Where do we stand on the world stage?

Security and military cooperation will be high on the agenda during the upcoming visit by US President Barack Obama to Thailand. Certainly, the US is looking to build on its historical ties with Thailand, especially in these areas. 

There has been a slight pause in recent years as Washington devoted much of its resources and energy to the global “war on terrorism” and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the upcoming visit by the US president will be an opportunity for the US to re-engage with Thailand and the region in a more direct and meaningful way. 

The two countries’ leaders are expected to sign a Joint Vision Statement for the Thai-US Defence Alliance during Obama’s visit. One cannot deny that this is a natural path for allies with a defence pact. Nor can one deny that Washington’s refocusing on the Asia-Pacific region is in response to the rise of China, or that, when these two giants compete, it could spell trouble for smaller countries like Thailand.

But this doesn’t mean we should turn our back on the idea of engaging both countries. Thailand must continue to walk a fine line when it comes to dealing with both China and the US. Leaning too far into the US orbit will set off alarm bells in Beijing and vice versa. China is expected to be more assertive about where Thailand stands while nations in the region recalibrate their strategic interests. 

In this respect Thailand can set conditions as to how far the big powers can go and what they can do in their dealings with us. Our engagement with them doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. If we’re smart, things can work in our favour. But we can only do this if we have a strong and united foreign-policy team that can articulate Thailand’s strategic interests at the international level. 

We cannot do this if our foreign minister is too bogged down in domestic affairs and pleasing the country’s de facto leader, fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin is presenting himself as the country’s ambassador-at-large and continues to dictate terms and directions for our foreign policy and interests. 

This makes Thailand vulnerable. Washington and Beijing know this, and are likely to make use of it for their own gain. Indeed, if Thaksin’s political career tells us anything, it is that he cannot distinguish between personal and national interest. 

To date no one seems able to articulate a coherent security policy for the country. Who takes overall responsibility – the National Security Council? Political parties have slapped the agency around over the years, looking to put their own men in key positions and thus compromising the integrity of the intelligence community.

Moreover, who in the Cabinet can explain to the Thai public and the world the country’s strategic interests in a meaningful way, much less the current threats perceived in the Asia-Pacific region? Currently it seems that most of our leaders can only define security as being limited to hunting down drug dealers and petty criminals and, more importantly to them, their political opponents. From the look of it, the current defence minister is more concerned with ways to discredit the opposition leader than the strategic interests of the nation.

With the chief advisers of Thaksin and his sister, Prime Minister Yingluck, at each other’s throats, it still seems that much of Thailand’s future rests with Thaksin, who tends to think that what’s good for him is good for Thailand. 

During Thaksin’s time in power, Thailand swung back and forth between China and the US. The then-leader was interested in projecting himself as regional leader. But Washington and Beijing saw through Thaksin’s ambition and denied him their coattails to ride on. There is no shortcut to international stardom.

Today, with his sister Yingluck in power, Thailand has come full circle politically. Unfortunately we have yet to figure out what or where our place is in the global scheme of things.