My head Siamese cat will be kissing the Chi-American cats butts for sure

By Tammy, Frank and Pooky, this blog humanity, political and economics journalist

We just want to give you a preview of the up-coming APEC meeting. If you like our analysis, keep tabs on us, because as you know, we respect nothing, but freedom, democracy and social justice. And we will be using that standard to take the APEC meeting to pieces if the meeting verges out of that frame-work. Particular to watch is the American and China relations-and if there is any indication of an overt or under-cover alliance being formed, we are going to trash Obama and the Chinese leaders, like “Big Times.”

The following is from the US state department websit, available through this blog.

Kurt Tong, Senior Official for APEC , Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Foreign Press Center

Washington, DC

November 3, 2009

MODERATOR: Good afternoon. Welcome to the Foreign Press Center. I believe Mr. Kurt Tong is known to many of you from his days on the Korean desk or in Beijing or in Tokyo. We are very lucky to have such a distinguished person knowledgeable on the whole of Asia, and he is now the U.S. senior official for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, talks, negotiations. And this is the topic of his briefing here today. He would like to stick to the topic of the APEC meetings coming up. Unfortunately, there are many other topics, I know, but he is not going to address those topics. I wanted to be clear beforehand.

And with that, I will – oh, when we ask the – when you have the questions, I’d like you to please identify yourself and wait for the microphone before you ask the question. Thank you.

MR. TONG: Hi. Well, good afternoon, everybody. It’s nice to see you all. Did I set that off? I would like to talk to you briefly – am I doing that?

MODERATOR: I don’t know.

MR. TONG: Okay. I’d like to open up with a few comments about the U.S. view about the upcoming APEC meetings and what we hope to achieve in Singapore together with all of our colleagues in the other 20 member economies of APEC. In about two weeks, President Obama will make his first trip to Asia since taking office and participate in his first APEC leaders meeting in Singapore. There will be quite a raft of senior U.S. Government officials going to Singapore. Secretary Clinton is going to and participate in the annual ministerial meeting. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk will be going to participate in that same meeting. Secretary – Treasury Secretary Geithner will go to participate in the finance ministers meeting, and Commerce Secretary Locke will also go to Singapore for meetings with business officials and to participate in the CEO – APEC CEO summit which takes place on the edges of the official government-oriented APEC meetings.

So we have quite a large presence going. We may even have some members of Congress joining us for the APEC fiesta. So it’s really quite a concerted and very enthusiastic embrace of the APEC meetings and APEC as an institution by the United States, as evidenced by that participation.

This meeting this year will mark the 20th anniversary of APEC. The organization started 20 years ago with a ministerial meeting in Australia. It’s also the beginning of an important two-year period for APEC which starts next year, with our good friends and allies in Japan hosting APEC in 2010 and the United States hosting here in 2011. We have high hopes for what APEC will achieve in those two years. We’re cooperating extremely closely with our counterparts in Tokyo to try and arrange a very concerted and coordinated and effective two-year approach to achieving the best possible outcomes in APEC in 2010 and 2011.

Hosting APEC in 2011, I think will be a tremendous opportunity for us to promote U.S. business and investment opportunities which will benefit American workers, farmers, and businesses of all sizes. I think it will also be an important opportunity for the United States to define a new 21st century economic policy agenda for the Asia Pacific region.

And what I’d like to do today is just give you very briefly a sense of the major themes that you’ll be hearing about coming out of the various meetings in Singapore. There’s a senior officials meeting which takes place on Sunday and Monday, followed by the annual ministerial meeting, which is a meeting of both Secretary Clinton and USTR Kirk and their counterparts from the other 20 economies, and then the leaders meeting on the 14th and 15th. There’s also a finance ministers meeting on the 12th in Singapore, which will be contributing a lot, particularly this year, to the APEC dialogue and outcomes.

But some of the major themes which you can expect to hear a lot about coming out of the APEC meetings in Singapore include the following:

Economic recovery. Now, clearly, given where the global macro economy stands in these days, it’s a very pressing issue for everyone to discuss the ways that we can achieve economic recovery and growth. There was, in the U.S. opinion, an extremely productive G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh which we hosted, and we hope to have the outcomes of that G-20 session and its focus on economic recovery and growth reflected in the discussions in APEC and the outcomes in Singapore. There are, by my count, nine G-20 members who are also members of APEC, so there’s a good opportunity here for some back and forth between the two groupings, the G-20 discussing issues, APEC discussing issues, and pushing it forward and having the ideas which, for example, in this case, the ideas which are discussed and endorsed in the G-20 context then endorsed by the broader APEC grouping, and then giving feedback into the G-20 process.

A second very important theme, which was also a major theme in Pittsburgh, will be resisting protectionism. This is something that’s been discussed throughout the year intensively. The track record, we believe, is quite good, and that’s in large part because of the intense discussions which the major economies of the world have had over the past year to make sure that we don’t slip down into the road of protectionism in a negative macroeconomic environment.

