Full length interview with Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Fellow and Researcher on Political and Strategic Affairs, ASEAN Studies Centre (ASC), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore about the Yingluck administration's challenges in restoring Thailand's image and relations with neighbouring countries and the world

Pavin Chachavalpongpun

Prachatai: You wrote an article criticising Thaksin for turning diplomats into CEOs and confusing personal interest and diplomatic policies, but when the Democrat Party came into office Thailand lost both national interests and diplomacy. What could the Yingluck administration do to solve these problems?

Speaking straightforwardly, I think it is very difficult to solve the problems as the situation has always been a mess. Thaksin made a good start in 2001-2 in both domestic and foreign policy. We were made to believe that everything would go well from then but in reality not everything was like that.

I don't want to talk about domestic politics, but about foreign policy. Thailand made a mistake in 2002-3 when we overlooked our role in ASEAN. We must realise that Thailand is a medium-sized country, not small and not powerful like Indonesia. Therefore we have a limited choice of menu in international affairs. Thaksin made a good start. He had initiatives, but he overlooked Thailand's national capability. He was too ambitious a man, ignoring ASEAN with the consequence that Thailand failed to achieve anything.

Now what should the Yingluck administration do? Firstly, I think we should restore Thailand's credibility in ASEAN. Thailand cannot stand alone and it is not so powerful that it could bypass regional organisations. Yingluck must therefore address this issue first. What is pathetic is the fact that the Democrat Party used to attach great importance to ASEAN especially during 1997-2001 when Surin Pitsuwan repeatedly talked about ASEAN and I think it was successful. Surin thought about constructive engagement with Burma while Chuan Leekpai never went to Burma. That was Thailand's firm standpoint, but eventually Thaksin totally disregarded ASEAN.

When the Democrat Party returned to office, I thought they would bring back their previous policies but I was wrong. The Democrats did not have any foreign policy initiatives for Thailand and they even ignored Thailand's role in ASEAN.

So Yingluck must recreate Thailand's role. Thailand must pick an issue within the ASEAN framework and play on it. I think Thai-Cambodia relations are important. We could turn the crisis into an opportunity. This means we would kill two birds with one stone. We would have an opportunity to restore the relations with Cambodia and we would involve ASEAN in this. It doesn't mean we would have to lose control of the issue but actually we could even become a leader in ASEAN.

Prachatai: You said we shouldn't lose our relationship with ASEAN but it is undeniable that the Democrat Party overlooked international politics especially with regard to ASEAN because of domestic politics.

In every age, linkage politics is always there, meaning we can't completely separate domestic and international politics from each other. Thaksin also had his own domestic agenda. He exercised a dual track policy, developing internal and international politics in tandem. What Thaksin used to determine foreign policy would apply to domestic policy. For example, he started the OTOP project and also opened neighbouring markets to boost exports, linked to FTAs. That was a blossoming era for Thailand's FTAs. We were Singapore's rival in launching FTAs. In one aspect, this was a good policy. I think FTAs are good because no matter how fast or slow the pace, we have to open up to liberalization. All this has implications for domestic politics.

But during the Abhisit administration, the situation was made worse because foreign policy was used purely as a political tool for domestic politics to the extent that politicians didn't care what detrimental effect this would have on bilateral relations. During Thaksin it was said to be bad, but he didn't use international politics to destroy political rivals. He might have targeted personal interests which were also national interests, but it is unfair to say that Thaksin considered only his own interests because his office saw a golden age for Thai diplomacy and the economy was good.

During the Democrat administration, international affairs have become political problems. Thailand's relations with Cambodia were a big issue for the PAD and also involved the Democrat Party. So it was inevitable that when the Democrats came to office it was difficult to get out of this and they didn’t do it well enough. To make things worse, the Democrat Party decided to install Cambodia's enemy as Minister of Foreign Affairs. This was a mistake from the start so there was no way that relations could be good. This shows politicians, especially in the Democrat Party, are highly selfish. They satisfied the PAD because they were in the same boat before. They didn't realise that this reward to the PAD would strongly affect the country's relations with Cambodia.

