Proactive diplomats stir debate

LOUD DIPLOMACY employed by Western envoys has displeased the military-installed government as well as its supporters, but both a veteran diplomat and an academic see no real implications for |relations with Thailand.

Last year, a group of conservative nationalists lodged a petition with police to have a lese majeste investigation launched over a speech given by US Ambassador Glyn T Davies. United Kingdom Ambassador Mark Kent also receives strong reaction from Thai officials whenever he expresses on social media his views on Thai politics and the country’s human rights practices.

Such a diplomatic style has resulted in minor debates in Thailand as to whether it is right and whether there has been anything said that has affected the entire relationship between Thailand and the US and the UK.

Government Deputy Spokesperson Maj-General Werachon Sukondhapatipak expressed disappointment over the UK ambassador voicing support for the activists who criticised the controversial Rajabhakti project, while the Thai envoy to the UK Kittipong Na Ranong commented via BBC Thai that Kent should have used diplomatic channels to express his opinion.

The US and UK embassies, however, have maintained their positions and said they saw nothing wrong in using such a loud diplomatic style as part of their relations with Thailand.

“The US will continue to urge the interim government to remove restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” US embassy deputy spokesperson David W Whitted told The Nation via email.

The US will also continue calling for the full restoration of civil liberties, Whitted said, to institute a “genuinely inclusive reform process that reflects the broad diversity of views” within the country, and return the country to democracy.

The British embassy told The Nation via a phone interview that Kent’s messages have been clear and he wished to speak no further on the matter.

Former foreign minister and career diplomat Kasit Piromya said: “All those stories are open agendas from the West.”

Kasit served in the foreign service in countries including Russia, Indonesia and the US.

A freer political situation would facilitate the capitalistic agenda to the benefit of Western policy, he said, adding: “It’s true that Thailand needs improvement, but will capitalism be an answer?”

The two Western envoys’ public expressions could be seen in two ways, he said. Firstly, they could imply the government was unable to inform the global community about the Kingdom’s failed administration during the 2013-14 political crisis and that some absolute control, such as the 2014 coup, was essential.

He said the envoys’ stance could also mean that they chose not to adhere to normal practices and insisted on expressing their opinions based on their agendas. The envoys could have officially discussed their grievances with authorities but chose to publicise their opinions, he said, and could have been pressed by their |respective governments to openly show their stances.

However, the West’s signals could be seen in a positive light by the authorities, he said. The US and the UK have had an alliance with the Kingdom since the Cold War era.

“It means that we are urged to make ourselves more transparent,” Kasit said “Foreigners still doubt our obscured justice process and how we put balance in laws on freedom of expression. We must also be able to assure foreign countries that we will surely hold a general election by the middle of 2017.”

A foreign minister from 2008 to 2011, Kasit recalled when he faced similar reactions from some Western envoys who disagreed with the appointment of Abhisit Vejjajiva as premier.

“They doubted Abhisit because he didn’t win the general election,” he said. “I basically explained to them that we always follow the rules. Abhisit was appointed from elected MPs as the former PM [Somchai Wongsawat] was removed.”

Now a member of the National Reform Steering Assembly’s political committee, Kasit is inviting officials from Thailand-based embassies, mostly from countries with developed democracies, to provide knowledge to the committee in the hope of sparking ideas on political reform. “This kind of support is what true friends do for each other,” he added.

Natthanan Kunnamas, an academic expert on international relations at Chulalongkorn University, observed the matter more broadly citing Article 41 of the Vienna Convention 1961. “Despite enjoying such privileges and immunities [in order] to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state, they also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that state.

“If the envoys are from the major donor countries, shall they have the right to interfere with the use of grants, development aid and supportive cooperation that they used to provide to us?” she said. “And Western powers could criticise [our] internal affairs to make sure that their financial aid is used to serve the donors’ purposes,” she added.

Natthanan said that the matter could be looked at in greater depth. “It might be unfruitful to seek an absolute debate or totality as to whether the acts of the two ambassadors are right or wrong regarding diplomatic protocols. 

But to what extent have those acts created relative impacts on us is important and should be debated,” she said.