Undoubtedly, the trade ministers will discuss the Doha round of trade negotiations in their retreat on the 11th. I expect that discussion to be intensive and hopefully productive.

Another extremely important theme, an APEC specific theme, is that of regional economic integration. In some ways, regional economic integration, or REI, as we affectionately call it, is the core agenda for APEC. What that refers to is the work that is done within APEC to try and accelerate trade and investment liberalization among the APEC economies so that the economies will have fewer barriers between them as they trade with each other and invest in each other. The APEC year by year has made important contributions to this regional economic integration agenda, and we hope that this year will be no different. In particular, we’re hoping for some progress in the area of environmental goods and services, and services. We’re hoping that there will be a consensus among the APEC members that we can push forward in those areas as an organization and as a region and improve our level of integration in that area.

I’d like to mention three more themes which are conceptual in nature but very important and hopefully will be reflected in the APEC work program going forward. The first is balanced growth. It was a major theme at the Pittsburgh meetings and a very important one as we think about the challenge of economic and recovery and growth going forward. We really see APEC as having an opportunity to reinforce the G-20’s pledge to establish a pattern of global growth that is more balanced by region and less prone to destabilizing booms and busts.

A second theme is sustainable growth. There’s a real opportunity within APEC to push – and particularly in capacity building, to help the economies of the APEC region develop in ways that have less of an impact on the environment and in particular on climate change worldwide. I expect that in 2010 in particular there will be quite a strong emphasis on finding ways that we can make sure that all of the APEC economies are participating in constructive ways in a green growth agenda.

And finally, inclusive growth. This is a relatively new theme within APEC, but quite an important one. The concept behind inclusive growth – and this probably takes just a minute to explain – is that as economies have gone about liberalizing the rules governing trade and investment, they’ve come to the realization that they also need to give concerted attention to the question about how to assist workers or businesses which have not yet had an opportunity to participate in the growth that results from liberalization in that growth. So that means that as an organization and as governments within APEC, there are ways that we can do more to create opportunities for those participants that have not been able to take advantage of growth yet. That means that, in practical terms within APEC, we’re going to try and reinforce and expand our work program in areas like education, worker retraining, microfinance, and small and medium enterprise development, as well as creating opportunities for women.

Just as a final note about APEC in general, it’s an organization which the U.S. finds extremely valuable. For one, we’re a participant in it, which makes it, from our perspective, extremely important. But more – beyond that, there are – it’s quite a powerful alignment of economies. If you add up the size of the APEC economies, it comes over to well over one half of global GDP, well over one half of the trade which takes place on the planet. And so when APEC works together in a concerted fashion, it can have a real, very significant impact on global rules of engagement in trade and investment and on global growth. So the lineup is a good one.

And second, there’s a proper balance or a useful balance within APEC between the policy work and the capacity building work. We have found that together with the other economies that working through APEC by emphasizing both policy dialogue and encouraging – through peer pressure, through mutual encouragement – getting economies to take steps which open up their economies and leave them to the more open economic structures which advantage all the economies is useful, but it also needs to be matched with the capacity-building work. And the United States has made funds available. We intend to continue to do that, to try and spur the kind of very specific and pragmatic capacity-building work that allows all the economies to actually follow-through with commitments that they’re making in the policy dialogues.

So that is – as an opening discussion, I am happy to take your questions.

MODERATOR: Okay, we’ll start here in the front.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for agreeing to talk to us today.

MR. TONG: Sure.

QUESTION: Daniel Ryntjes from Channel News Asia. I wanted to ask you about sort of concrete free trade agreements. There is, it appears, some pressure from Asia to see the American side come up with something concrete in terms of free trade agreements, but also concern that there isn’t the political will in Washington to be able to do that. If this issue comes up, what sort of message do you have for your Asian partners?

MR. TONG: Well, the United States believes that there are a number of ways to pursue trade investment liberalization. Obviously, the most important is the Doha round and multilateral trade negotiations. There are also bilateral and multilateral approaches which can be envisioned and that the United States could participate in.

I don’t want to send today any specific signals about any specific agreement. That’s one of my main goals for this session today, because I don’t want you to misread anything I say as saying one thing or another about either the pending FTAs that we have or any possible arrangements that we might participate in in the future.

But just let me state as a general principle, that if these agreements are high standard and have – and reach real market opening outcomes, which we believe is possible, then they are of value to the United States and they’re of value to our partners. And so that is our objective is to see not only, as the United States participates in these kinds of arrangements, but as other economies do so among themselves, that they do so with ambition.

MODERATOR: Okay. The gentleman in the back.

QUESTION: Kemsam Kim from Voice of America. Could you elaborate a little bit about how will you work with APEC member-countries and utilize these opportunities in the meeting to make North Korea get back to the Six-Party Talks and abide by its previous commitment of denuclearization? Thank you.

