Conflict leaves nation’s reputation abroad in tatters

Written by Gunboy on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

PAVIN CHACHAVALPONGPUN

The political face-off between the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the Somchai Wongsawat government has not only seriously caused great political instability, but also tremendously damaged the country’s international standing and reputation.

The statue of a mystical creature known as Kinnaree stands at Suvarnabhumi Airport, its eyes blindfolded with a PAD headband.

The political crisis is no longer limited within the domestic realm. It has far-reaching implications on Thailand’s foreign affairs.

As of Tuesday morning, a Thai court dissolved the ruling party and banned PM Somchai Wongsawat from politics, plunging the kingdom into further uncertainty. Although the PAD responded to the verdict by suspending their protest until further notice, the damage to the country has been done.

The loss of revenue from tourism is enormous, indeed as much as that of Thailand’s image as one of the ultimate tourist destinations in the world. More than 350,000 passengers have reportedly remained stranded in Thailand since the closing of the airports. Countless foreign tourists voiced their disappointment in the way the PAD has held the country hostage and the government’s inability to solve the crisis.

Some US Congressmen have warned that Thailand is slipping into becoming a failed state. A failed state is defined as a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. Max Weber once said that a state could be said to succeed if it maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken, such as through the domination of warlords and terrorists, the very existence of the state becomes dubious; and the state could become a failure.

Within Asean, at least three members - Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - suggested that Thailand give up its chairmanship this year due to its escalating political violence. Thailand is thus being put on a par with Burma, whose government was forced to relinquish its chairmanship in 2005 because of its legitimacy crisis.

Unable to cope with the increasing violence, the Thai government has decided to postpone the Asean summit to March 2009.

Cambodia quickly tied Thailand’s political crisis with its military aggression over the territorial disputes near the Preah Vihear temple. Prime Minister Hun Sen even lectured Thailand on how to solve its troubles in a democratic way.

With Thailand sinking into deep turmoil, many doubt if it could exercise leadership in Asean, particularly at this juncture of the launching of the Asean Charter.

Meanwhile, Thailand, once a vital player that helped promote democratisation in Burma, has found itself lacking in moral authority to preach to its neighbouring military state. The PAD, despite its name bearing the term “democracy”, has initiated the idea of “New Politics” whereby future parliaments would consist of 70% appointed members and 30% elected. The new political paradigm is scarily analogous to the future political structure of Burma, where a portion of parliamentary seats is reserved for the military.

As the political division is getting wider, compromise is becoming a rare commodity. Can Thailand, experiencing this difficulty all by itself, have any legitimacy to urge the Burmese junta to search for political reconciliation with its opposition and ethnic minorities?

The PAD, however, is not the only player that has tainted the country’s international credibility. Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, now a fugitive, has been strident in further inflaming the political situation in Thailand on the global stage.

In his interview with an American journalist in Dubai last week, he warned that a military coup would lead to inevitable bloodshed.

He let the world know that Thailand has plunged deeply into an anarchic state, with the rule of law being bluntly rejected by the opposition.

Although it may be true, the fact that Thaksin is painting a gloomy picture of the current political situation so as to serve the little legitimacy he has left, has further put Thailand in the international limelight. In June 2006, Thaksin, while still in power, sent a personal letter to US President George W Bush, lamenting the democratic situation in his home country.

“Having failed to provoke violence and disorder,” Thaksin said, “my opponents are now attempting various extra-constitutional tactics to co-opt the will of the people.”

The political conflict at home has also made the work of Thailand’s diplomatic missions aboard more difficult. The profound political division is clearly evident inside the Foreign Ministry.

One ambassador is said to have recently challenged the headquarters’ instruction on how to explain to foreigners in a way that would play down the fatal incident of Oct 7, in which the police used excessive force against protesters.

The ambassador emphasised that it did not matter where his political stance was. What really mattered was the fact that diplomats, like other professions, must have integrity and ethical professionalism.

The prolonged political bickering has effectively hampered the country’s active foreign policy. Thaksin’s foreign policy initiatives have been much criticised for being unsustainable. It has already been an uphill task for Thai diplomats to continue Thaksin’s past policies.

Now, with the country falling further into turmoil, the Foreign Ministry is preoccupied with having to explain to the outside world about the domestic situation, as well as protecting the country’s image, which has seemed to be a mission impossible.

A good image and a solid reputation take years to blossom. Sadly, it has been snatched away in the blink of an eye. The notion of Thailand as the “Land of Smiles” is becoming obsolete. It is fast turning itself into a land of misery and strife.

The writer is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Bangkok Post
Wednesday December 03, 2008