Lawmakers should leave diplomacy to the professionals

In declining an invitation to testify before the National Legislative Assembly’s foreign affairs committee this week, United States Chargé d’Affaires W Patrick Murphy has delivered another blow to Thailand’s international reputation. The US envoy said appearing before the committee would run counter to diplomatic norms and practices.
Chukiat Rattanachaicharn, as spokesman of the committee, said Murphy, who is acting head of mission at the US Embassy, had been invited to “exchange views” tomorrow on the state of Thailand-US relations.  
The American diplomat was polite but firm, replying that it would be inconvenient for a diplomat at the level of charge d’affaires to meet the committee.
What he politely omitted to say was that any career diplomat – including the current members of the NLA – would know that envoys have no obligation to testify before the legislative branch of a foreign power.
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not prohibit an envoy from offering such testimony, but says it is unnecessary that they do so, and gives them the right to decline any request, invitation or even summons. The proper channel for communication between top diplomats and their host country is the Foreign Ministry.  
Diplomatic tensions between Thailand and the US have ratcheted up in the wake of the May 22 coup. The Thai establishment and leaders in Bangkok are upset at Washington’s criticism detailing a lack of progress towards democracy and the suppression of rights. Thai leaders who staged and supported the coup had expected more lenient treatment from the Americans, but Washington hasn’t let up the pressure since the coup. Suspension of military assistance was followed by harsh criticism and pressure on Thailand to restore democracy and hold elections.
The recent visit of US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel brought more bad news for the Thai leadership. Russel called for martial law to be lifted, for a more inclusive reform process, and for a fair impeachment hearing for former premier Yingluck Shinawatra. 
The Foreign Ministry’s real motive for inviting Murphy to speak at the NLA was to express its disappointment over Russel’s comments. But Washington stood by its officials and reaffirmed its stance on the political setback in Thailand. The US says full relations with Thailand will not be restored until the return of democracy in the Kingdom.
A frank exchange of views between foreign ministries is nothing unusual in international affairs.
However, Thai lawmakers are stepping out of line in joining the military-appointed government’s war of words against the US. Of course, as ordinary citizens they would have the freedom to do so, but as lawmakers they are supposed to leave that job to the Foreign Ministry.
Besides making laws, a legislative body – even one in an undemocratic regime – is expected to play the role of a check and balance to the executive branch. The NLA’s foreign affairs committee has the key role of scrutinising the government’s foreign policy and its implementation. The legislative body has the authority to criticise, warn, suggest, recommend and encourage the government and ministries – the Foreign Ministry, in this case – on policy. Agree or disagree, it is the NLA’s obligation to deal with the government of Thailand, not that of any other country.
If NLA members believe the Foreign Ministry needs to clarify some points for Murphy, it would be more appropriate that they recommend the ministry invite him again so as to explain what they want to convey to Washington.
That the lawmakers supported the coup is problematic enough. They should not compound the confusion of their position by showing the international community that they don’t know how to perform their duty.