MR. TONG: The APEC is – the E in APEC stands for economic. And so the discussions within the APEC forum themselves generally concentrate on the economic agenda that the APEC economies want to talk about amongst each other. Now, there are – as particularly the leaders and foreign ministers gather, they – these people obviously have agendas and areas of responsibility that extend well beyond the economic realm. And so there are opportunities which happen on the sidelines of the main APEC meetings for discussions between leaders, between foreign ministers to talk about issues like the very important question of how to achieve denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But I don’t anticipate that it’s going to be a specific topic for discussion within the APEC meetings themselves.

MODERATOR: Here – the center.

QUESTION: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Jim Berger from Washington Trade Daily. Just getting back to the themes for the APEC meeting. You mentioned an economic – regional economic integration. You mentioned environmental goods and services. I assume those are two initiatives that the United States will pursue. Could you give a little bit more meat on that?

MR. TONG: I’d like to refer you to USTR for the details on those. These are – because I don’t want to get it wrong, and they’re in charge of these initiatives, but the idea is to try and push forward in an APEC context on – in an ambitious way to get economies to sign up for further services, liberalization, and action on environmental goods and services.

The – a word about APEC commitments. The – APEC is a non-binding voluntary organization that operates on consensus. There are real benefits to that and the ability then to set what – set the agenda within APEC. Economies are less resistant to a broad agenda, precisely because APEC operates according to those principles. On the other hand, it doesn’t often result in legally binding commitments in and of themselves, but rather, decisions to then take back the outcomes of APEC and implement them on a sustained and voluntary basis. It tends to work, but it also tends to be a gradual process. So these are a couple of areas that we’re making a particular push on this year. We’ll see what the specific outcomes are.

MODERATOR: Okay. This gentleman here. There. No. No, this one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: My name is Vincent Chang (ph) with the United Daily News. I’d like to follow up on that – on the previous FTA question. Well, it seems to me that you did not want to talk about that issue, especially the creation of the – of a Free Trade Agreement in the Asia Pacific region. But for the past two or three years, the United States has been pushing very hard to try to form an FTA in the Asia Pacific region. Does – you know, judging from what you have just said, does that mean that – did that imply that the United States has given up the kind of idea of forming an FTA in the Asia Pacific region?

MR. TONG: No, I don’t think that’s right. The free trade area of the Asia Pacific is – and it’s not really an FTA of the Asia Pacific, it’s a free trade area of the Asia Pacific – is an aspirational, long-term objective. And the leaders of APEC have agreed amongst themselves to consider and work towards it as a – quote, unquote – “long-term prospect.” What that means is that the FTAAP, or FTAAP, is a – is kind of a guide, if you will, that – or an objective, a long-term objective that we’re working toward and figuring out how to get to as an organization. Obviously, an actual FTA, signed, sealed, delivered free trade agreement of all 21 APEC economies would be an enormous undertaking and a very, very large project.

But what we can do year to year is figure out – is two things. One is to sort of map out how might we get to that tactically, organizationally. And there’s discussion among the senior officials within APEC about what will be the best strategies to try and get to that goal as a long-term prospect. And the other thing we can do is to keep – continue making progress year by year in trade and investment liberalization which gets us, in practical terms, in pragmatic terms, closer to that objective, that aspirational goal.

Now, there’s another set of goals which I haven’t mentioned yet, which are extremely important to APEC. And that is the Bogor goals of – the leaders in 1994 in Bogor, Indonesia set for themselves the objective of free and open trade and investment in the region by 2010 for the developed economies, and 2020 for the developing economies.

Now, how exactly you define free and open trade and investment is something that we’re going to be discussing and evaluating over the course of this coming year. But that – this is kind of the Bogor – the point that I want to make is that the Bogor goals and the FTAAP are both similar in the sense of pulling APEC as a group in the same direction towards a higher standard of trade and investment liberalization to the benefit of all the economies and citizens of the economies in the region.

MODERATOR: And now the – now your turn.

QUESTION: Thank you. John Zang with CTI-TV of Taiwan. Will there be opportunities for bilateral talks on bilateral trade issues? I’m asking this because the United States and Taiwan have recently signed a beef import agreement, which has generated a lot of controversy in Taiwan. Will there be opportunities for the two sides to revisit the issue during – on the sidelines of the APEC? Thank you.

MR. TONG: Well, on that specific issue, I don’t know whether the right personalities, the right officials will be in Singapore or not to discuss that specific issue. Generally every time that I participate in APEC meetings as a senior official, I always meet with my counterparts from Chinese – Taipei. And we review the entire range of issues related to APEC. And so there will probably be opportunities for the U.S. to meet with a number of economies bilaterally in Singapore and have a chance for discussions. That takes place sometimes in a formal setting, sometimes an informal setting. Sometimes you’re walking down the hall and a counterpart from some economy comes up and says, hey, what about this. So there’s lots of opportunities for people to bounce ideas off each other.

MODERATOR: Thank you. This gentleman.

QUESTION: Thank you. Donghui Yu with China Press. You are talking about a leadership that the United States and Japan will play in the next couple of years to define the evolutions of APEC. But in G-20 summit, I know many people actually are talking about the United States and China, that is, even the concepts of G-2. So I just wonder what do you think that – what role China will play in the process of the APEC evolution. Thank you.

