Walking a moral tightrope

If we are to take American standards seriously and in their entirety, then those demanding Nalinee’s resignation must also accept the State Department’s thinly-veiled dislike of the lese majeste law. (Of course, the US Embassy has tried to steer away from this Thai controversy, but the fact that Washington has been “troubled” by the law’s enforcement is loud and clear.) On the other hand, aren’t those cheering the US stand on lese majeste supposed to be burning Nalinee’s effigy by now?

My point is, let’s have some consistency here. Divided Thais are like squabbling school kids who switch alliance back and forth without shame. And we drag everyone through the mud. (Although this is not to say that “everyone” is kicking and screaming in the process.) Years of political conflict have twisted our values and distorted our ideologies, leaving us to apply the concept of right and wrong to suit our interests. America is a role model when it says something that we like, but when it doesn’t, we must be fools to walk in its footsteps.   

The Nalinee issue is simple. She allegedly had some business dealings with the much-abhorred regime in Zimbabwe, and America doesn’t like this and has thus put her on a blacklist prohibiting her from being engaged in virtually any kind of financial transaction with any US citizens. Now, what should we do? 

The new member of the Cabinet has defended herself on the grounds that her relationship with the Mugabes has been strictly social. There is some danger in this self-defence strategy, though, as it seems to indirectly endorse the US-influenced “moral” code that it is wrong to do business with the Zimbabwean regime. In other words, Nalinee has accepted the American standard but insisted that the United States is wrong in accusing her of violating it.

A faint glimpse of defiance has come from an unlikely source. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra gave Nalinee a better possible defence by suggesting that being on a US blacklist did not necessarily mean being ineligible for a Thai ministerial post. That is the closest we have got to telling the Americans, “So what?”

Sympathy for the US? It must be hard having your morals, or lack thereof, or potential hypocrisy, in a constant international spotlight. The world needs a standard-bearer, or so it seems, and the job is still entrusted (not without silent dissent, resentment or open disgust) to the Americans. If some Thai Cabinet member was blacklisted by, say, the Republic of Djibouti, for child sex abuse, which in my book is a crime more serious than trading some jewellery with the “wrong people”, I doubt there would be as much impact.

We need to develop our own conscience. Isn’t it a bit strange that Burma’s neighbours and all salivating investors needed to wait for the word “Go” from the White House before swooping down on that country’s natural resources? Why doesn’t someone stand up and say, “Shall we wait for Aung San Suu Kyi to win an election and form the government first?”  

These are confusing times for American standards. If respect for intellectual property is remotely acknowledged, the United States would not have found it necessary to introduce the Stop Online Piracy Act that prompted Wikipedia and a few other websites to symbolically shut down in protest last week. But if you look at it carefully, SOPA may have been determined by America’s “freedom” concept taken too far.

We must share America’s ethical burden. If it remains a role model, it is also walking a moral tightrope. For so long, America has been too big and powerful to not have a conflict of interest. Two decades ago, when the world was far more “black and white” than today, a US blacklist turned the course of Thai politics upside down. Unlike Narong Wongwan, Nalinee survives in a “grey” atmosphere in which the United States peaches its doctrine.

We should judge her based on the US information, assuming there is no reason for the US authorities to frame her. If we use American principles to measure Nalinee, we will join them on the tightrope. If we are not already there, that is.