กรุงเทพฯ--18 ต.ค.--กระทรวงการต่างประเทศ
คำชี้แจงของกระทรวงการต่างประเทศเกี่ยวกับบทความของนายอัมรินทร์ คอมันตร์
ตีพิมพ์ในหนังสือพิมพ์ Bangkok Post ฉบับวันที่ 8 ตุลาคม 2543
ตามที่หนังสือพิมพ์ Bangkok Post ฉบับวันที่ 8 ตุลาคม 2543 ได้ตีพิมพ์บทความของ นายอัมรินทร์ คอมันตร์ เรื่อง "The Terror Within" ซึ่งมีประเด็นพาดพิงถึงนโยบายทางการทูตและการดำเนินงานด้านการต่างประเทศ ทั้งในอดีตและปัจจุบันนั้น นายนพดล ปัทมะ เลขานุการรัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงการต่างประเทศ ได้มีหนังสือชี้แจงไปยังบรรณาธิการหนังสือพิมพ์ Bangkok Post แล้วดังนี้
No.0100/2624
17 October B.E.2543 (2000)
Dear Sir,
This is in reference to the article, ectitled "The Terror Without", written by Khun Amarin Khoman and published in the Bangkok Post on Sunday 8th October 2000.
I woule like to congratulate the author for raising many pertinint issues concerning Thailand's security and well-being, especially those related to globalisation. As a prominent business partner of a number of foreign companies, Khun Amarin must certainly be familiar with the ills of globalisation and with the problems and pitfalls of dealing with "foreign devils" I wish him well.
I also would like to lend my wholehearted support to his praises of the Thailand's(or Siam's) diplomacy in the past, during both the colonial period and the Cold War. His sense of modesty undoubtedly prevented him from mentioning the illustrious role of Dr.Thanat Khounan during the latter period, but on my part I would like to express my appreciation for Dr.Thanat's critical role in the establishment of ASEAN in 1967.
EditorThe Bangkok Post,
BANGKOK.
However, unfortunately Khun Amarin misunderstood a number of points which I would like to clarify just for the record.
First of all, while I agree with Khun Amarin that foreign policy is the key to the Kingdom's progress and thar, and I quote him, "we must forge a foreign policy that fosters good cooperation between ASEAN nations and the rest of the world," I must disagree with his conclusions that our present foreign policy is passive and divisive.
In the last three years we have played a proactive role in the contexts of both ASEAN and the international community. We have successfully helped to expand the agenda of ASEAN, which now include cooperation on the development of information technology, the eradication of poverty, the strengthening of social safety nets, and the management and reduction of transnational crimes, especially those related to illicit drugs. Also, we have promoted many development projects related to the Greater Mekong Subregion, especially those to do with human resource development and systems of communication and transportation, and tourism. In teh context of the UN, We have played a positive role in collaboration with UN agencies in a number of key issue3areas, including trade and development, transnational crimes, druge, migration, human rights and peacekeeping. We have also been very active in other international institutions, most notably the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Orgenization.
Indeed, I would say that at the present juncture our foreign policy is more issue3oriented than ever before. This approach is appropriate for the post-Cold War workd, where issues, rather than nations or groups of nations, challenge our security and well-being, both as a sovereign state and as democratic, developing society. In other words, contrary to Khun Amarin's opinion, we can read what is happening in international politics and have made the necessary adjustments.
Nor is our policy toward East Timor a divisive issue, Thailand's participation in both INTERFET and UNTAET was and is in accordance with the UN Security Council's Resolution (UNSC Res.S.1264/1999), the UN Secretary-General's implementation of this Resolution, and Indonesia's wishes. Indeed, our positive response to our Indonesian friends' desire that we participate in the UN's East Timor activities was based upon our appreciation both of Indonesia's importance and for Indonesia's past support for Thailand, most notably during the Cambodian conflict and the outbreak of the financial crisis in 1997. Umlike others, we do not forget friends, nor do we accused them of various misdeeds and crimes once their usefulness is over.
Secondly, while again I agree with Khun Amarin that in this day and age the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must reach out to the people, inform them more and give greater opportunities for their participation in foreign policy processes, which in fact is what we have been doing for the last three years, I must also point out that such is the nature of diplomacy that we cannot inform every one about everything or what our game plan is. In fact, if we inform every body about everything related to foreign policy, not only are we likely to fail to achieve success in areas where secrecy or discretion is required, but we can also be accused of either incompetence, criminal negligence or, worse, treason. In diplomacy discretion is better part of valour: this is recognised by all of Thailand's great diplomats, including (if I may add) Dr.Thanat himself during the Cold War. The famous Thanat-Rusk Joint Communique of 1962, permitting the United States to deploy her military forces in Thailand, is perhaps the most obvious example of the conduct of quiet diplomacy.