It was a mistake to play with Cambodia and also to attack Hun Sen. If Hun Sen wasn’t really strong, he wouldn't have been in power for 26 years. Hun Sen is the longest reigning figure in the democratic system, if we believe Cambodia is democratic. He has been in power for the longest period second only to the Sultan of Brunei. This tells us something. If he wasn't good enough, he wouldn't have been there. We were wrong to mess with the guy. Cambodia is also smaller than Thailand. No matter what we do, we would be viewed as attacking a smaller country.

Thaksin was a close ally of Cambodia. He gave long-term soft loans to Cambodia and helped open Koh Kong. That was superficial nonetheless. Thailand did come to help but Cambodia was not stupid enough to overlook the fact that Thailand came to take back some benefits. Cambodia is indeed smaller, but it has better cards than us in its hand in many ways. If Cambodia wants to play with us, they can. The burning of the embassy in 2003 is a good case to demonstrate that it is quite hard to explain that Thaksin was truly close to Cambodia. It was superficial and nothing more than that. So, when Abhisit came to power he made things worse because the foundation had not been firm ever since the start, and this led to the problems I have talked about.

Prachatai: When Yingluck looks back on our relationship with ASEAN, what would be a support?

Yingluck has an opportunity to separate diplomacy from domestic politics. In reality it may be difficult but it has to be managed. When both diplomacy and domestic politics are combined it creates an unsettling situation. Yingluck must be bold to initiate new foreign policies that aren't attached much to internal voices. If foreign policy clearly addresses national interests, such as Cambodian issues, it must be highlighted. This means Yingluck must re-generate Thai-Cambodian relations and befriend Cambodia again. Prear Vihear is an issue and I'm sure the yellow shirt will come out and criticise. But Yingluck must not listen too much to that, otherwise it would become domestic politics. So she must be courageous. International politics must remain international. Domestic politics must be dealt with separately.

Prachatai: Khun Noppadol (Pattama) did so, but was he unsuccessful?

First, Noppadol didn't stay long enough for us to see any results. Noppadol himself had lots of political baggage. I think this was an ostacle even before he became Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was Thaksin's legal adviser so his status was not conducive anyway. This however is an opportune moment for Yingluck. I always say when I give an interview that she doesn't have political baggage, meaning she has never had issues with Cambodia. Even though she is Thaksin's sister, she came from elections and she got a mandate from the people.

But I think Yingluck must start from zero. Hor Num Hong, Cambodia's Minister of Foreign Affairs said publicly that they looked forward to working closely with the Pheu Thai government. This shows the truth must be told to the public without any biased nationalism. I call it bad nationalism when nationalism is used to generate political gains without realising how bad that is. What the yellow shirts say about losing territory is not correct. Scholars have talked a lot but they wouldn't listen. So Yingluck must take this chance to explain to the public about the measures to solve the problems.

I don't believe Yingluck's policies will be too ambitious like Thaksin's. Those policies came from Thaksin himself because he is an ambitious man. Yingluck however is at another level. She doesn't have any experience in working in foreign policy so she has to rely on her foreign affairs team. We don't know yet who they will be, and Yingluck has to get more assistance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Previously there has been a rift between the administration and the Ministry. What is worse is that the military forms another party competing for the making of foreign policy.

It is clear that both Thaksin's and Abhisit's administrations partly contributed to Cambodia's gaining victory over Thailand. If a reporter interviews any agency of the Cambodian government, they will say the same thing because they receive information from one source, which is the government. But when a foreign journalist interviews Thai authorities, they will say different things. The government says one thing, but the MFA says another. Then who are we to believe? Where is Thailand's credibility? So I think Yingluck is highly likely to rely on her team because of her lack of experience. I think the foreign affairs team must give assurances to the MFA.

Prachatai: This is a weakness since Thaksin?

Yes. I think in any case we must assure diplomats in a professional diplomatic way that whatever measures we take on issues, be they political or anything else, when a problem arises it will be dealt with diplomacy. But if things are messed up, the MFA has to clean it up, which is unfair, and they are blamed when they can't manage it, even though the problems are begun by the military because they are security and political issues. We know that these cannot be solved by politics but diplomacy. There are different levels of diplomacy. Previously it was big talk and I think it's time we employ quite diplomacy where things are managed behind doors. Sometimes quiet dialogue is better.

Prachatai: But in the end it returns to the MFA?

