POLITICS: Mixed Signals May Cost Thailand Foreign Funds, Support

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Feb 11 2002 (IPS) - Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s performance on the global stage last year is winning little applause from foreign policy experts here.

At a recent panel discussion on the country’s foreign policy during Thaksin’s first year in office, speakers were unanimous in their verdict: they gave it a thumb’s down. They also described Thaksin’s international agenda as “confusing”.

Part of the confusion has arisen from both the prime minister and the foreign minister, Surakiart Sathirathai, who have suggested new directions for the country’s foreign policy without explaining where the country stood with its traditional allies.

“This government is attempting to build stronger ties with Russia, China and India but saying little about where it stands with the United States, for instance,” says Panitan Wattanayagorn, a foreign affairs expert at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. “We have had good trade relations with the United States.”

Such a push, as in the case of China, for example, is also being seen here as a tilt away from an essential pillar of Thai foreign policy — to stick to the “middle ground”.

Then there is the warming of ties between Thailand and neighbouring Burma. “Under this government, military officials have been given the lead to handle our Burma policy, rather than the foreign ministry,” adds Panitan. “We are not seeing our strengths like human rights and democracy being used in this policy.”

One outcome of this is the message Bangkok has sent to its diplomatic staff: that Thailand will defend Burma whenever its human rights records is criticised by U.N. bodies or the international community. Under the previous administration, Bangkok had opted to stay aloof, neither condemning nor supporting Rangoon’s oppressive regime.

Another enigmatic initiative is the Thaksin administration’s attempt to create an “Asian Dialogue,” which is a push to forge unity and a common agenda among Asian countries. Besides being dismissed as a hackneyed idea, this grand initiative has been shredded for its lack of specifics on how it could be achieved.

“The government wants to pursue an Asian vision, but it is not clear how to achieve it,” reveals Asda Jayanama, a former Thai diplomat. “If it is an attempt to get the Asian countries to gang up it will no go very far because of the region’s diversity.”

Writing in the English language daily ‘The Nation’, Don Pathan states that Thaksin’s “Asian Dialogue” was a “rejuvenation of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s dream of an East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC)”.

And in a caustic tone, Pathan, the paper’s regional editor, observes that “it seems to have been forgotten that the reason the proposed EAEC failed the first time around was because it unnecessarily pitted East against West”.

The script on economics has also been found wanting in some areas. “The government has been vociferous but limited in ideas,” wrote Anuraj Manibhandu for the independent ‘Bangkok Post’. “The prime minister proposed bilateral free trade areas with India, Japan and the U.S. But the responses were hardly encouraging.”

On top of that was a policy speech about economic development delivered by Thaksin last year where he asserted that Thailand should distance itself from “failed economic models” of the United States and Japan and opt for a more “inward looking” model.

In one sense, such a nationalistic perspective was hardly surprising from the leader of the Thai Rak Thai (Thai’s Love Thai) party, who continues to enjoy wide support, especially from the grassroots.

His populist platform for last year’s poll included the promise to help the country recover from its 1997 financial crash by focusing on more national markets and growth, than turning to foreign capital for assistance.

On the other hand, that speech succeeded in undermining efforts to attract foreign cash for the country’s economic development.

“The message we sent to the world was confusing, particularly at a time when we need FDI (foreign direct investment),” says Kiat Sittheeamorn, deputy secretary general at the Board of Trade of Thailand. “We are entering a phase of low growth.”

For Panitan, the foreign affairs expert, it was another gaffe revealing the government’s inability to grasp the global scene. “Speeches like that don’t help us, particularly at a time when a lot more places are more attractive for foreign investors than Thailand.”

Thailand is lagging behind Singapore and Malaysia in FDI in the region. What is more, it attracted far less investment during the first 10 months last year than during the same period the previous year – investments worth close to 160 billion baht (3.6 billion U.S. dollars) in 2001 as opposed to 335 billion baht (7.6 billion U.S. dollars) in 2000.

However, by the year end, Thaksin was marching to another tune to lure foreign capital into the country, including investment from Japan and the United States. Since then, senior officials from the Board of Investment (BOI) have gone public to declare that Thailand has the potential of emerging as South-east Asia’s leading destination for FDI in two years.

The government can ill afford such inconsistency, argues Panitan. “We are in an era that is complex and risky. It is time to focus on a few issues with a clear strategy,” he says.

Asda, the former diplomat, adds a warning: “They are ignoring basics for ‘gimmicky diplomacy’. The country loses with this lack of clarity.”