MR. TONG: Well, think China has an extremely important role in APEC. As a very large economy, certainly the most populous economy in APEC – it’s also depending upon your method of calculation – the third-largest economy in APEC and in the world. The – and it’s – it gets a very good – because of that, people are obviously very interested in working with China bilaterally in expanding their trade and investment relations with China. It also – but China’s pure size as well as the high caliber of its officials who participate in APEC, give it quite a voice within the discussions, and so we – I personally consider China to be a real leader within APEC and absolutely embrace that. It’s one of the real valuable aspects. As I said at the beginning, one of the real valuable aspects of APEC is the importance and the significance of the economies that are – that participate in the organization, and China is certainly one of the leading members.

MODERATOR: Back here. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Zengxin from Caijin magazine. Just talking about recovery and sustainable growth, will there be new stance by the United States in this meeting? I mean, in the short term we see that U.S. GDP is coming to growth in the third quarter. But also we see that Australia, Brazil, once they raise their interest rates (inaudible) money is coming to flow in. So for countries – they are afraid of exit, taking their exit strategy before the United States in the shorter term. In the longer term, about this sustained balance to growth, will that time – say exchange rates come back to the table again?

MR. TONG: Well, a lot of what you’ve asked is not in – within my purview. There’s a finance minister’s process within APEC that – and I have a counterpart in the Treasury Department who manages that. The – and also, just as a general rule, don’t comment on anything that has any remote connection to currencies or interest rates or any of that sort of thing.

But I would say that I – precisely because of where the position that the global economy is in this year, you can definitely expect that recovery and growth will be a major topic of discussion for the leaders, and I would imagine also for the finance ministers when they gather in Singapore.

MODERATOR: Come down here and to the front for a change.

QUESTION: I’m Toshihiko with the Asahi, a Japanese newspaper. I have two questions. One is about APEC significance. So it seems to me United States is now trying to put more and more priority on APEC than it did before. So I’m just wondering why at this time. Does it have something to do with the fact – recent trend that – after the financial crisis, Asia originally had – is coming out of (inaudible) and also people are now talking about the economic power shift is now occurring – power of the Asian region. So maybe U.S. is now thinking about U.S. should be more involved in the Asian region framework.

And second question is about the trade issue, you touched on the trade – they’re going to talk about trade. But we haven’t heard anything from major initiative from this Administration when it comes to the trade issue. So is the Administration is thinking about they’re laying out those initiative before APEC or at APEC?

MR. TONG: On the second question, I don’t really want to preview in any detail the exact positions, which will be outlined by USTR Kirk or by President Obama in APEC at this time. Just let you hear it from them directly.

The – on the question of your perception that the U.S. is ramping up its attention paid to APEC, I’d welcome that perception. That’s certainly the perception which we wish to convey. I think that you’ve actually hit on one of the principal reasons of it, is that because the Asia Pacific region is one that is experiencing rather consistent economic growth, creating enormous opportunities for the United States, that we see it as a region that we very much want to be in. We want to be in it as traders, as exporters, and as beneficiaries of the growth which takes place in that region. So from that perspective, APEC is extremely important to us. It’s been important to us for quite a while.

I’d remind you that the United States was the first to host a leaders in APEC back in Blake Island in 1993, raising the organization up to the leaders level, and it’s been something that we’ve given consistent attention to over the years.

QUESTION: Why are you changing the priority or it has stayed the same for APEC?

MR. TONG: I think it’s been a consistent priority, but I certainly welcome your perception that we’re giving it a lot of attention.

QUESTION: But how about your view on that?

MR. TONG: Well, I’m relatively new to my job, so I, of course, think that we’re doing a great job. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Okay, here in the middle.

QUESTION: Hi. Xiong Min from 21st Century Business Herald China. It seems that the U.S. wants to also among all the – aside from all the agenda you just mentioned, U.S. also helps to use the Singapore APEC as a platform to prepare yourself for the 2011 APEC in the U.S. I wonder if you can elaborate more about what you’re going to do on this occasion in Singapore to prepare for that.

MR. TONG: Well, I think that thematically the themes which I outlined to you at the start are ones that I believe that we’ll pursue through Japan’s leadership in 2010 and the U.S. leadership in 2011. And our goal in this effort that we – we’ve actually for some time been doing coordination among Singapore, Japan, and the United States, thinking about, a sort of, three-year progression and how we can achieve good outcomes in areas that are important to APEC. And I think we’re on track to do so. It requires a lot of coordination and a lot of discussion to achieve that.

MODERATOR: Okay.

QUESTION: Hiro Watanabe from Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun. You said APEC is the only organization in Asia Pacific, U.S. participating. And also you might say it is crucial that the U.S. remain leader for further (inaudible) in Asia Pacific. But Japan has currently launched another framework, so-called East Asian economic community to (inaudible) further economic integration in Asia. So I want to confirm your stance to that idea. Do you think it’s compatible with U.S. policy in Asia Pacific region?