And in the end it returns to the MFA otherwise what's the point of having it? The MFA manages international relations. If the government does not believe in the MFA, then the MFA should be dissolved. And Yingluck conducts foreign policy, so it's impossible (to dissolve the MFA). For example, the aircraft issue must be dealt by diplomacy and not by other means.

Prachatai: Is it interesting to see how foreign countries have reacted towards Thailand recently. For instance many ambassadors approached Yingluck although she is not yet officially confirmed.

That's very important. Foreign countries agree that it's time Thailand returned to democratic procedures and secondly it is a signal to the Ammart (elite) that they must respect the election result whether they like it or not. Diplomats therefore did not wait for the Election Commission to make a decision and they approached Yingluck because of the landslide majority. The EC has the right to alter the people's elections? So now in the eyes of foreign countries is ‘Thailand, that’s enough', and it's time for us to go back to democracy.

What is most interesting is the Indian ambassador. If we look at different countries we'll see interesting details. India is very close to Thaksin. We made our first FTA with India and Thaksin himself has personal interests in India. When he went to India he spoke of his personal interests. So I think India might like Yingluck. I think most countries agree with Yingluck.

There may be some countries that got irritated such as the US. Thai-US relations are dominated by the old structure dating back to the Cold War. The US has close ties with the military and the palace. They shared the common enemy of communism and the US gave the lip service of being democratic. It was the leader of the free world but it supported every military regime in Thailand because it viewed that as the only way to defeat communism. The US gave money as the bait to attract Thailand, saying Thailand had to back up the US and fight against communism. The Thai authorities and elite agreed because they received both money and power in return, thereby creating a ongoing relationship.

The US shared the same perspective as Thailand's traditional elite, viewing soldiers and the elite as the most important thing in Thailand. This is no longer the case, but the US has not changed its mind. I did research on this and I interviewed lots of people. One reason for the US perspective is the lack of manpower and its lack of interest in investing in research on this. There is only one person and a secretary in the US Department of State responsible for Thailand. They didn't know Thailand before, and they can't speak Thai but were assigned to do the job.

Thailand's significance to the US is that it is a treaty ally, meaning that when Thailand is invaded, the US will come to its aid. Apart from that we are a major non-NATO ally. We are the US's oldest ally in Asia, even longer than Japan, but only one person in the US is responsible for Thailand.

One more thing is the US embassy here is not interested in trying to understand the red shirts, which resulted in a negative perspective. Compared with China, it is totally different. At the Chinese Embassy in Thailand almost ten persons are responsible for Thai issues and they speak Thai clearly. Guan Mu, the Chinese ambassador, is more Thai than some Thais. He's lived in Thailand for 18 years. This shows the difference in the importance attached to Thailand between the two countries. When Yingluck got elected, the US still stuck to the same old misjudgement that Thaksin is a bad man and undemocratic. This is partly correct. The US stuck to the notion that more than 2,000 people were killed in the war against drugs. It was unacceptable because Thailand is a democratic country. But when the protest was dispersed last year, the US blamed the red shirts but said nothing about the crackdown. It was the same as the Thai society, criticising the burning of Bangkok without talking about the dead. It's unfair. The burning of Bangkok as well. I talked with Ajarn Charnwit (Kasetsiri). That was not the burning of a city, but of a department store.

The regional trend in other countries varies. Singapore is obvious. They go wherever they see there'll be profit and benefits for sure. They saw Thaksin as a long-term interest. They knew Thaksin was popular and he would have remained so for the next 10 years, not just come and go. So they took a risk, and finally it can be seen that they made the right choice because Yingluck has returned. But if we rule out money talking, they'll choose democracy. I think if we stand with democracy, there is no mistake. It is democratic to give the mandate to Yingluck because she came from elections. I don't see why they would support the Democrat Party because they party has not won an election for 19 years.

Prachatai: The challenges for the Yingluck administration are manifold, and it is unclear who will have the potential and charisma to solve the problems.

Yes. The person who leads the MFA must have in-depth knowledge of diplomacy, and of neighbouring countries' problems. I'm not sure whether politicians will make it. It should be a technocrat, but not one like Kasit (Piromya).

Prachatai: How important do you think economic tools are such as Phue Thai's policy of developing 25 watersheds and using water from Burma's Hatgyi dam. How important are they compared with political tools?

