No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Diplomacy under Siege: Thailand´s Political Crisis and the Impact on Foreign Policy
Abstract
The current crisis in Thailand has not only had an enormous impact on domestic politics but also on the conduct of the country's foreign affairs. This article argues that foreign policy is inextricably linked to domestic politics and is therefore a casualty of the ongoing battle between the two main opposing political factions — one that supports former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the other that seeks to extirpate his legacy and influence. The article investigates the close connection between domestic politics and foreign affairs through three essential aspects: the political turmoil and its spillover effects on foreign policy; the competition between new and old regimes to legitimize their foreign policies; and the battle between state and non-state actors. At these levels, political actors have schemed to undermine their opponents, exploiting foreign policy issues as political weapons regardless of the effects their actions might have on Thailand's neighbours. The contentious case of the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the Preah Vihear Temple exemplifies how foreign policy has been held hostage to the relentless power struggle between the two leading political contenders.
Thailand defies common international hierarchies. Given the growing multipolarity of the international system, there is a need to increase our understanding of countries that are neither great nor ‘regional powers’, nor traditional middle powers. Thailand is a middle-income country, with developing military and technological capacities, and they play a role in regional organisations. Yet, Thailand refrains from seeking greater participation or leadership in global organisations. Thailand does not match the definition of either a traditional or an emerging middle power. Thus, the country is ripe for examination in a different conceptual category. This chapter examines in depth Thailand’s fit with the concept of awkward powers and it argues that in order to understand its status and behaviour, we must focus on domestic political considerations. This chapter demonstrates that a country’s internal political dynamics drives their international status and priorities.
This article demonstrates how South–South Cooperation (SSC), as it is now constituted in Southeast Asia, is little more than a liberal norm retaining only echoes of its origins in the 1955 Bandung Conference that first created SSC based on solidarity, common interests, and sovereignty. Southeast Asia is a useful case study of SSC’s evolution, as its states have been major players over the decades – with Indonesia proposing the Bandung Conference, Malaysia playing a key role in the 1980s, and Indonesia again at the forefront of the region from the first years of the new century onwards. Thailand and Singapore also have notable SSC programmes. However, the practices of SSC in the region show that it has become a liberal norm based on one key instrument – technical cooperation programmes. The process of SSC norm internalisation has occurred through a complex webbing of the interests and ideas of Southeast Asia’s states, regional dynamics, and Northern donor interests.
This article analyses to what extent the Burmese KNU insurgency made use of external support from states, refugees, and diasporas. Based on extensive fieldwork it is concluded that support from neighbouring states and refugees has for years kept the Karen rebellion alive. Western countries perceived forms of resistance to the illegitimate Burmese regime as just and have therefore played a crucial role in the continuation of conflict in Karen State. It is important that policymakers and donors as well as executing organizations continue to reflect critically on the way they exercise their work.
This paper explains the post-Cold War surge of nationalism in Southeast Asia and discusses its significance for regional peace and cooperation. As argued, the growth of nationalism as a form of mass politics has different causes in each Southeast Asian context where it occurs, but at the regional level the phenomenon can be explained by three factors: the failure of earlier nationalist movements to fully deliver their promises; a shift in the international and regional order (the end of the Cold War and the rise of China); and a change in domestic order (political liberalisation and democratisation) that was also occurring across many countries in the region. While the main mission of the new nationalism is the defence of national territory, the movements have the unintended impact of bringing together national communities once divided by Cold War ideologies. The phenomenon also poses some serious risks to regional peace and cooperation.
This article argues that widely used ideas such as bureaucratic polity, con-stitutional monarchy, transitional democracy and political reform fail to characterize accurately the recent politics of Thailand. Instead, Thai politics are best understood in terms of political networks. The leading network of the period 1973–2001 was centred on the palace, and is here termed 'network monarchy'. Network monarchy involved active interventions in the political process by the Thai King and his prox-ies, notably former prime minister Prem Tinsulanond. Network monarchy developed considerable influence, but never achieved the conditions for domination. Instead, the palace was obliged to work with and through other political institutions, primarily the elected parliament. Although essentially conservative, network monarchy also took on liberal forms during the 1990s. Thailand experienced three major legitimacy crises after 1992; in each case, Prem acted on behalf of the palace to restore po-litical equilibrium. However, these interventions reflected the growing weakness of the monarchy, especially following the landslide election victories of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2001 and 2005. Thaksin sought to displace network monar-chy with new networks of his own devising. This article suggests that conventional understandings of the power of the monarchy need to be rethought.