An insightful, even-handed comment by an old friend of mine, who is uniquely equipped to speak authoritatively on both Myanmar and Cambodia. The tentativeness of Obama’s handshake with Hun Sen (who seems to be grabbing for Obama’s hand) does indeed speak louder than words.
“The President expressed “his appreciation for his audience with His Majesty the King of Thailand” and conveyed his “warmest wishes” to the King and Queen. Then, in the very next sentence, he “reaffirmed the enduring US support for democracy in Thailand and welcomed the Royal Thai government’s commitment to strengthen Thailand’s parliamentary democracy”.
The juxtaposition of royalty and democracy may have been accidental, but both Obama and Yingluck know that Thailand’s over-investment in the monarchy is an important factor the enduring weakness of its electoral and parliamentary systems.”
“I’m grateful to His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen for inviting us to this ancient and beautiful land.
Earlier today I met with Prime Minister Thaksin, and I was proud to reaffirm the great friendship between our nations. We share a belief in democracy and human rights and ethnic and religious tolerance.”
Though Bush didn’t thank the King for an audience (if he got one? What’s it say if he met Thaksin, but not the King?), was this juxtaposition between Monarchy and functional democracy identified in the ‘very next sentence’ also because Bush knew that “investment in the monarchy is an important factor the enduring weakness of its electoral and parliamentary systems”, too? Is it continuity from the State Department re not having much faith in genetically based leadership? Or are speech writers just recycling?
Do people think Obama was being light re the gratitude for an audience? Couldn’t Bush have also been being light re being invited to an ancient and beautiful land (isn’t every land able to claim that)?
Who can believe anything said by smooth talking (or drooling) American Presidents?
The military record of problem solving is indeed very poor.
Myanmar citizenry needs require more than 2 persons approved
by the West.
U Thein Sein has a genuine difficult task of urging the military to self restraint so as not to create more #5.
Simultaneously Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, instead of bemoaning or basking, must put forth ‘a genuine coalition of Burmese patriots’, that are truly for the Citizenry without any ideological fixation, from within and without, PROMOTING THEM VIGOROUSLY, so as to strengthen every none military aspects of reconciliation as well as other essential changes advancing Myanmar to its better self.
The inputs from the West MUST based on genuine understandings of Myanmar History beyond knee jerk reactions.
The transformation of this country to a better one than this current model will be long, arduous and unforgiving if the inputs are continually lips services from HR organizations biased media or individuals clearly represented here at New Mandala.
Every once in a while, under specific circumstances, quite many people think that the military, religious leaders etc. would be forces for democracy, pluralism and an open society. This is, as always foolish! Religion, military and a few others have either to give up their own identity to become democratic. This hardly happens!
The arab spring is another question. In many cases islamist groups became victorious and I doubt that this is a way towards democracy and peoples participation.
In brief: Democracy can only work based on reason with resasonable subjects. Reason implies controversy! One should evaluate in how far religious leaders, military leaders and a few others can be regarded as basing their political strategies on reason that can publicly be discussed.
Puzzling that AW should inject ex-President Nixon to the thread. BUT Nixon is just the type of USA President who would embrace Thaksin (pre-fugitive or current-fugitive status would NOT matter.) AND former USA President Clinton would be just the type of USA President who would embrace Yingluck!
Here is an interesting extract from Nixon’s statement on his visit to Thailand in 1969:
Seven centuries ago the great Thai King Rama Kamheng, father of the Thai alphabet, had his belief inscribed in the new written language: “In the water there are fish; in the fields there is rice… Whoever wants to trade in elephants so trades. Whoever wants to trade in horses so trades; whoever wants to trade in silver and gold so trades.”
These words expressed the philosophy that a nation, like a man, should be free to seek its own destiny. In Korea, and again in Vietnam, Thailand has been in the forefront of those nations actively engaged in protecting this principle. The Thai contribution to the struggle to preserve the independence of South Vietnam has been of great significance–as befits a nation that places so high a value on its own long history of independence. As a nation which has shared so generously in the burdens of war, Thailand has a special interest in the strategy for achieving a durable peace–that is, one which guarantees to the people of South Vietnam the right to determine their own future without outside coercion. In developing this policy, the government of Thailand has been fully consulted, and will continue to be so in the future.