Both must be done simultaneously. Yingluck wouldn't want to stray too far from Thaksin's policies that emphasised economic themes. These have been dominant since 1988-2001. Chatchai (Choonhawan) turned battlefield to markets, but Abhisit in 2008 switched this round, converting markets to battlefields. So Yingluck must revert to turning battlefields to markets.

Watershed problems are important in the sense that Yingluck must draw attention to our region. This is our standpoint. We have to look first at ASEAN. Thaksin looked to the ACD, which is further away, similarly with APEC or even ACMECS. That was good but it was a mistake in many ways. We gave them money, forced them to buy our goods, and forced them to pay in baht, creating a baht zone. It was a form of colonisation. I think Yingluck should forget about ACMECS and focus on watersheds because this is important economically, culturally and also environmentally. That will make Yingluck jump into environmental issues. So the new Minister of Foreign Affairs shouldn't have knowledge about only politics, but also about the economic dimensions, diplomacy and about the incorporation of environmental issues. Thailand is still very weak in the last aspect.

Prachatai: This was Thaksin's weakness in developing ties to neighbours because we were criticised for exploiting their resources too much.

Too much indeed. Like I said, we took advantage of them. In fact they wanted money so they made a deal with us. But when we helped them we thought they had to recognize our virtues. There is no such thing. When we take advantage of them, they find ways to get benefits for themselves and nothing deeper than that. Laos is reliant on us really, but they are not stupid. They don't have ties only with us, but with Vietnam and China. Whenever we attack them and take too much advantage of them, one day they won't maintain relations with us. They would go to somebody else, to China. These countries have their own strategic policies. The Thais should stop thinking that we're the only country in the region, in the manner of “Suvarnabhumi” - the name we gave to an airport.

Prachatai: Thailand's internal factors have always been problematic, such as article 190 of the constitution. You said Yingluck doesn't have to care much about domestic politics but at the same time domestic political organisations which have mandatory jurisdiction in Thai law impinge on international affairs such as the Constitutional Court ruling on the Thai-Cambodia MOU when former Minister Noppadol was in office.

Yes, that is indeed problematic. The reform must be done simultaneously. It is not certain whether Yingluck will reform domestic politics and it's hard for her. Everyone expects too much from her. She’s been elected a few days and we expect her to do this and that. It's impossible. We must give her time, and Yingluck knows that if she does something too fast, it will affect her badly. To give an example, it is hard to amend the constitution and also hard to re-position the military. I think the pace must be slow. In one sense, diplomacy cannot wait and frankly it is difficult. We have to deal with it case by case. This issue concerns the power of the military and to reduce their power instantly is impossible because soldiers would like to have a diplomatic role as well. They even think they should be able to dictate diplomatic policies. Thai-Lao and Thai-Cambodian relations have usually been conflictual. What will Yingluck do to make these people understand that foreign policy must be in the hands of the MFA, not the military? The military must be a supporting actor, not the main actor.

Prachatai: You talked about countries that were irritated with us, are there any other countries apart from the US?

Actually almost none. Most countries adapt to the regional trend. The US is a great power far away from us so they are slow to adapt.

Prachatai: But at the same time the US is influential in domestic politics including Thailand's elite and the military, so this is an important variable in Thailand's domestic politics and in its status as a democracy and in international politics. In the past the worldview of the US and the elite has created problems. The question is whether the people in the MFA share the same thoughts as the US and the elite?

I think the government has now changed. Colloquially it is a red-shirt government so there may be new policies and they may want to change the US perspective. I think it's time the US changed its view, but I do think it's hard to change it. The US is a big powerful country, it cannot readily change its foreign policy from black to white, and there are many domestic procedures. In Burma, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the elections couldn't make the US change its policy because it has to go through Congress and many other things. Same with Thailand, although they know about the administration change, the response might be slow and even unchanging. I think it's the responsibility of the new red-shirt government to send a message to the MFA.

Some groups in the MFA are part of the elite and their elite perspective ignores reality, but there is something right in what Thaksin said and I'm not a fan of his. I think he's right, and Jakkraphob (Penkhae) whom I interviewed. Both said the people in the MFA are talented, the cream of the cream, but one weakness is that they are locked up in an ivory tower. They know a lot about international politics and they speak 8-9 languages. But at the end of the day they cannot design foreign policy to address Thai people's policy because they never have contact with the grassroots so they don't know what they want.

