Thailand (catch all)

[Bill Moore]

Another coup in Thailand leave many shrugging their shoulders saying we have seen this before in Thailand's history, the next one will take us up to 20 coups. This is the norm there, so why should we even care?

First, the U.S. is attempting to increase its influence in the region to preserve its strategic economic and security interests and this event will challenge that effort while simultaneously creating an opportunity for China to increase its influence. Second, Thailand could be perceived as the enlightened democratic domino in Indochina that could help assert gentle pressure on Burma, Laos, and Cambodia to transform their repressive and corrupt regimes. While Malaysia remains a valued partner and has been moderate politically, their drift towards implementing Sharia Law will degrade the human rights for all those who are not Muslim in Malaysia, which indicates Indochina is drifting in a direction counter to our interests. Third, however slim the chance at the moment, the potential for civil war in Thailand exists which would not only be a humanitarian disaster, it would significantly threaten our interests in the region.

We need to think strategically and act in a way that manages the three concerns listed above along with many more to best protect our interests over time. Knee-jerk decisions based on our bureaucratic process to disengage will almost certainly disadvantage us in the long run. Sadly our bureaucratic system limits our strategic flexibility. Our foreign policy is both enabled (soft power) and severely restricted by our national values. The laws our Congress has enacted based on our values forces our diplomats and military to respond with little thought by imposing limitations on our military engagement with Thailand, and could result in coercive diplomacy as we push the military to rapidly reinstate what we believe lawful government to be. This creates an asymmetry between us with China and other competitors who are still willing to deal with the devil himself to pursue their interests. Over time this erodes China's influence with populace in the nation's their engaging, so it is in their interest to see a non-democratic government they can influence with investment.

China's approach could create an opportunity for us to leverage our soft power, but if the solution we push for is based our perception of legitimacy, which may not have much do with legitimacy in the eyes of all Thais we'll have lost an opportunity to assert leadership in the region that is respected. In 2006many Thais welcomed the military coup due to the serious rift in Thai society the government created through excessive corruption. Obviously that rift still exists, and the so called democratic government that followed only exasperated the problems creating a situation where the military either felt compelled to intervene to protect their national interests, or because they saw it as opportunity to seize power. Either way the government the military replaced had failed, and we had a hand in pushing for democracy before they were ready.

Today I suspect many Thais will both embrace and oppose the coup, just as many would oppose either of the two major political parties assuming political power again. Legitimacy for all is a pipe dream at this point, and this is why some analysts have gone as far as predicting a civil war within Thailand if the social-political rift isn't resolved soon. This is hard for those of us who been going there for decades, but the political divides are deep and the people are mobilized so it would be a mistake to assume it isn't in the realm of the possible. It also isn't unprecedented, since Thailand did have to deal with a communist insurgency at one point.

No one can predict how this will unfold over time, but important things to watch are: the Thai military’s plan to transition back to civilian rule (time span and methodology); the U.S. and China’s response to the situation; how the bordering nations respond over time (will they feel less pressure to reform); and most importantly how will the Thais resolve their political differences?

[Bob's World]

Bill,

I suspect many of these countries are working through what one could call "phase II sovereignty." In other words, they are experiencing the natural growing pains of their hard-earned post-colonial sovereignty much like a young United States did not so very long ago. Hopefully they avoid pitfalls we fell into resulting in a horrific civil war. But I do believe we need to be very careful to appreciate that any solution they sort out for themselves will likely be superior to any solution approved by US policy makers and overly shaped by our interventions of any sort.

I hope we remember that what the US really stands for is not "democracy" but "self-determination." (and a Coup is not self-determination any more than the removed government was democracy).

I hope we can appreciate that influence in the region is much more important and valuable than control of political outcomes for the advancement US interests.

I suspect that the best approach is one that is not too judgmental, and that appreciates that the cultures of this region and their expectations of governance are far different than our own. I think we need to have the humility and flexibility to work with whoever is in power, regardless of how they got there; and then work with that government to help them get to a self-determined form of governance that works for as much of their population as possible, without leaving any of the population feeling like they have no legal means of redress.

China will, however, have growing influence in this region as well. The super power (regional or global) who balances the quest for influence over their urge for control will likely win that contest in the long run. In general I suspect these relationships will become much more balanced than the polarity driven by our Cold War strategy; with the US being the security partner of choice, while China offers more economic opportunities.