I believe that the greatest problem before us is not the war in Vietnam, but the bringing about of a dynamic set of international relationships which guarantee peace and progress. This cannot be done by the United States alone. It must be a cooperative effort. We must contribute to relationships by which the peoples of the area can master their challenges and shape their future.
Thailand is one of the foremost examples of the promise that the future holds in Asia–in terms of its economic development, its commitment to advancing the welfare of its people, and its larger view of new patterns of regional cooperation that can benefit all the nations and peoples of Asia. We are proud to consider Thailand our friend.
In this spirit, I see the vision of King Rama coming true not only for Thailand, but for all of Asia.
The iconography and carefully orchestrated symbolism of the Obama visit to Thailand would seem to suggest that the days of the royalists, their generals and military coups are over. Time to move on into the 21st century, elections, globalization and a more opportunity-based egalitarian society with gradual ASEAN integration on the horizon.
“That Obama (beside Thai politicians) provides positive imagery for elected politicians?”
Maybe so but not all the time. Yingluck certainly felt so … her reverse smile contortion (the photo) was almost girlishly a smirk of pride she could stand ‘beside’ USA President Obama while paying respects to the Thai King.
Now had Obama embraced Yingluck like Obama embraced (awkwardly yes but you all get the point) Aung Sang Syu Ki, that would have truly meant that “hallejuah … Obama embraces Thaksin (yes Thaksin, who else?)”
Thanks a lot.
A friend told me that Thai Rath had a very small thing on it, without giving a crowd estimate at all, and i have not seen any mention in neither Bangkok Post nor The Nation other that Thaksin has phoned in.
As to the crowd estimate – i believe that 20 000 is too low.
First Point
Any significance of the fact that Obama mentioned to the king that “elections in the US are very long yet very gratifying to know [American] people still have confidence in me. Did he try to suggest without elections, the Thai King has no way to know if the Thai people have confidence in the King?
Obama then smiled and said: “Elections in the United States are very long but it’s very gratifying to know people still have confidence in me. I thought it was very important that my first trip after the elections was to Thailand, which is such a great ally.”
Second Point
Why did Obama mention that he met Thaksin in Bali and that it strengthened US-Thai relationship. Wouldn’t he know Thaksin is on the run and this could potentially irritate the King. Did he try to send a strong message?
Reporters were led out of the room as the group continued to talk, and Obama could be overheard saying he met with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in Bali last year and that it “strengthened our relationship” as we left.
Are you seriously suggesting there is something wrong for an academic to adopt a particular political perspective? Or, in truth, just one you don’t agree with?
As for being partisan, your views are absolutely that.
Of course you’re perfectly entitled to support the most anti-democratic and fascistic elements in Thai society as you have been doing for the past few years.
But don’t assume that that is a “neutral” position. Nobody else does and nobody else would believe that you make a credible arbiter as to what is “partisan” and what isn’t.
Hi Jon, let’s debate the issues. What points do you see as being particularly partisan? That Obama’s visit helps Yingluck, domestically and internationally? That royalty thrives on auspicious imagery and that Obama’s visit provides just that? That the public imagery of Obama with both the King and Yingluck highlights the challenges of Thailand’s political transition? That Obama was clearly backing the elected Prime Minister? That the US no longer sees the Thai monarchy as a bastion for democracy? That Obama’s behaviour in the presence of the King may prompt some reflection on the relative status of royalty and elected politicians? That Obama provides positive imagery for elected politicians? That the electoral popularity of the Shinawatras poses challenges for the monarchy?
I think all of these points are debatable, and I would welcome debate. But I can’t see that you have attempted to engage with any of them.
Certainly, Mr. Damage’s observation is limited. Yes, the chinese have done very well in Thailand. Not all are successful like the Shinawatra. Capitalism in Thailand is of the “dog eats dog” style and is not for the faint of heart. FYI, not all chinese have lighter skin tone. Lighter skin tone can easily be achieved for a price by those whose money is not an object. Just as their Thai cousins, some Chinese are lazy too. The same phenomenon also occurs in Black and Caucasian.