MR. TONG: The – well, I want to clarify one thing. APEC is not the only institution in the Asia Pacific region that the U.S. participates in. We have a lot of interaction with ASEAN in a bilateral context – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in a bilateral context. We also are regular participants in the ASEAN Regional Forum, which is another important regional institution which is not economic – primarily economic in nature. But APEC – we view APEC as the premier economic organization in the Asia Pacific region, and we’re very enthusiastic participants in it.

Now, you spoke about Japan’s priorities. I’ve had myself, and others, have had extensive discussions with our Japanese colleagues about APEC, and we think that we really have a shared view about the importance of the organization and of our two-year effort in 2010, 2011 to achieve strong outcomes within APEC.

QUESTION: What is it about (inaudible) to create East Asian economic community? Could you comment on that?

 MR. TONG: I’d like to say that the – it’s an interesting idea and address it kind of at the level of general principle. The United States understands that there are good reasons for the Asia Pacific – East Asian economies and governments to associate with one another in a number of different ways, so there’s the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, there’s the ASEAN Plus Three, there’s the ASEAN Plus Six, which is sort of an economic approach. There’s the East Asia Summit. There’s the Plus Three Group. Recently there was a meeting amongst Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea in sort of plus-three format. And so there’s a lot of different groupings. And similarly, the United States participates in a lot of organizations with our own hemisphere or with Europe.

But the – I think the point to take home is that transpacific organizations like APEC are crucially important. They add to the prosperity of the region. They result in higher-level outcomes in specific economic policy work, and by nature, they tend to stabilize the Asia Pacific region in extremely valuable ways.

MODERATOR: Okay.

QUESTION: Hi. Sandra Sun from China Business News. Will climate change and clean energy in Copenhagen – will it be on the U.S. Government agenda?

 MR. TONG: Climate change is always on our agenda. It’s a critical challenge. The approach that’s being taken within APEC to address climate change is largely one of capacity building and, again, peer pressure. Peer pressure is not the right word – peer encouragement – (laughter) – to do a – to take on and do a good job in trying to mitigate the effects of climate change.

So one of the things – just to give you a practical example, within APEC there’s something called the peer review mechanism for energy efficiency, and economies can volunteer to participate in this and have the other economies of the region sort of look at their policies on energy efficiency and suggest changes, or suggest improvements to those. That’s a very practical way that APEC can contribute. There’s also within the energy working group within APEC there are a number of very specific projects in the capacity building area to help economies learn more about efficient transportation technology, it even gets – it gets down to the very specific level – like what – how should we make sure that people are producing the most energy efficient refrigerators. I mean, it gets quite specific in the various working groups within APEC, and that capacity building work is really quite valuable to the economies.

MODERATOR: One last question. No? If not, then thank you very much.

MR. TONG: Great. Thank you all.

This head Siamese cat needs to get lost

By Tammy, this blog humanity journalist

Thailand’s prime minister Abhisit proudly declared that Taksin’s populus policies will end in Thailand soon and in its place will be a welfare state.

TDRI, Thailand’s semi-pro think tank gave the advice to Abhisit, based on the rationale that populus policies ties voters with political parties, but a welfare state will tie voters to the state and not political parties of politicians.

So far so good.

But then one must ask why would Abhisit and the Democrat want that, since the party’s philosophy is the class system, with limited freedom of expression and no social justice-with a great deal of state propaganda?

Well one can argue that while short breaks of liberal thinking does pop-up now and then in Thailand, the Thai political history had been mostly far right conservative thinking. And thus one can argue that this welfare state is simply a way to perpetuate the class system, by marginalizing the self-interest and individualism of the Thais away for the state interest.

Economic wise, this Abhisit vision also poses some question about the growth opportunity of Thailand. If the fall of socialism, which is an extended version of a welfare state, has proved anything, is that risk taking and a planned economy hinges on some critical balances.

That critical balance is clearly sustainable and abundance of innovation and creativity. And if anything has proved to be the cornerstone of success of America, Italy and a few other countries with traditional robust innovation and creativity, it is that freedom of expression is critical.

Is there any doubt how repressive Thailand is these days and how utterly full of propaganda the Thais are living under. Critical thinking, questioning, breaking the envelope, experimenting-all cornerstone of creativity and innovation are concepts under attack in Thailand.

What Abhisit will likely end up with, as a welfare state is implemented in Thailand, under repression, will be much like many socialist state that have failed because the people turned into a slave of the state.

Furthermore, because of the class system, while the upper class enjoys education and opportunity to explore innovation, creativity and risk taking, the lower class who are opressed and lack resources will likely turn to the welfare state instead of risk taking. The result is a re-forcification of the class system.

I am kind of pissed at my Siamese cats

by Stingray, this blog national security journalist

The head of Yellow Shirt issued a statement today saying Thai and Cambodia border line map, should be torn up by the Thais and that all Cambodian must leave the area.

“It is a map forced onto Thailand by France and it should not be respected,” said the Yellow Shirt leader.

The Yellow Shirt is a Royalist political force that have occupied the Thai airport and government house, destabilizing Taksin supported government out of power.

