Prayut gives the United States the perfect excuse

We don’t need Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to tell us that the United States has been playing a diplomatically dangerous game. Putting all eggs in one “democracy” basket has been an obvious American policy for a few years now, and it seems that the greater the criticism from one half of Thailand, the more galvanised Washington has become in imposing its ideas of good politics in this country. Prayut’s frustration only confirms that the strained relationship is not healing, and its future is getting increasingly uncertain.
In fact, Prayut’s frustration should be the least of the US administration’s concern. He will not be there forever, no matter what Washington may think. The United States should be more worried about the sentiment that has nothing to do with Prayut but is considerably widespread and may seem to echo his anyway. America’s “All In!!” diplomacy guarantees that things will never be the same between the two countries, whatever happens next.
America’s “busy body” policy, of course, must have earned it some friends here. Ironically, many of them are those who were burning the American flag here four decades ago. So, who says ideologies never change? Which should teach America that nothing holds sway. Most of all, vested interests, not ideologies, are dictating international courses nowadays. The United States of all the countries must realise this.
What the United States may not realise is that its use of “democracy” to shroud its attempt to protect its own vested interests is wearing quite thin. The Thai anger does not necessarily come from bitterness caused by the “one democratic shirt that America wants every?one else in the world to wear” as sug?gested by Prayut. It also comes from see?ing obvious hypocrisy demonstrated day in and day out. It comes from the knowledge or realisation that America only acts when its interests are at stake. It comes from the question of why only the United States can glorify its internal security or national security approaches while demonising those of others.
Diplomacy boils down to being a good friend. A good friend boils down to being understanding, or at least trying to understand. The jury is still out on the Thai crisis, and one side of the divided Thailand is as guilty as the other, to say the least. To be seen as taking sides is not good for US diplomacy, regardless of who the next prime minister will be or who will be ruling Thailand 10 years from now.
Good news for Washington is that Prayut’s “One size doesn’t fit all” remark about democracy comes from someone who has staged a coup, so he has a credibility problem. Bad news is that it’s not just him who think that way. The message has been viral on social media and the US administration may be surprised how many Thais are agree with Prayut on this matter and how many have become disillusioned with US foreign policy.
It doesn’t matter how many people support you, as long as you think you are right. That’s probably what the US policymakers are thinking at the moment. Something can’t simply be explained, like why the United States had to wage some wars in defiance of world opinion. If democracy is unquestionably the utmost ideal, those wars shouldn’t have happened, should they?
Maybe Prayut’s “One size doesn’t fit all” argument is for Washington to use in the event of the above question. Democracy, noble as it is, can’t be enforced in exactly the same way in every circumstance known to man. Like shirts, it has to be adjusted or trimmed or enlarged to fit particular wearers. But it could be the biggest irony of it all, for the champion of democracy to get the best defence of its action from someone it considers the biggest threat to its values.