Vague treaty rules sank Nasa project

Nasa asked for permission to use Utapao airbase for its three weather surveillance aircraft to conduct the Southeast Asia Composition, Cloud, Climate Coupling Regional Study (SEAC4RS) project in August and September.

 

This deployment will address key questions regarding the influence of Asian emissions on clouds, climate and air quality, as well as the fundamental satellite observability of the system. Scientific observations will focus on the role of the Asian monsoon circulation and convective redistribution in governing upper atmospheric composition and chemistry, according to Nasa’s website.

 

The opposition Democrat Party and some senators demanded that the Cabinet bring the proposal before Parliament for its approval in accordance with Article 190 of the Constitution, as they suspected Nasa might have an ulterior motive to conduct the research for military purposes aimed at containing China in Asia-Pacific.

 

The project could drag Thailand into the strategic conflict between China and the US, they said.

 

In fact, there were no grounds to doubt the scientific merits of the project. The opposition party has been familiar with it since Nasa signed a joint statement of intent with the Science Ministry’s Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (Gistda) in September 2010, during the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration.

 

If there were any concerns over the project’s implications for national security, the then Democrat-led government had an obligation to clear them up and bring them before Parliament for approval, as it is now demanding the current Cabinet do. In fact, Abhisit’s administration paid no attention to the Nasa deal.

 

The project matters to politicians now because some saw an opportunity, on constitutional grounds, to impeach the government if the Cabinet failed to seek parliamentary approval.

 

Strictly speaking, the scientific cooperation project does not require parliamentary approval under the Constitution. The government’s legal advisers at the Council of State, as well as the Foreign Ministry’s Treaties and Legal Affairs departments, are in agreement on this.

 

Article 190 of the Constitution says that agreements with foreign countries or international organisations need Parliament’s approval if they result in a change in territory or sovereignty over territory; have significant implications for the budget or for social or economic security; or would require the issuance of domestic law to be enforced.

Unfortunately, the Constitution Court set a precedent of loosely interpreting the charter when it ruled on a joint statement signed with Cambodia that simply supported the World Heritage inscription of Cambodia’s Preah Vihear temple in 2008. In its verdict, it said that any document signed with a representative of a foreign government could be regarded as a treaty that “may” make changes in territory or sovereignty or have significant implications for economic and social security. In so ruling, it declared the Preah Vihear joint statement unconstitutional, forcing then foreign minister Noppadon Pattama to step down.

 

If the term “may” applies to any context, it was not unreasonable for politicians to expect that the court would decide that the Nasa project “may” have a significant impact on the security of the country.

 

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government apparently feared the consequences of a ruling under Article 190, not conflict between China and the US. It decided to bring the Nasa proposal into Parliament in accordance with Article 179, not 190 as demanded by the opposition.

 

Article 179 stipulates a consultative process, and does not call for a resolution to be passed. The move provided an excuse for the Cabinet to delay its final decision on the project until the next session of Parliament in August.

 

In the end, Nasa made the decision to cancel the project due to time constraints on preparing its equipment. This project will not be the last to fall victim to the political struggle in Thailand.