Should i send this to John Kerry
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 9:38 pm
in response to his letter to Thailand? and if i do will i expect to receive visitors or stopped on my next visit home?
To John Kerry:
Secretary of State
As a US citizen and long term resident of Thailand, I am very disappointed and embarrassed by your letter to the Thai government concerning the military takeover of the government.
(http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/ ... 226446.htm)
The tone of the letter is arrogant, presumptive and will be considered deeply offensive by the Thai government. I can only presume and hope that this letter represents your personal opinion as a misguided attempt at statesmanship or diplomacy and does not reflect the will of the US people. After all, as an appointed rather than elected official I do not see how you could possibly believe you represent the collective will of the US people any more than you believe the actions of an unelected government can reflect the will of the Thai people.
You state that there is no justification for the military coup. Yet it appears you have reached this conclusion without making an effort to fully understand the situation in Thailand, polling the opinions of the Thai population or having direct dialog with any of the parties involved.
Many people around the world have watched in dismay as the US has sent military forces into sovereign countries, overthrown governments through force and appointed interim unelected governments. At no time was the will of the local population ever solicited or taken into consideration. Those actions have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, as well as countless military personnel on both sides, yet were considered as justified in order to try to implement democratic reforms in those countries .... an objective that appears to have never been fully achieved in many cases.
In Thailand there was a situation of chaos, instability and complete governmental paralysis with no hope for a political solution, as all opposing factions refused to accept any compromise, were apparently arming themselves, and have threaten to resort to violent measures to achieve their goals. As what they appeared to feel was the only practical solution, the military has enacted a completely bloodless takeover of government, in their own country, in order to stop random acts of violence that were threatening to escalate into possibly a civil war. The military government leadership has clearly indicated that the military takeover is a temporary situation until a stable elected democratic government can be reinstate . However, you call it unjustified, while US's own bloody takeover of foreign governments is completely justified. I fail to understand your thinking.
It is wrong to use elections as the main determination of whether a government is democratic, represents the will of the people and serves the best interests of all it's citizens.
I think history can show that benevolence, morality and good intentions of the controlling government is of more importance than whether it was elected or not.
While you are criticizing this bloodless installation of an unelected government, I don't recall ever reading any US letter condemning the massive abuses of human rights that have occurred under various elected "democratic" Thai governments. For example, the approximately 2,500 deaths in 2003 that occurred during a crackdown on drug trafficking, many of which were believed to be extrajudicial killings by police officers. Or for example the Tak Bai incident in 2004 when 7 protesters were shot, many were beaten and 78 suffocated in the back of a truck while in detention.
In past elections some Thai politicians have taken the position that any election victory gives them absolute power to do as they please, leading to massive corruption and situations where government policy and political appointments appear to be enacted for personal gain rather than in the interests of the people. Politicians have openly stated that if you don't support them during the election, don't expect any support after they win the election. This is the type of situation that led to the 2006 coup and numerous indictments against the now fugitive ex-prime minister for corruption and abuse of power. Even today politicians state that any action by the courts to limit their power, or hold them accountable for their actions, amounts to a judicial coup.
You state that because of the Thai military actions, you are reviewing your military and other assistance and engagements. You urge the restoration of civilian government immediately, a return to democracy, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as press freedoms. In light of the the military support and protection agreements that the US has with other allies that do not have elected governments, including some in the middle east that have never had representational government, any form of democracy and do not allow freedom of speech and religion, how do you justify the decidedly undiplomatic letter you have written and the hard line taken with the Thai military, a long time friend and ally.
In the past coup in 2006 and the present one, the military appeared to be acting in what they think to be in the best interests of the country and not for personal power or financial gain. I wish the same could be said for all of the elected or appointed members of the past governments. My own observation is that many Thai, and foreign residents, have felt relief at the military intervention as they feel it gives them escape from a ruling majority government that is perceived to be inept, corrupt and self serving.
In view of our past relationship with Thailand I believe you should read and take note of the UK and China's written response to the Thai military action. It is much more in the nature of the conciliatory approach the US should be taking, particularly at a time when the US needs allies in Asia to counter balance ascending China assertion of power in Asia.
