Font size: 
In Thailand a completely different approach is taken. When anyone is charged with threatening national security, the judiciary and legal profession in general hardly challenge the often absurd allegations. Instead, police file often inflated charges designed to intimidate others who would challenge state authority and simultaneously punish, to the greatest extent possible, individuals or groups that dare act or speak “out of turn.”
It was thus somewhat of a shock that during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Thailand from July 21-23, she did not once mention human rights issues in Thailand or give any hint that democracy itself was under attack. Instead, in an exclusive interview with Thailand’s English-language daily The Nation, she stated Washington’s official “view” of Thailand, "It's both the Land of Smiles and a place that has a vibrant democracy."
Also, "Perhaps sometimes its politics is as spicy as its food.” Despite issues Thais still have to work out, she said, “we have great confidence in the vibrancy of your democracy and the stability of your country."
The secretary of state also said, “"I'm not going to talk about the past; we have moved beyond that. Our government is committed to open, internationally accepted norms that we intend to follow."
Perhaps the key words were “internationally accepted norms.” This seems a slip in U.S. foreign policy at best and a shift toward non-preemptive assessment at worst. Past U.S. policies, going way back to Vietnam, and before that to native Americans, will haunt philosophers more than decision makers, but to unknowingly compound them by promising future non-interference in local human rights and democracy issues is worrisome.
It may well be that the U.S. intelligence community has taken a new look at the Land of Smiles and concluded that the once pro-American Thai foreign and domestic policy machine is a thing of the past and whatever Washington can still get from Bangkok is all that can be hoped for.
Although Clinton’s anti-Burma regime remarks might be construed as consistent with U.S. foreign policy in general, they may be more of a futile push against a regional ASEAN power block that the White House realizes it can no longer influence in a meaningful way.
Washington’s assumptions in defining its current and long-term interests in Thailand and ASEAN are difficult to determine. However, hints of future success in U.S. foreign policy might lie with a primer produced by Washington’s spy network, the CIA. This last March it completed an intelligence analysis document titled, “A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis.” The 45-page document describes approaches and various analytical techniques using historical principles in logical arguments blended with some scientific methodology.
The procedures involve three major “techniques” – diagnostic, contrarian and imaginative thinking. Of the three, perhaps the most important for long-term holistic intelligence analysis is the key assumptions check – under diagnostic thinking. In this method, analysts review whether key hypotheses are still true or not, as the assumptions form the basis of assessment – which then turns to action of one form or another.
In Thailand’s case, Washington policymakers have not revealed what intelligence assumptions they are using. It is doubtful, however, that many key assumptions made before, during and after the Bush administration are valid any longer.
First is that in matters of regional interests, Thailand will side with Washington. Second is that in terms of Burma and its so-called road to democracy, Thailand and its ASEAN partners – as well as China and North Korea – will not permit Washington pressure plays to effect reform. Reform in Burma is not an issue with ASEAN. Solidarity is.
Third, if Clinton was indeed policy-committed to her public statement that Thailand is a “vibrant democracy,” she was at best not accurate. Thailand’s human rights and democracy indexes have dipped significantly over the past few years and the country has assured its Asian trading partners that it no longer rates democracy as a primary driving force in its social development.
U.S. policymakers should keep this in mind when developing investment opportunities, conducting basic relationships and dealing with “rogue states” like Burma that Thailand is friendly with.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post – www.thekoratpost.com – he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