Thirdly, I agree with the author that the Royal Thai Government needs to perform more coherently in international trade and trade related issues, but this is an ingerited problem rather than a new shortcoming on our part. To make us better equipped to meet the various challenges of a globalised would, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is workong with other government agencies, most notably the Ministry of Finance, the Budget Bureau and the Ministry of Commerce, to streamline, as well as to increase the efficiency of, both the systim of Thailand's representation abroad and the structure of economic ministries at home. The first task has long been underway, but the second needs time, because new laws are required. The underlying premise is that both the Ministry andthe Foreign Service must increasingly undertake responsibilities related to trade, development and investment in collaboration with other agencies. It is a strange irony for Khun Amarin to accuse us of being salesmen too much, if we ignore these responsibilities, we would be accused, as we have been in the past, of being too incompetent, lazy or simply too aristocraric, too elitist, to "dirty" our hands with economic matters.
Fourthly, I agree with the author that we must choose leaders who are "brave, honest, courageous, visionary, and have strong ties to the country and the people not self serving politicians with hidden agendas" , leaders who do not make Thailand "a puppet of world powers" and can "secure" for the Kingdom "a respected position in the would".
It is not for me to sing praises for the personal attributes of Dr.Surin Pitsuwan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and M.R.Sukhumbhand Paribatra, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. History and unbiased observers can make a better judgement than I. But certain facts are clear. The first is that presently we are respected throughout the international community and our foreign policy is an important point of reference for great powers' decisions regarding our region. The second is that we are no puppet of world powers, as demonstrated by our WTO campaign and our stands towards various arms control issues and such regional issues as Kosovo. The third fact is that both Minister and Deputy Minister are elected in accoudance to the democratic process and are accountable to both parliament and people, subject to reelection and reappointment through the democratic process, not self-appointed or selected by a military regime. How much closer to the people can Foreign Ministers become?
Yours sincerely,
(Noppadon Pattama)
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
กองการสื่อมวลชน กรมสารนิเทศ กระทรวงการต่างประเทศ โทร. 643-5105 โทรสาร. 643-5106-7Press Division, Department of Information Tel. 643-5105 Fax. 643-5106-7 E-mail : div0704@mfa.go.th-- จบ--
-อน-
คำชี้แจงของกระทรวงการต่างประเทศเกี่ยวกับบทความของนายอัมรินทร์ คอมันตร์
ตีพิมพ์ในหนังสือพิมพ์ Bangkok Post ฉบับวันที่ 8 ตุลาคม 2543
ตามที่หนังสือพิมพ์ Bangkok Post ฉบับวันที่ 8 ตุลาคม 2543 ได้ตีพิมพ์บทความของ นายอัมรินทร์ คอมันตร์ เรื่อง "The Terror Within" ซึ่งมีประเด็นพาดพิงถึงนโยบายทางการทูตและการดำเนินงานด้านการต่างประเทศ ทั้งในอดีตและปัจจุบันนั้น นายนพดล ปัทมะ เลขานุการรัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงการต่างประเทศ ได้มีหนังสือชี้แจงไปยังบรรณาธิการหนังสือพิมพ์ Bangkok Post แล้วดังนี้
No.0100/2624
17 October B.E.2543 (2000)
Dear Sir,
This is in reference to the article, ectitled "The Terror Without", written by Khun Amarin Khoman and published in the Bangkok Post on Sunday 8th October 2000.
I woule like to congratulate the author for raising many pertinint issues concerning Thailand's security and well-being, especially those related to globalisation. As a prominent business partner of a number of foreign companies, Khun Amarin must certainly be familiar with the ills of globalisation and with the problems and pitfalls of dealing with "foreign devils" I wish him well.
I also would like to lend my wholehearted support to his praises of the Thailand's(or Siam's) diplomacy in the past, during both the colonial period and the Cold War. His sense of modesty undoubtedly prevented him from mentioning the illustrious role of Dr.Thanat Khounan during the latter period, but on my part I would like to express my appreciation for Dr.Thanat's critical role in the establishment of ASEAN in 1967.
EditorThe Bangkok Post,
BANGKOK.
However, unfortunately Khun Amarin misunderstood a number of points which I would like to clarify just for the record.
First of all, while I agree with Khun Amarin that foreign policy is the key to the Kingdom's progress and thar, and I quote him, "we must forge a foreign policy that fosters good cooperation between ASEAN nations and the rest of the world," I must disagree with his conclusions that our present foreign policy is passive and divisive.