To John Kerry:
Secretary of State
As a US citizen and long term resident of Thailand, I am very disappointed and embarrassed by your letter to the Thai government concerning the military takeover of the government.
(http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/ ... 226446.htm)
The tone of the letter is arrogant, presumptive and will be considered deeply offensive by the Thai government. I can only presume and hope that this letter represents your personal opinion as a misguided attempt at statesmanship or diplomacy and does not reflect the will of the US people. After all, as an appointed rather than elected official I do not see how you could possibly believe you represent the collective will of the US people any more than you believe the actions of an unelected government can reflect the will of the Thai people.
You state that there is no justification for the military coup. Yet it appears you have reached this conclusion without making an effort to fully understand the situation in Thailand, polling the opinions of the Thai population or having direct dialog with any of the parties involved.
Many people around the world have watched in dismay as the US has sent military forces into sovereign countries, overthrown governments through force and appointed interim unelected governments. At no time was the will of the local population ever solicited or taken into consideration. Those actions have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, as well as countless military personnel on both sides, yet were considered as justified in order to try to implement democratic reforms in those countries .... an objective that appears to have never been fully achieved in many cases.
In Thailand there was a situation of chaos, instability and complete governmental paralysis with no hope for a political solution, as all opposing factions refused to accept any compromise, were apparently arming themselves, and have threaten to resort to violent measures to achieve their goals. As what they appeared to feel was the only practical solution, the military has enacted a completely bloodless takeover of government, in their own country, in order to stop random acts of violence that were threatening to escalate into possibly a civil war. The military government leadership has clearly indicated that the military takeover is a temporary situation until a stable elected democratic government can be reinstate . However, you call it unjustified, while US's own bloody takeover of foreign governments is completely justified. I fail to understand your thinking.
It is wrong to use elections as the main determination of whether a government is democratic, represents the will of the people and serves the best interests of all it's citizens.
I think history can show that benevolence, morality and good intentions of the controlling government is of more importance than whether it was elected or not.
While you are criticizing this bloodless installation of an unelected government, I don't recall ever reading any US letter condemning the massive abuses of human rights that have occurred under various elected "democratic" Thai governments. For example, the approximately 2,500 deaths in 2003 that occurred during a crackdown on drug trafficking, many of which were believed to be extrajudicial killings by police officers. Or for example the Tak Bai incident in 2004 when 7 protesters were shot, many were beaten and 78 suffocated in the back of a truck while in detention.
In past elections some Thai politicians have taken the position that any election victory gives them absolute power to do as they please, leading to massive corruption and situations where government policy and political appointments appear to be enacted for personal gain rather than in the interests of the people. Politicians have openly stated that if you don't support them during the election, don't expect any support after they win the election. This is the type of situation that led to the 2006 coup and numerous indictments against the now fugitive ex-prime minister for corruption and abuse of power. Even today politicians state that any action by the courts to limit their power, or hold them accountable for their actions, amounts to a judicial coup.
You state that because of the Thai military actions, you are reviewing your military and other assistance and engagements. You urge the restoration of civilian government immediately, a return to democracy, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as press freedoms. In light of the the military support and protection agreements that the US has with other allies that do not have elected governments, including some in the middle east that have never had representational government, any form of democracy and do not allow freedom of speech and religion, how do you justify the decidedly undiplomatic letter you have written and the hard line taken with the Thai military, a long time friend and ally.
In the past coup in 2006 and the present one, the military appeared to be acting in what they think to be in the best interests of the country and not for personal power or financial gain. I wish the same could be said for all of the elected or appointed members of the past governments. My own observation is that many Thai, and foreign residents, have felt relief at the military intervention as they feel it gives them escape from a ruling majority government that is perceived to be inept, corrupt and self serving.
In view of our past relationship with Thailand I believe you should read and take note of the UK and China's written response to the Thai military action. It is much more in the nature of the conciliatory approach the US should be taking, particularly at a time when the US needs allies in Asia to counter balance ascending China assertion of power in Asia.