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.