Dilemma of ASEAN and Thailand on Iraq crisis, U.S. position
Dilemma of ASEAN and Thailand on Iraq crisis, U.S. position
Kavi Chongkittavorn, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok
ASEAN members do not see eye to eye on Iraq. As the war looms,
their differences widen, especially among leading members.
Malaysia and Singapore represent the end of the pendulum while
others try to maneuver in between.
Thailand's position is the most notable for its ambivalence.
While Malaysia wants Iraq to comply with UN disarmament, it
opposes the use of force, saying that it would be an unpopular
war among developing as well as Muslim countries.
On the other hand, Singapore is the only member of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nation members to give unequivocal
support to the U.S. war plan on Iraq, with or without a second UN
resolution. It says that the second UN resolution must not be
used as an excuse for doing nothing about Iraq.
The island republic has good reasons to adopt such a clear
position. Singapore believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
that can be used against other countries. After Sept. 11,
Singapore had to deal with international terrorists who have
established cells in its territory.
At the ministerial retreat in Kota Baru, Malaysia, beginning
tomorrow, ASEAN foreign ministers will discuss the situation in
Iraq and decide whether to issue a joint statement. As chairman
of ASEAN, Cambodia will play a pivotal role. But given Phnom
Penh's recalcitrance and unease with Washington's continued
pressure both on the Khmer Rouge tribunal and domestic issues, it
is possible that ASEAN will not reach any consensus on Iraq,
leaving each member to formulate its own response.
Cambodia's chairmanship has been shaken by the torching of the
Thai Embassy and business premises. It has failed to muster
support for the joint call put forward by Singapore and Thailand
recently to initiate dialogue through the ASEAN Regional Forum
with North Korea over the nuclear proliferation issue. The ARF
members could not agree on specific countries to represent the
forum.
ASEAN seldom states its position on controversial issues for
fear of jeopardizing members' national interests. Common
positions taken by ASEAN were on international events such as the
situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Israel-Palestinian
conflict, which did not impact on ASEAN directly.
Singapore's crystal-clear position on Iraq is exceptional. Its
backing put to shame those of the Philippines and Thailand, both
considered staunch U.S. allies. To a certain extent, the
Philippines and Thailand have similar positions as they support
the case brought by the U.S. and the international community to the
UN Security Council.
They also maintain that a peaceful solution must be found and
that any military action against Iraq should be consistent with
the UN charter and international law. That much was clear. But
the Philippine government has never shied away from admitting
that as a treaty ally it has a fundamental responsibility and
commitment towards the U.S. even though the country has 1.5 million
workers in the Middle East and ongoing wars with Muslim rebels in
the south.
In the case of Thailand, leaders including Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra are pathetic. They have been trying to hide
the long-established fact that Thailand is one of the five U.S.
allies in the Asia-Pacific for fear that anything the government
chooses to do would be construed as pro-American. In comparison
with other allies, Thailand has done the least.
Judging from the two statements made by Chuchai Kasemsarn, the
Thai UN envoy, on Feb. 16 and March 13 at UN headquarters in New
York, Thailand wants to have its cake and eat it too -- without
any commitment. On one hand, it backed Resolution 1441 and called
for peaceful disarmament of Iraq, saying UN arms inspectors
should have extra time to do their job -- the position taken by
France and Russia. At the same time, the speech adopted the
language of the abortive draft resolution by Britain, which urged
Iraq to give immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with
the UN arms inspectors -- the position of the pro-U.S. group.
Thailand must not be afraid to take up a position on Iraq, pro
or anti, as long as it is based on national interest. When
Bangkok, as a member of UN Security Council, condemned Washington
"with a heavy heart" over the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986, it did
so in good conscience. The Thai leaders at that time dared to
speak out and made their position clear. They were not ostrich-
like.
Last week Thaksin talked at length about Thailand's proactive
diplomacy, which has all the ingredients of the omnidirectional
diplomacy of the 1980s. Somehow he failed to refer to the Thai-U.S.
friendship which has provided the bedrock of peace and stability
for the past five decades during which Thailand and the region
has grown and prospered.
Obviously Thailand does not support the U.S. war on Iraq for
fear that it could radicalize the Thai Muslims down south and
make Thailand vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Anti-war public
sentiment is also growing by the day.
Those are good reasons. The government should have the guts to
say so and take whatever consequences it might incur, which are
many. Meanwhile the government has to make clear to the U.S. that
it will meet all its commitments as a treaty ally.
If the Thai-U.S. security alliance proves embarrassing for the
Thaksin government in a time of crisis, then it would be wise to
abrogate the treaty. After all, Thaksin has an absolute majority
in Parliament.
Otherwise this fear syndrome will not go away but continue to
haunt future relations with the U.S. and undermine creditability
of Thai diplomacy.