THAILAND: Gov’t Faces Storm over Status as Upgraded Ally of U.S.

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Oct 29 2003 (IPS) - Will Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra get away in his new role as a standard-bearer for U.S. military ambitions in the region?

That question is gaining currency over a week after Thaksin earned a new military stripe for his country – being designated a major non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) ally of the United States by U.S. President George W. Bush.

For some of Thaksin’s critics, it is a deal that could well lay the foundation for Bangkok being transformed into Washington’s stooge as the U.S. government prosecutes its ”war against terrorism.”

By making bold their concerns, these voices – beginning with non-governmental groups, followed by commentators in the newspapers and now sections of the political class – also imply that the Thaksin administration may soon have to battle a political storm in the weeks ahead.

On Wednesday, the Thai Senate offered a typical example, when it questioned two senior government officials, Foreign Affairs Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and Defence Minister Thammarak Issarangkul, about the precise gains that awaited the country from this new military deal.

”Surakiart said the deal was a unilateral offer from the United States to Thailand and that Thailand had nothing to lose,” a member of the Senate’s committee on foreign affairs who sat through the inquiry told IPS. ”They also defended Thailand’s support on the ‘war against terrorism,’ and also the decision to send Thai troops to Iraq.”

That view was in keeping with the stance the foreign ministry took over the weekend to counter the early sniping that Bangkok had erred on this deal with the Bush administration. Becoming a non-Nato ally of the U.S. government will not lead to Washington setting up military bases in Thailand, a ministry official was quoted as having told ”The Nation,” a local daily.

Besides Thailand, the other countries in this exclusive military club are Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Among the more known features of such an alliance are member countries developing closer military ties, having an inside track to receive defence equipment and the ability to purchase depleted uranium anti-tank rounds.

”Many senators are worried that this arrangement with the U.S. will compromise our position as a country committed to a multilateral than a unilateral approach to security matters,” Kraisak Choonhavan, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, told IPS. ”We have reservations and we have cautioned the government.”

The opposition Democrat Party is also sharpening its knives. ”It appears as if the government has not thought through the wider picture about how this deal will affect Thailand’s status internationally,” party parliamentarian Abhisit Vejjajiva said during an interview.

”This may impact our record of being neutral on foreign policy issues,” he added. ”The public needs to know more, because the gains from this deal may be exaggerated.”

Prior to this military deal, there were other clues indicating that Bangkok was happy to curry favour with the United States, which has declared South-east Asia as the second front in its ”war against terrorism”.

Among them were Thai intelligence officials working in tandem with U.S. sleuths to arrest Riduan Isamuddin, or Hambali, an Indonesian Muslim, in August. He was wanted for his alleged involvement in a string of deadly bomb attacks and his links with a regional terror network of Islamic extremists.

What has also triggered Thai concern over the new U.S. alliance is the record left by the Washington during its last military adventure in this region – the Vietnam War. The U.S. government converted Thailand into a major military outpost during its onslaught on Indo-China in the 1960s, including building airfields, constructing a deep-water port and setting up camps.

”Between 1965 and 1968, three-quarters of all the bomb tonnage dropped on North Vietnam and Laos was flown out of the Thai bases,” write Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker in their book, ‘Thailand – Economy and Politics’.

”The Thai government secretly opened the door for the U.S. to station troops,” they note, adding that by 1969 there were over 45,000 U.S. military personnel in the country.

Thailand’s image was badly tarnished as a result, and this still haunts the country, says Withaya Sucharithanarugse, an analyst at the Institute of Asian Studies at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. ”Only the ruling political class and some businessmen benefited.”

”There was a sense that we had lost our dignity, our sovereignty and our independence to the U.S.,” he explained during an interview.

But according to Kraisak, the senator, both the U.S. embassy in Bangkok and the Thaksin administration have dismissed the suggestion that the new turn in Thai-U.S. relations could lead to a Vietnam parallel.

Yet what cannot be ignored is the implication of this turn in Thailand’s foreign policy, particularly when viewed against the message that was broadcast after Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thai) party swept into power with a thumping majority at the beginning of 2001.

The prime minister set about fashioning an image of a Thai leader who, on the one hand, was decidedly pro-Asian and, on the other, was determined to cultivate a strong sense of Thai pride and dignity.

Not only did the Thaksin administration talk up its vision to strengthen ties with China and India in its first two years, it also saw Thaksin asserting during a policy speech that Thailand should distance itself from ”failed economic models” such as the United States.

Little wonder that some newspaper commentators are asking whether the prime minister will be able to deliver in his new role. ”Time will tell if Thailand can handle the growing demand for the U.S. for a strong forward presence in its territory and the region,” Kavi Chongkittavorn wrote in a column on regional affairs in Monday’s edition of ‘The Nation.”