The Yellow Shirt recently visited the Thai Cambodian disputed area of Phra Viharn Relics demanding the area be returned to Thailand and caused a clash with local Thai residencs.

I think my Siamese cats are on the verge of wanting more

By Frank, this blog political journalist

Pick up a Thai history book or watch Thai TV document about Thai history, and there you will see it how the Thai lament the lost of several Cambodian and Laos provinces to the French, during the colonial ear.

In fact, as recent as when Thailand was helping Cambodia fight against Vietnamese invasion, the Thais told the Cambodians that they wanted these lost Thai territories back. And talk to Thai historians, and they say even today, that the Mae Khong river should be the border between Thailand and Laos. Currently, Laos territory cross the river towards Thailand in a big chunk.

Thailand is now in a conflict with Cambodia and Laos is emerging as another hot spots. On dispute with both countries are small pieces of territory, and it is an indication of how the Thai feel about its territory.

But is the Thai that irrational, to risk major wars, over small track of territories? Normalcy, says negotiation. And is Taksin advising Cambodia such a major threat to Thailand?

Or are the Thais up to something much more significant?

Head into any Thai web-board these days, and Nationalism fervor is everywhere. Recently, Thai Army controlled TV, began running a series of program about how the French took several clearly Thai provinces away from Thailand to form Cambodia and Laos. Read any Thai newspaper these days, and you would think it is World War 2 where a great deal is at stake.

Take Bangkok Post, the most respected and credible Thai English language newspaper, for example. The article headline says Cambodia Prime Minister wants peace-meaning have given up his strong position against Thailand, but in the story it is about what the Thai Army says. If such a group of editors at Thailand’s most respected newspaper can fall under Nationalism, one can just see the reprecussions.

To say that Thailand wants to annex back lost territory at this point may be too early.

However, Nationalism had been awaken by the Thai government in a major way-and there are those in Thailand who wants those territory back. Given that the Thais still see those territories as having been taken away from Thailand, there is a major threat developing.

 

Looks like it is time to check-out of Siam

by Stingray, this blog national security journalist

Western intelligent source told this blog the Thai Army had started to re-deploy troops from other Thai regions into the Eastern front, to prepare for possible war with both Cambodia and Laos.

“We noticed a 20% re-deployment,” said the source. “It is for potential war with Cambodia and Laos,” said the source.

Thailand’s conflict with Cambodia is now well documented, but Laos have been dumping massive amounts of earth into the Mae Kong river for a major developmental project and that has caused the river to change and cut into Thai land.

Meanwhile, AFP, the French global news service is starting to “Trash” Thailand, with several reports. The western intelligent source declined to give information on the status of the French Navy.

France has took nuclear devices off its aircraft carrier, in a move, the this blog has reported earlier, as seen by many European military analyst as preparation for the nuclear free ASEAN waters. Meanwhile, France has joinned NATO and a Frenchman now commands a key NATO post in the US.

Meanwhile, Cambodian army initiated contact with their Thasi counterparts and said Cambodia continues to want smooth relationship with the Thai Army.

“You should stop challenging Thailand….If war broke, the Thai will win,” reported the Bangkok Post, as the Thai army telling the Cambodian Army.

I stand with my red shirt Siamese cats

Blog Note: As some of you know, Taksin is a great fan of Terry and he used to read Terry everyday. Taksin likes Terry so much, he quoted Terry in many of his books. Yet they still argue a lot and sometimes Taksin is really mean to Terry. Taksin says Terry is too America-centric and Terry says Taksin is too Asia-centric. But they are friends and they learn from each other.  The following is an interview with Taksin that Terry got Taksin to do.

By Tammy, this blog humanity journalist

Tammy: The poll says 70% support Anhisit?

Taksin: Anything is doable in Thailand, but Thais continue to pay for Thai Rath and Khao Sod.

Tammy: You mean Thai Rath and Khao Sod are neutral?

Taksin: I mean anything Nation and Manager still sells very badly.

Tammy: The hell with politics, what are you and Hun Sen cooking up next?

Taksin: We will push for an ASEAN premier league.

Tammy: What about oil and gas?

Taksin: You should ask about Khao Kong. It will be a new Singapore.

Tammy: How are you feeling? Under pressure?

Taksin: I have my health and that is the most important thing. Yet, I may get assasinated as you know.

Tammy: Are you not afraid?

Taksin: I have gone through heaven and hell and everyday, is a new beginning.

Tammy: How are your children taking all this?

Taksin: Being away hurt me most here. I miss my childred and they worry if I will survive to the next day.

Tammy: You must have top notch security?

Taksin: History has proved that anyone can be killed.

Tammy: Do they want you dead that bad?

Taksin: I represent a new order in Thailand and the old order rejects it. A great deal is at stake, not just the level of poverty in Thailand, but a re-distribution of wealth.

Tammy: Some say you are a corrupt Hitler incarnated and should be kill?

Taksin: Yes, many in Thailand say that. And that is the problem, because they will not accept what is needed with progress. That is all the time I have.