By contrast, Thaksin said he would make them realise what the grassroots wanted. I think this is good. It raises the awareness of the people in the MFA that they should give up on their elite worldview because it doesn't affect every Thai. I think the new government should send a message to the MFA that the way they make foreign policy must address domestic politics. This is not the Thailand of 40-50 years ago. If we don’t start with the MFA, then I don't know how Thai-US relations can be changed. I think we have to send message to the US as well. To wait for the US to change is impossible.

Another trend in this issue is that Thaksin took the initiative, and a trend that competes with US-Thai relations is Sino-Thai relations. I think the traditional elite are worried that we are leaning towards China and the Chinese are smart. The US employs only interference in connection with the military and the palace. China is pragmatic in developing ties with anybody, even the palace and Thaksin. Our economic ties are deep. China is a great power in Asia. When we talk about international relations in Asia, the US has some role, but China has the most. This is the trend initiated by Thaksin.

The implications today are that even though the US is significant, whether or not they endorse the red shirts and Yingluck perhaps does not worry Yingluck. The US is not the only alternative she has. Thaksin is smart when he questions why we have to put all our eggs in one basket. If the US forces us too much, we could go to China. Now we have more trade with China than with the US. This is another trend that makes the traditional elite more doubtful about our reliance on the US. The traditional elite are themselves approaching China. I think the palace has already begun rapprochement and developed closer ties with China.

Prachatai: But the pace of change won't be so fast?

Not so fast but steady. I think this is the right track. In the end it has to be China. In the next 10-20 years it's impossible for it to be the US. The world nowadays is not a unipolar world, but a multi-polar one with China as a new great power.

Prachatai: To what extent is Wikileaks useful in learning about the role of the US?

For people overseas and scholars who have access to Wikileaks, we are more enlightened, but in fact it was not a surprise. We had heard what was leaked before. It's just a confirmation that what we've heard was right. Because this person speaks with that person, it's not a weird thing. The US was scared at first. I talked to a US diplomat and he said it was very embarrassing. But when the whole thing came out, the US said what was gone was gone and it was good to know what they thought because it was unavoidable as every country has cables.

I myself wrote cables before. The style is the same. Cables depend on the observer and how he looks at the situation. It doesn't mean the cables are always correct. When I wrote cables, I did make notes. Some notes were facts so they remained factual. Some parts were observations and they were my observations which might be wrong. Same as in any country. So Wikileaks is not something strange but it confirms some of our beliefs that on top this is how much they play around. What had been rumours were confirmed. Thailand is not the only country affected. If all the cables leaked were about Thailand then it should be a concern, but this was not the case so the burden was shared.

What is interesting is China's attempt to make personal contacts. Ambassador Guan Mu is an intriguing person worthy of study. He was previously a diplomat to Burma, going there on a Nargis mission. China donated a lot of money to Burma and Burma is like one of China's satellites. I can tell Burma listens most to China, then maybe to India. It's not just about money but diplomatic ties. When I first met him I thought he was a Thai because he spoke Thai skilfully, like a Chinese Thai. He said he had lived here for 18 years, to and fro, since he served as Third, Second and First Secretary. He has access to all the influential people. I think his conversations get farther than the US ambassador’s. There was a competition between the US and China when Eric G. John did everything wrong but Guan Mu did it all right. And the US expats criticised Eric G. John about many things, one of which was when Kurt Campbell visited Thailand and arranged a dialogue between the red shirts and the government. Kasit (Piromya) was angered by his perceived interference and didn't come to meet him. Finally Campbell met with Noppadol Pattama and they had a talk. As a matter of fact, I think Campbell understood what the political problem is, but the US internal procedures didn't allow it so it was more like his personal interest but not policy. He wanted to learn what the red shirts were about, so he came to find out but not the data from the US. Like I said, the US still allies itself with the traditional elite. I don't think Campbell was particularly interested but despite all that Kasit summoned Eric G John for criticism. And a month later he sent Kiat Sittiamorn to Washington DC to condemn him.