[davidbfpo]

My knowledge of Thailand is minimal, but each time the BBC have reported on events in Bangkok there is a reference to the tensions between the city's middle classes, who support one side and the rural populace who support another. Is this a an urban -v- rural conflict, rather than one over ideology? Maybe not, just between politicians.

I'd forgotten there is a history the miltary doing this:

Thailand's armed forces have staged at least 12 coups since the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932.

There has been a power struggle since Ms Yingluck's brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, was ousted by the military as PM in 2006. Mr Thaksin and Ms Yingluck have strong support in rural areas but are opposed by many in the middle class and urban elite.

The latest unrest began last year, when anti-government protesters embarked on a campaign to oust Ms Yingluck. An election was held in February but was disrupted and later annulled by the judiciary.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27553029

[Dayuhan]

I expect that many ordinary Thais do support the coup, mainly because they are sick of the disruption and constant conflict. Whether that support lasts, of course, will depend on when and how civilian rule is returned. One difference from other recent Thai coups is the nature of the monarchy. The King has little structural power in Thailand, but enjoys enormous respect and power of persuasion, and he has played a key role in resolving other coups and domestic conflicts. King Bhumibol has been in place since the 1940s, meaning that for most Thais he has been a lifetime presence. He's now very old and in questionable health; he may or may not have the ability to force a resolution and it is not clear that the authority he enjoys will be passed on to a successor.

I do not think either the US or China has any meaningful role to play in the resolution: the Thais are and have always been extremely independent. They will trade with anyone, they will make security deals as it suits them, but they are not about to shape their own politics to suit anyone else.

I don't see the US being able to play the "China Threat" card to gain influence in Thailand, because the Thais don't see China as a threat. We saw a sharp division in the recent ASEAN Summit, a division that's been there for a long time but which becomes ever more evident. Vietnam and the Philippines see China as an immediate threat, Malaysia and Indonesia are on board with that to a lesser extent. Singapore stays neutral, while Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar heve no interest in an adversarial relationship with China. The closing communique from the recently concluded summit doesn't even mention China, despite prodigious effort from Vietnam and the Philippines.

One thing I've noticed is that unlike Latin America, where communist revolutions metamorphosed into left-of-center mainstream political parties, communist revolutions in the Philippines and Thailand were either completely suppressed (Thailand) or marginalized (Philippines). While the left-of-center parties in Latin America have a spotty record (as do their opponents), they do provide voters with a meaningful choice. In the Philippines and Thailand you have what might be called pseudo-democracy, with regular electoral exercises offering a non-choice between or among elite factions with little or no ideological or policy distinction. That of course yields a great deal of cynicism and frustration and opens the door for charismatic pseudo-populist demagogues with no agenda beyond their own power and prosperity.

A coup is not going to solve the problem posed by indistinguishable elite factions competing for personal advantage in a patronage-dominated system. I think it's likely that the factions will make a pretend peace and agree on a transition just to get the generals back in the barracks, at which point the game will begin all over again. Civil war seems less likely to me than a paralyzing routine of rallies and strikes leading to another military intervention. but many things are possible.

Long term, I don't know what the solution is, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. Clearly evolution is needed, but political evolution has been largely aborted by the dominance of elites that fight each other, but join together to protect the status quo that supports their privileges.

This article comes from a somewhat left perspective and is a bit chaotic, but makes some useful points about Thai domestic politics:

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2694

[Bill Moore]

I do not think either the US or China has any meaningful role to play in the resolution: the Thais are and have always been extremely independent. They will trade with anyone, they will make security deals as it suits them, but they are not about to shape their own politics to suit anyone else.

This is true, but both China and U.S. will respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by this event to pursue their own interests.

I don't see the US being able to play the "China Threat" card to gain influence in Thailand, because the Thais don't see China as a threat

.

I never said or came to close to implying that we could or should, that isn't the point of this discourse. The principle point is China will be more flexible in their response, while our options will be severely restricted by our laws, which could give China the ability to gain more influence with Thailand, while U.S. influence is reduced.

In the Philippines and Thailand you have what might be called pseudo-democracy, with regular electoral exercises offering a non-choice between or among elite factions with little or no ideological or policy distinction. That of course yields a great deal of cynicism and frustration and opens the door for charismatic pseudo-populist demagogues with no agenda beyond their own power and prosperity.

I think the Thai military would agree with you, their leaders have on more than one occasion called the Thai government a false democracy. I suspect they're more than a little frustrated with us blindly embracing the concept of democracy while ignoring the realities of how it is playing out.