Tammy: Tank you very much Mr Taksin.

Tammy: One last question, how about supporting Thai Intelligent with some of your billions?

Taksin: You are better off with sufficiency, money is too corrupt.

Tammy: No problem, we love the Thai king around Thai Intelligent.

Taksin: I love him too.

Hillary needs my Siamese cats advice?

By Tammy, this blog humanity journalist

Hillary, the US State Department Secretary, is heading to a major Muslim conferance and she posted a question on the US State Department blog (available through the side bar of this blog) what she should do to build a good and mutually beneficial relationship with the Muslim world.

So give this cute girl a hand and give her your advice!

Like worrying about my Siamese cats is not enough

Chi-America: Is This The New Global Order?

Thai Intel Comment: It is hot globally to think that China and US alliance will put in a new global order. So what is this but a bad joke about how the entire world will have to follow the Chinese and the US lead or what? Like how confusing that is that a totalitarian regime and the most democratic country will get together to influence the world. The alliance gives out one message only and that is economics is more important than humanities-and that is a recipe of failure at Titanic level. Yeah, it will probably become so, but watch out, there are still some people who are going to start to join ranks and hit back at this crazy alliance.

The following is from National Journal, a former must read by any US politician that is trying to make a come back.

The idea of a binding interdependence between China and America as the linchpin of a new global economic and political order has become a trendy one in geopolitical circles. There is much talk, for example, about Zachary Karabell’s new book, Superfusion: How China And America Became One Economy And Why The World’s Prosperity Depends On It. So, first of all, is the premise of the so-called Chi-America (or Chimerica) thesis a well-grounded one? What is true and not true of this premise? Why not, at least, “Amer-Chi,” given that the U.S. remains, by far, a bigger and wealthier economy, and a weightier global political actor?

In any case, how should Washington try to manage the Sino-American relationship — the political as well as the economic dimension? Given the global rise of China, was President Obama right, for example, recently to postpone a meeting in Washington with the Dalai Lama — until after a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao? Or did this step express too much deference towards a China that still has a long way to go before rivaling the U.S. in global influence?

 – Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com

Dov S. Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer (2001-2004), Booz-Allen Hamilton

China is important; it is every bit as much the rising power as it claims to be. Yet we should be careful not to overstate its importance relative to those of other countries, or, for that matter, the EU. Last month’s Irish referendum in favor of the Lisbon Treaty gave the EU the green light to move forward toward more coherence, if not greater unification. As such, it will become an increasingly important force in international political, security and economic affairs, second to none in its importance to the United States .   India may not overtake China economically, but it too is a rising power, not to be ignored in the rush to crown China as America’s next major partner. Its GDP growth has been impressive, and its military modernization program, which already benefits from leading edge development in conjunction with both Europe and Israel, will progress even further as it increases its technical cooperation with the U.S. Brazil, already energy independent, is also one of the world’s top agricultural producers. Indeed, major petroleum finds…

China is important; it is every bit as much the rising power as it claims to be. Yet we should be careful not to overstate its importance relative to those of other countries, or, for that matter, the EU. Last month’s Irish referendum in favor of the Lisbon Treaty gave the EU the green light to move forward toward more coherence, if not greater unification. As such, it will become an increasingly important force in international political, security and economic affairs, second to none in its importance to the United States . 

India may not overtake China economically, but it too is a rising power, not to be ignored in the rush to crown China as America’s next major partner. Its GDP growth has been impressive, and its military modernization program, which already benefits from leading edge development in conjunction with both Europe and Israel, will progress even further as it increases its technical cooperation with the U.S.

Brazil, already energy independent, is also one of the world’s top agricultural producers. Indeed, major petroleum finds off the Brazilian coast may soon result in that country’s becoming one of the world’s top three oil exporters as well. Brazil has, in fact, weathered the financial crisis as well as any of the major devleoped nations.

Let us recall that it was not too long ago that Japan was seen as the next great American rival, a threat to buy up every major American asset. Japan’s decades-long recession put paid to that threat, though not before several pundits made tidy sums selling Japan-bashing books that became best sellers.

Just as Japan hit an economic bump from which it has yet to recover, China too has the potential to run into trouble. Migration to the cities, as well as unemployment, remains a nightmare for the Beijing leadership. Global warming is rendering the Chinese north even more impoverished, and exacerbating the gap between the north and the prosperous south.China must remain on its economic growth treadmill, recording 8 per cent GDP growth or better, if it is not to face major internal dislocations.

Perhaps China will maintain its economic balance, but we cannot be sure. And so we cannot as yet create a new Chinese-American bipolar world, although no doubt there will be many analysts whose vision of such a world will get them on the New York Times best sellers list for what will purportedly be non-fiction.   