In the last three years we have played a proactive role in the contexts of both ASEAN and the international community. We have successfully helped to expand the agenda of ASEAN, which now include cooperation on the development of information technology, the eradication of poverty, the strengthening of social safety nets, and the management and reduction of transnational crimes, especially those related to illicit drugs. Also, we have promoted many development projects related to the Greater Mekong Subregion, especially those to do with human resource development and systems of communication and transportation, and tourism. In teh context of the UN, We have played a positive role in collaboration with UN agencies in a number of key issue3areas, including trade and development, transnational crimes, druge, migration, human rights and peacekeeping. We have also been very active in other international institutions, most notably the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Orgenization.
Indeed, I would say that at the present juncture our foreign policy is more issue3oriented than ever before. This approach is appropriate for the post-Cold War workd, where issues, rather than nations or groups of nations, challenge our security and well-being, both as a sovereign state and as democratic, developing society. In other words, contrary to Khun Amarin's opinion, we can read what is happening in international politics and have made the necessary adjustments.
Nor is our policy toward East Timor a divisive issue, Thailand's participation in both INTERFET and UNTAET was and is in accordance with the UN Security Council's Resolution (UNSC Res.S.1264/1999), the UN Secretary-General's implementation of this Resolution, and Indonesia's wishes. Indeed, our positive response to our Indonesian friends' desire that we participate in the UN's East Timor activities was based upon our appreciation both of Indonesia's importance and for Indonesia's past support for Thailand, most notably during the Cambodian conflict and the outbreak of the financial crisis in 1997. Umlike others, we do not forget friends, nor do we accused them of various misdeeds and crimes once their usefulness is over.
Secondly, while again I agree with Khun Amarin that in this day and age the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must reach out to the people, inform them more and give greater opportunities for their participation in foreign policy processes, which in fact is what we have been doing for the last three years, I must also point out that such is the nature of diplomacy that we cannot inform every one about everything or what our game plan is. In fact, if we inform every body about everything related to foreign policy, not only are we likely to fail to achieve success in areas where secrecy or discretion is required, but we can also be accused of either incompetence, criminal negligence or, worse, treason. In diplomacy discretion is better part of valour: this is recognised by all of Thailand's great diplomats, including (if I may add) Dr.Thanat himself during the Cold War. The famous Thanat-Rusk Joint Communique of 1962, permitting the United States to deploy her military forces in Thailand, is perhaps the most obvious example of the conduct of quiet diplomacy.
Thirdly, I agree with the author that the Royal Thai Government needs to perform more coherently in international trade and trade related issues, but this is an ingerited problem rather than a new shortcoming on our part. To make us better equipped to meet the various challenges of a globalised would, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is workong with other government agencies, most notably the Ministry of Finance, the Budget Bureau and the Ministry of Commerce, to streamline, as well as to increase the efficiency of, both the systim of Thailand's representation abroad and the structure of economic ministries at home. The first task has long been underway, but the second needs time, because new laws are required. The underlying premise is that both the Ministry andthe Foreign Service must increasingly undertake responsibilities related to trade, development and investment in collaboration with other agencies. It is a strange irony for Khun Amarin to accuse us of being salesmen too much, if we ignore these responsibilities, we would be accused, as we have been in the past, of being too incompetent, lazy or simply too aristocraric, too elitist, to "dirty" our hands with economic matters.
Fourthly, I agree with the author that we must choose leaders who are "brave, honest, courageous, visionary, and have strong ties to the country and the people not self serving politicians with hidden agendas" , leaders who do not make Thailand "a puppet of world powers" and can "secure" for the Kingdom "a respected position in the would".
It is not for me to sing praises for the personal attributes of Dr.Surin Pitsuwan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and M.R.Sukhumbhand Paribatra, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. History and unbiased observers can make a better judgement than I. But certain facts are clear. The first is that presently we are respected throughout the international community and our foreign policy is an important point of reference for great powers' decisions regarding our region. The second is that we are no puppet of world powers, as demonstrated by our WTO campaign and our stands towards various arms control issues and such regional issues as Kosovo. The third fact is that both Minister and Deputy Minister are elected in accoudance to the democratic process and are accountable to both parliament and people, subject to reelection and reappointment through the democratic process, not self-appointed or selected by a military regime. How much closer to the people can Foreign Ministers become?
Yours sincerely,
(Noppadon Pattama)
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
กองการสื่อมวลชน กรมสารนิเทศ กระทรวงการต่างประเทศ โทร. 643-5105 โทรสาร. 643-5106-7Press Division, Department of Information Tel. 643-5105 Fax. 643-5106-7 E-mail : div0704@mfa.go.th-- จบ--
-อน-