Obama in Cambodia and Myanmar
An insightful, even-handed comment by an old friend of mine, who is uniquely equipped to speak authoritatively on both Myanmar and Cambodia. The tentativeness of Obama’s handshake with Hun Sen (who seems to be grabbing for Obama’s hand) does indeed speak louder than words.
Obama in Cambodia and Myanmar
Aung Zaw piece in Irrawaddy on Obama visit to Yangoon University….
http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/19365#.UKwpyy0Fc6w.facebook
Obama in Cambodia and Myanmar
link to detailed Cambodia Daily report on Obama’s meeting with Hun Sen:
http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/obama-presses-hun-sen-on-human-rights-record-6174/
Gender, sex and poetry at ANU
Please, a web cast?
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Did Bush’s visit in 2003 help Thaksin?
Andrew wrote:
“The President expressed “his appreciation for his audience with His Majesty the King of Thailand” and conveyed his “warmest wishes” to the King and Queen. Then, in the very next sentence, he “reaffirmed the enduring US support for democracy in Thailand and welcomed the Royal Thai government’s commitment to strengthen Thailand’s parliamentary democracy”.
The juxtaposition of royalty and democracy may have been accidental, but both Obama and Yingluck know that Thailand’s over-investment in the monarchy is an important factor the enduring weakness of its electoral and parliamentary systems.”
In October 2003 at the Royal Thai Army HQ, Bush Jr said
(http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64837&st=bush&st1=bangkok)
“I’m grateful to His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen for inviting us to this ancient and beautiful land.
Earlier today I met with Prime Minister Thaksin, and I was proud to reaffirm the great friendship between our nations. We share a belief in democracy and human rights and ethnic and religious tolerance.”
Though Bush didn’t thank the King for an audience (if he got one? What’s it say if he met Thaksin, but not the King?), was this juxtaposition between Monarchy and functional democracy identified in the ‘very next sentence’ also because Bush knew that “investment in the monarchy is an important factor the enduring weakness of its electoral and parliamentary systems”, too? Is it continuity from the State Department re not having much faith in genetically based leadership? Or are speech writers just recycling?
Do people think Obama was being light re the gratitude for an audience? Couldn’t Bush have also been being light re being invited to an ancient and beautiful land (isn’t every land able to claim that)?
Who can believe anything said by smooth talking (or drooling) American Presidents?
Mr Obama goes to Myanmar
“Reconciliation”
A touted theme.
A few ongoing quagmire
1)Bamar vs Kayin
2)Bamar vs Kachin
3)Bamar vs Shan
4)Bamar/Yakhine vs Kala/Rohingyas
5)Bamar vs ? who’s next.
With the tenuously resolved recent one of
Bamar vs Wa
Bamar vs Mon
The military record of problem solving is indeed very poor.
Myanmar citizenry needs require more than 2 persons approved
by the West.
U Thein Sein has a genuine difficult task of urging the military to self restraint so as not to create more #5.
Simultaneously Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, instead of bemoaning or basking, must put forth ‘a genuine coalition of Burmese patriots’, that are truly for the Citizenry without any ideological fixation, from within and without, PROMOTING THEM VIGOROUSLY, so as to strengthen every none military aspects of reconciliation as well as other essential changes advancing Myanmar to its better self.
The inputs from the West MUST based on genuine understandings of Myanmar History beyond knee jerk reactions.
The transformation of this country to a better one than this current model will be long, arduous and unforgiving if the inputs are continually lips services from HR organizations biased media or individuals clearly represented here at New Mandala.
Red Shirts in Bang Pla
there will be much more in the next days…
The inexorable pursuit of an Islamic State
Every once in a while, under specific circumstances, quite many people think that the military, religious leaders etc. would be forces for democracy, pluralism and an open society. This is, as always foolish! Religion, military and a few others have either to give up their own identity to become democratic. This hardly happens!
The arab spring is another question. In many cases islamist groups became victorious and I doubt that this is a way towards democracy and peoples participation.
In brief: Democracy can only work based on reason with resasonable subjects. Reason implies controversy! One should evaluate in how far religious leaders, military leaders and a few others can be regarded as basing their political strategies on reason that can publicly be discussed.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Puzzling that AW should inject ex-President Nixon to the thread. BUT Nixon is just the type of USA President who would embrace Thaksin (pre-fugitive or current-fugitive status would NOT matter.) AND former USA President Clinton would be just the type of USA President who would embrace Yingluck!
