
Responding to a statement by Taiwan’s foreign ministry expressing disappointment with the Thai government after a joint Thai-Chinese statement described Taiwan as an inalienable part of China, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sihasak Phuangketkeow said the issue was nothing new.
Sihasak added that he had taken part in negotiations to draft the joint statement and that the one-China policy was a longstanding principle that had been reaffirmed repeatedly.
Thailand was not alone, as all countries adhered to the policy.
Wording concerning reunification had stressed that it should be peaceful and had long been used in such documents.
Although he understood that Taiwan might be particularly concerned, Sihasak insisted that Thailand’s position had not changed.
All countries still used the term “one China”, with the exception of the very small number that recognised Taiwan but not mainland China.
The matter was therefore unlikely to present any issue.
Sihasak suggested Taiwan might have issued the statement for domestic reasons, but noted that it had not said it would take any countermeasures.
Public concern over various issues could sometimes prompt Taiwan to state its position.
The Thai side already knew that nothing had changed, and Thailand’s economic, trade and cultural relations with Taiwan remained the same.
Addressing concerns among some Thais that Taiwan’s statement could affect visa-free travel for Thai tourists, Sihasak said Taiwan had not mentioned the issue.
Taiwan was already aware of the two sides’ mutual interests.
Visits by Thai travellers benefited Taiwan’s economy, while Taiwanese private-sector investment in Thailand also contributed to the Thai economy.
Sihasak said there would probably be further contact over the matter.
Thailand could explain if requested and would have no problem doing so.
The wording of the joint statement had been considered during negotiations with China to ensure it was appropriate.
He added that whenever the foreign ministry entered into negotiations, it had to adhere to wording that had previously been used and accepted.
If new wording was introduced, its meaning had to be clarified immediately.