USA Accused of 'Meddling' in Thailand's Internal Affairs

[Gaybutton]

US Official's 'Meddling' Angers Kasit

 

Political standoff is 'a Thai internal affair'

 

Published: 11/05/2010

 

The Foreign Ministry has complained to US ambassador to Thailand Eric John about a meeting between a senior US official and supporters of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

 

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Monday summoned Mr John to the ministry for a 45-minute discussion where he expressed his concern about the meeting on Sunday, Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, assistant to the minister, quoted him as saying.

 

On Sunday US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell held a meeting with the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party's former leader Chaturon Chaisaeng, Thaksin's legal adviser Noppadon Pattama and key leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.

 

US official's 'meddling' angers Kasit

____________________

 

I'd like to know how this meeting came about. If the Assistant Secretary of State was invited by the Thais to hold this meeting, that's one thing. If not and if the meeting was initiated by the USA, then it sure seems like 'meddling' to me.

[Guest luvthai]

The USA does have a history of sticking its nose in where it shouldn't be. Think we would have learned by now.

[Bob]

While true about the meddling bit at times, the news doesn't quite tell the whole story. Supposedly, this was a breakfast meeting to facilitate both the US government's understanding of the PM's roadmap and to get the parties together. The government was invited to appear also and, when they chose not to attend at the last minute, then the whole deal was colored as a political meeting between the US and the redshirts. Not entirely accurate (not that this should surprise anybody with respect to the Thai press).

[Guest GaySacGuy]

I think there is much more to the story also.

 

Here is from the Nation

 

Campbell meets key protesters

By THANONG KHANTHONG

THE NATION

 

BANGKOK: -- US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell Sunday met with red-shirt protesters before applauding Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's road map, unveiled last week as a peaceful way to end the country's political turmoil.

 

Campbell met key figures from the opposition such as Pongthep Thepkanjana, Chaturon Chaisaeng and Noppadon Pattama. Pongthep and Chaturon are former Cabinet ministers banned from politics for five years under a court order, while Noppadon is a lawyer who is now spokesman for the Shinawatra family.

 

"More than 10 Democrats were also invited to attend the breakfast meeting, but none of them went. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn also declined the invitation," a political source said.

 

Campbell said he came to Bangkok not to mediate a break-through or back any outcome.

 

"Even though Thailand is going through a difficult period, there is reason to be encouraged by efforts from all sides to bridge the differences between the government and the UDD (DAAD) protesters and to negotiate a fair and endurable compromise," he said.

 

"We strongly welcome the PM's road map for national reconciliation and commitment for holding new elections. We're also encouraged by the UDD's positive response to the road map and hope that its leaders will seize this opportunity to responsibly and expeditiously lead Thailand out of its current predicament."

 

 

The Entire article and blog is at: US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters - Thailand Forum

[Gaybutton]

Campbell said he came to Bangkok not to mediate a break-through or back any outcome.

The part I don't understand is why the meeting? Apparently the USA called this meeting, ostensibly to fully understand the implications of the Prime Minister's peace proposals. It seems quite clear to everyone else. What's the part the Assistant Secretary doesn't get?

 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but considering that the problems are part of Thailand's internal affairs, then calling this meeting makes about as much sense to me as it would for Thailand to be calling a similar meeting to fully understand Obama's health care plan.

 

My guess is the real purpose behind the meeting is to fully understand how the outcome might affect USA businesses dealing with Thailand.

[Guest Hedda]

To follow up on Bob's comment, you can't expect to understand Thai politics if you get trapped into accepting what you read in the Thai English language newspapers. What you read in the Nation or Bangkok Post is usually the Thai government's spin on the news, which is hardly an unbiased source in most cases.

 

It's commonly accepted diplomatic practice for foreign envoys to meet with the political opposition in most countries that call themselves democracies to avoid any appearances that their government is taking sides in domestic politics by dealing only with the party in power. Rather than seen as meddling, such contacts are seen as a way to demonstrate total impartiality when it comes to dealing with all legitimate elements in the country's political structure.

 

Many foreign diplomats in Washington also consider it normal to maintain contacts with both Democrat and Republican leaders, regardless of which party the President belongs to, just as the US Ambassador in the UK would consider it good diplomacy to maintain cordial ties with Tories and Labor.

 

It's no secret that America's envoys routinely refuse to meet publicly with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, because they are seen as terrorist organizations. That's precisely why FM Kasit got his nose so out of joint when the US envoy met with red shirt leaders: such a meeting implied that the US views the red shirts, Pheu Thai and even Thaksin, as political opponents, not criminals.

 

By having breakfast with these men, the US was implicitly rejecting the claims made by Kasit & Company that the red shirts are nothing but a bunch of anti-monarchist conspirators. America was sending a clear message to the Thai government that its unfortunate habit of demonizing political opponents as terrorists didn't wash with America's view of what democracy and the war against terror are all about.

 

I'm sure that Kasit would have been pleased as punch if the US envoy had condemned the red shirts out of hand.You can bwe sure there would have been no talk of meddling then.The fact that the American chose to treat the red shirts as part of the country's legitimate political opposition is what sent the mercurial foreign minister into one of his typical, if very undiplomatic, outbursts.

[Guest aaronaxeiss]

The USA does have a history of sticking its nose in where it shouldn't be. Think we would have learned by now.

They enjoyed sniffing others ass

[Guest]

By having breakfast with these men, the US was implicitly rejecting the claims made by Kasit & Company that the red shirts are nothing but a bunch of anti-monarchist conspirators. America was sending a clear message to the Thai government that its unfortunate habit of demonizing political opponents as terrorists didn't wash with America's view of what democracy and the war against terror are all about.

 

I agree with you on your points. However, I don't think America really knows at this point what the War on Terror is all about anyway. I think we have lost focus over the years.

 

Having read your take, I also like the comparison that other countries meet with Democratic and Republican officials. To me, that is the easiest comparison to understand.

 

They enjoyed sniffing others ass

Who doesn't?

[Guest fountainhall]

It's commonly accepted diplomatic practice for foreign envoys to meet with the political opposition in most countries that call themselves democracies to avoid any appearances that their government is taking sides in domestic politics by dealing only with the party in power. Rather than seen as meddling, such contacts are seen as a way to demonstrate total impartiality when it comes to dealing with all legitimate elements in the country's political structure.

Total impartiality? Is that really true? If so, I wonder why such seemingly impartial even-handedness went out of the window during the Marcos years in The Philippines, the Pinochet years in Chile and the Suharto years in Indonesia - to name but a few countries. Is it, I wonder, because the US is less interested in democracy than it is in protecting its own interests?

 

Many foreign diplomats in Washington also consider it normal to maintain contacts with both Democrat and Republican leaders, regardless of which party the President belongs to, just as the US Ambassador in the UK would consider it good diplomacy to maintain cordial ties with Tories and Labor.

But these are established political parties. With all respect, the red shirts are not a political party and most of the leaders the envoy met are not politicians. In my view, having Thaksin's lawyer there was particularly provocative. Diplomats have every right to make their views known through proper diplomatic channels. I think the Thai government is acting quite properly in suggesting that a country which actually sends an envoy rather than rely on its own country-based diplomatic staff is interfering in Thailand's domestic internal affairs.

[Bob]

It seems quite clear to everyone else.

 

While I still don't disagree that some US meddling was occurring, the only thing "clear" about the PM's roadmap is that the elections would be held November 14th (presuming that happens). The rest if it is ambiguous at best. Most of it sounded like political pap to me and none of it (except the election date) seemed to be couched in language that was verifiable by anybody. Regardless, I welcome anything that might lead to elections.