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
“The charmer-in-chief: Obama gets flirty as he schmoozes with Thai prime minister on first stop of historic Asia visit”
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Here is an interesting extract from Nixon’s statement on his visit to Thailand in 1969:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2153
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
The iconography and carefully orchestrated symbolism of the Obama visit to Thailand would seem to suggest that the days of the royalists, their generals and military coups are over. Time to move on into the 21st century, elections, globalization and a more opportunity-based egalitarian society with gradual ASEAN integration on the horizon.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
“That Obama (beside Thai politicians) provides positive imagery for elected politicians?”
Maybe so but not all the time. Yingluck certainly felt so … her reverse smile contortion (the photo) was almost girlishly a smirk of pride she could stand ‘beside’ USA President Obama while paying respects to the Thai King.
Now had Obama embraced Yingluck like Obama embraced (awkwardly yes but you all get the point) Aung Sang Syu Ki, that would have truly meant that “hallejuah … Obama embraces Thaksin (yes Thaksin, who else?)”
Red Shirts in Bang Pla
Thanks a lot.
A friend told me that Thai Rath had a very small thing on it, without giving a crowd estimate at all, and i have not seen any mention in neither Bangkok Post nor The Nation other that Thaksin has phoned in.
As to the crowd estimate – i believe that 20 000 is too low.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/18/president-obama-secretary-of-state-clinton-meet-king-of-thailand/
First Point
Any significance of the fact that Obama mentioned to the king that “elections in the US are very long yet very gratifying to know [American] people still have confidence in me. Did he try to suggest without elections, the Thai King has no way to know if the Thai people have confidence in the King?
Obama then smiled and said: “Elections in the United States are very long but it’s very gratifying to know people still have confidence in me. I thought it was very important that my first trip after the elections was to Thailand, which is such a great ally.”
Second Point
Why did Obama mention that he met Thaksin in Bali and that it strengthened US-Thai relationship. Wouldn’t he know Thaksin is on the run and this could potentially irritate the King. Did he try to send a strong message?
Reporters were led out of the room as the group continued to talk, and Obama could be overheard saying he met with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in Bali last year and that it “strengthened our relationship” as we left.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
jon
Are you seriously suggesting there is something wrong for an academic to adopt a particular political perspective? Or, in truth, just one you don’t agree with?
As for being partisan, your views are absolutely that.
Of course you’re perfectly entitled to support the most anti-democratic and fascistic elements in Thai society as you have been doing for the past few years.
But don’t assume that that is a “neutral” position. Nobody else does and nobody else would believe that you make a credible arbiter as to what is “partisan” and what isn’t.
Red Shirts in Bang Pla
Matichon had a picture of this rally on its front page, but estimated the number of participants at 20,000.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Hear hear! Well said Andrew
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Hi Jon, let’s debate the issues. What points do you see as being particularly partisan? That Obama’s visit helps Yingluck, domestically and internationally? That royalty thrives on auspicious imagery and that Obama’s visit provides just that? That the public imagery of Obama with both the King and Yingluck highlights the challenges of Thailand’s political transition? That Obama was clearly backing the elected Prime Minister? That the US no longer sees the Thai monarchy as a bastion for democracy? That Obama’s behaviour in the presence of the King may prompt some reflection on the relative status of royalty and elected politicians? That Obama provides positive imagery for elected politicians? That the electoral popularity of the Shinawatras poses challenges for the monarchy?
I think all of these points are debatable, and I would welcome debate. But I can’t see that you have attempted to engage with any of them.
The Shinawatra family tree
Certainly, Mr. Damage’s observation is limited. Yes, the chinese have done very well in Thailand. Not all are successful like the Shinawatra. Capitalism in Thailand is of the “dog eats dog” style and is not for the faint of heart. FYI, not all chinese have lighter skin tone. Lighter skin tone can easily be achieved for a price by those whose money is not an object. Just as their Thai cousins, some Chinese are lazy too. The same phenomenon also occurs in Black and Caucasian.