and
spill-over fighting with ethnic minorities during the past three decades.
Kavi Chongkittavorn
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Health care and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN 's area. We are currently changing the platform of www.yourvietnamexpert.com, if any request, please, contact directly Dr Christian SIODMAK, business strategist, owner and CEO of SBC at christian.siodmak@gmail.com. Many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment