Thai diplomacy faces mammoth challenges

Thailand’s political strife has greatly affected the country’s diplomacy, and the situation is not expected to ease any time soon. In addition to the United States, which has been very critical of the military rulers, much to the resentment of those supporting a “long” reform process – who constitute quite a big number in Thailand, countries like France, Australia or those closer to home like Singapore, Cambodia and Laos have more or less been drawn to the Thai conflict.

Complications vary as each country represents a different level, or even levels, of sensitivity. The problems with the United States, for example, seem to concern “principles” primarily, at least on the surface. Many Thais are suspecting that Washington, in supporting one side of the conflict, has a hidden agenda, possibly involving business interests. Even those not as suspicious are accusing American foreign officials of being hypocritical busy-bodies. The two countries’ relations are at an all-time low and are unlikely to be normalised quickly no matter how things transpire in Thailand.

Washington, Thailand’s long-time ally, has been facing much scrutiny, because, like it or not, its policy, threats and personal attitudes of key diplomatic players fly in the face of not just normal political institutions like Thai courts, the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Democrat Party. Thailand’s political strife has undeniably affected the highest institution, the monarchy, as well.

It’s, therefore, unwise for the Americans to be blatantly taking sides. But Thai policy-makers of today and the future are in an unenviable position as well. By showing obvious partiality, the United States is making it hard for a big number of Thais to back them, when it comes to laying down foreign policies, in the long run.

In some other cases, “principles” are being clouded by legal matters. Thailand, it has been reported, has asked the French ambassador to look into the whereabouts of suspects sought under arrest warrants. Among them, reportedly, is a former leader of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship, one academic and an activist. The three are reported to have received political asylum from the French government. Two of them have allegedly been carrying out activities against the Thai leadership.

Australia downgraded ties with Thailand in the wake of the military coup that toppled the Yingluck government. Military relations between the two countries dating back some 7 decades were hampered by a Thai political conflict that even locals who are neutral cannot pinpoint who is to blame.

Then there is the European Union, which has always put pressure on the “undemocratic” Thai leadership, and neighbouring countries, which have allegedly provided secret sanctuaries for those belonging to one camp of the Thai divide.

Thailand’s relations with the said countries, therefore, face an unfavourable situation where negativity, prejudices and mistrust feed on one another and these problems could get a lot worse before we see improvement. In other words, as long as the military government remains in power or if the next government is dominated by Thais who resent the “foreign pressure”, Thailand and its “friends” could drift further and further apart. 

Not everything is up to Thailand, though. While the country bears the burden of sorting out its mess and trying to understand the “concern” of foreign nations at the same time, understanding needs to work both ways. A lot of Thais think that foreign understanding is in short supply, let alone neutrality. The situation is amplifying mistrust in a 360-degree manner. And when mistrust prevails, more often than not it hurts diplomacy.