Domestic politics mars bilateral ties with the US

Some have said that it’s easier for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) to go to the moon than Thailand. The issue is how to prevent the sarcasm from becoming well-established reality. Nasa has packed its bag, after a request to use U-tapao airbase for a weather study project triggered a political storm in Thailand. It was a decision greeted differently by people in the divided kingdom. Domestic politics played a big role in the controversy from start to finish, and even the question whether that is good or bad for Thailand will be answered along ideological lines.

What has shot down Nasa’s seemingly noble plan? Ask one side of the Thai conflict and they will blame it on sour-grape political saboteurs, those who have to rock the boat on everything the Yingluck government does. Ask the other side and they will cite a “secret” US agenda, an unhappy China and the unwarranted awkward position Thais would find themselves in diplomatically if the Nasa scheme materialised.

The fact that Thai politics dictated the fate of the Nasa plan is undeniable. The truth, however, remains that had the Thai government decided to involve Parliament in the very beginning, the project could have approved in time.

The Nasa scheme came to public attention when Thailand was fixated on “reconciliation” bills and a controversial injunction by the Constitution Court against the charter amendment process. There were windows of opportunity to let Parliament in on the Nasa request to use U-tapao and pass it, using the ruling camp’s comfortable command of the House of Representatives. That did not happen, because the government decided that this issue did not concern national security.

It is debatable whether the Nasa issue really concerned national security. It is undisputed that the scheme made China feel uneasy and that the government’s unilateral approach was amplifying doubts rather than suppressing them. Involving Parliament from the beginning would not have hurt. That path might have been bumpy or even rocky, but it could have eventually allowed Nasa to land in Thailand.

The issue has generated glimpses of possible shift in diplomatic leverage. Some years ago, there was little need to seriously debate the pros and cons of allowing a US scientific project that might upset Beijing. Today it’s different. It’s true that Thailand’s political turmoil has had a say about the Nasa project, but what initially looked like a smooth passage has become anything but, and that has a lot to do with suspicions about the United States’ motives. 

Nasa is apparently leaving options open on whether or not it will return to Thailand. But if the Americans want to come back, they will have to prepare for the same set of problems. No matter how long this weather study plan is postponed, the biggest question will remain as to whether this kind of project requires parliamentary approval. The Thai government, meanwhile, has learned its lesson and should know what to do if or when the United States comes back with a request to use U-tapao airbase. After all, “democracy” that the ruling camp proclaims to champion warrants transparency for things like this.

It doesn’t matter how much the issue has been politicised. A lot of people say they can’t understand the fuss, but the point is that allowing the Thai Parliament to play its role would have made the whole fuss more democratic. 

Rumours have begun over how furious the United States has been and how bilateral ties will be affected. Ambassador Kristie Kenney has, however, given an assurance that, disappointed as they are, the Americans still value partnering with Thailand on science, health, the environment, etc, as such cooperation will benefit all. No matter how things evolve regarding the two countries, the U-tapao issue has left a significant imprint on the long relationship. It also confirms the inconvenient truth that diplomacy is something that only looks simple on the surface.