Prachatai: Comparing the ASEAN region and other regions, does the US look less at this region?

Yes, the radar focuses on our region less than on others. For the US, Southeast Asia is the least interesting. Their interest in Asia lies with China and Japan, and then (South) Korea.

The US is a great power, but their percentage of citizens with a passport is among the lowest in the world. So we can see the US people do not travel out of the country. They don't know anything. They think Taiwan is Thailand. Talking about Asia, they have the same impression which is China and Japan. So we have to understand the US gives importance to China and Japan a lot. China is obvious. Japan must be important because they are military allies. The US still has its base in Okinawa and a following issue is perhaps South Korea because it might get into conflict with North Korea. The rest is the Middle East. Apart from that is the same as Thailand; it is looking to neighbouring countries in Latin and South America because the US can dominate them in 3-4 issues on politics, trade and security. Europe is out of the loop because there is no threat, nothing, no country like Germany or Italy in the past. Also, the US economy is precarious, as is the European economy. So why bother with other regions? There are ten people in the Chinese embassy. It's understandable for the US then to have just one person at the Thai desk. I talked with a scholar and he said it's unfair. I told him that you want to know about Thailand but you have only one person responsible. He said that shows Thailand has no conflict with the US. He justified it by saying that the countries on which many people work are those which trouble the US, but for Thailand everything is smooth so one person is enough.

Another interesting point is I said the US didn't see the red shirts as significant. You say you support democracy but you didn't care what the red shirts were doing. If we look at it from the US point of view, let's ask this...if the administration tomorrow is the red shirts, how will the policy towards the US change? The answer is the same. The policy remains stable. Do you think if tomorrow the red shirts get into office they will cut ties with the US? That's why the US didn't try to get to know the red shirts that well.

Prachatai: So it means the US sees their arrangements as so stable that nothing has to change?

Partly yes. It might be too far away to feel the impact.

Prachatai: But at the same time the stability of US foreign policy affects how the traditional elite think?

Yes, that is the idea, same as the way Singapore looks at us. They look at us as long-term interests. If Singapore sees Thaksin as a long-term interest, the US also sees the traditional elite as such. Is it possible that we will have no monarchy tomorrow? It's impossible. The red shirts come and go but the monarchy remains. I don't think the US sees the red shirts as communists or threats. The red shirts themselves are very careful on this and they have always been accused of trying to overthrow the monarchy, a claim which the red shirts has always denied.

Prachatai: Some understand that the US attaches importance to ASEAN and Southeast Asia because they fear these countries would fall under Chinese influence.

Partly so, but Southeast Asia ranks very low in relations with the US. This is understandable because trade levels are low and some norms are unacceptable to the US such as the norm of non-interference. But the US fears these countries will fall under China so they maintain good relations with some such as Singapore, (South) Korea, and Japan to maintain a balance against China. The US not only sees that the US itself fears these countries will fall under China's influence, but that these countries themselves are afraid of falling. So the US believes these countries realise that, like Singapore and Vietnam where it is impossible they would let themselves become China's lapdogs. They (Vietnam and China) have hated each other for a thousand years. It's impossible. Indonesia has some sentiments against China. Thailand is a country that must be a little sceptical because the Chinese community has blended rather well with the Thai community. Thai leaders are even Chinese. Therefore, the US hopes to rely on these small countries, but it hasn't come in boldly. If the US were to intervene fully, it remains difficult to see what the status of the US would be. The US withdrew all its troops, but why are they coming in to build bases again?

Prachatai: The US has tried to intervene in Thailand's agenda for the three southern provinces, but unsuccessfully because they were resisted?

I think they have the same problems as we do. We still don't know what the problems in the South are. The US has gone the wrong way because they rely on scholars who specialise in one-format terrorism such as Rohan Gunaratna. He is a terrorism expert in Singapore. He's from Sri Lanka and works for the US. He analyses terrorism across the world using the same format in every case. That is, terrorism in that particular country has a link to Al-Qaeda, secondly those terrorists are paid from overseas, and thirdly they arise because of political conflict. They use this format on Thailand but this is wrong because the Thai case is unique. It cannot be compared with other cases but the US persists in doing this analysis. The US is yet to understand.

 

Translated by Pleng Prai