Ron Marks, Senior Vice President for Government Relations, Oxford-Analytica

One of the interesting parts about working with a British-American firm is listening to btoh sides speak of the “special realtionship” between the two countries.  For the British, it is a special relationship.  For America, not so much.  Britain is the old girlfriend that we want to maintain a relationship, occasionally take out to dinner, but don’t really want to go much further.  They think Athens to Rome.  We think they are Athens, Georgia. So, what does this have to do with China.  Every time I hear about some grand alliance of their interests with our, I cannot imagine it.  We are hardly a supplicant at this point.  And they are hardly a superpower.  But, both sides — Washington and Beijing — will act in their own interests.  Sometimes those interests will conflict lie over Taiwan and human rights.  Sometimes they will converge like on North Korea. That being said, we are in an interesting dance right now. Beijing is gaining economic power and some additional clout around the world.  For the time being, we a…

One of the interesting parts about working with a British-American firm is listening to btoh sides speak of the “special realtionship” between the two countries.  For the British, it is a special relationship.  For America, not so much.  Britain is the old girlfriend that we want to maintain a relationship, occasionally take out to dinner, but don’t really want to go much further.  They think Athens to Rome.  We think they are Athens, Georgia.

So, what does this have to do with China.  Every time I hear about some grand alliance of their interests with our, I cannot imagine it.  We are hardly a supplicant at this point.  And they are hardly a superpower.  But, both sides — Washington and Beijing — will act in their own interests.  Sometimes those interests will conflict lie over Taiwan and human rights.  Sometimes they will converge like on North Korea.

That being said, we are in an interesting dance right now. Beijing is gaining economic power and some additional clout around the world.  For the time being, we are a big fat debtor nation — as we have done at many points in our history.  We owe them a lot of money. I’ll go with the old aphorism — you owe the bank a little and you have a problem.  You owe the bank a lot and you have a friend. For now, Beijing will do us no harm economically beside occassionally yank our chain about various policies.

Christian Caryl, Senior Fellow at MIT Center for International Studies, and, Contributing Editor for both Foreign Policy and Newsweek

Updated at 10:06 a.m. on Nov. 2. The Chimerica idea is sexy. China’s growth is dramatic; America’s current account deficits are scary. So it’s very exciting to focus on the relationship between the two. But this paradigm leaves out just a bit too much to be really useful. America’s biggest trade partner is not China but the European Union. Japan holds almost as much Treasury debt as China. And there are quite a few other countries that are also racking up growth rates just as impressive as China’s, even if they aren’t quite in the same league as American trade partners – yet. In the second quarter of this year India recorded annualized GDP growth of 6.1 percent – not shabby at all. The world’s economy is much, much bigger (and messier) than the bilateral relationship between China and America. China is, of course, a very important country. I don’t doubt that it will soon become the world’s number two economy and can imagine a day when it might well become number one. And yet I think the single-minded focus on its relationship to the US is deeply m…

The Chimerica idea is sexy. China’s growth is dramatic; America’s current account deficits are scary. So it’s very exciting to focus on the relationship between the two.

But this paradigm leaves out just a bit too much to be really useful.

America’s biggest trade partner is not China but the European Union.

Japan holds almost as much Treasury debt as China. And there are quite a few other countries that are also racking up growth rates just as impressive as China’s, even if they aren’t quite in the same league as American trade partners – yet. In the second quarter of this year India recorded annualized GDP growth of 6.1 percent – not shabby at all. The world’s economy is much, much bigger (and messier) than the bilateral relationship between China and America.

China is, of course, a very important country. I don’t doubt that it will soon become the world’s number two economy and can imagine a day when it might well become number one. And yet I think the single-minded focus on its relationship to the US is deeply misguided.

We seem to forget that, as China rises, so, too, do countries like India, Indonesia, and Brazil. Many members of Washington’s power elite still seem to be fixating on a bygone age when a few leading nations – the US, Germany, Japan – called the shots. Today, by contrast, the global economy is becoming more diverse by the day, less concentrated rather than more. Against this backdrop all the talk of a G2 sounds misguided; as big as they are, not even China and America together can solve all the problems of a much messier world. The G20 is a far more accurate reflection of global realities. So it will be harder to get things done in a group with that many members? Get used to it. As far as China is concerned, Washington’s tone should be respectful, businesslike, and unemotional – nothing more, nothing less.

Michael Vlahos, Fellow and Principal, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

Chimerica (ChiCom) Chimera? Perhaps Homer and Hesiod is after all a good place to begin: A fantabuous creature that Billy Mumy might have cobbled together in the dark reaches of the Twilight Zone from the parts of multiple animals: the body of a lioness, a tail ending in a snake’s head, the head of a goat rising from her back at mid-spine. That would be Chimerica. I write this looking back from the chiaroscuro terror of the early 1950s. A movie I must have seen at age 6 — Steel Helmet — existentially attuned me in my nightmares to a vision not so distant from Orwell’s 1984. To Americans who lived through that dark sink of consciousness perhaps Chimerica seems truly chimerical. But then there are my little children, happily soaking up Ni Hao, Kai-Lan on Noggin — and the Chimera looks like Darwin intended — genetically counterintuitive. This is of course is the now-way to see a Chimerica future. What is Chimerica? Well don’t you know? It is all about us. Call it late modernity’s grandest and greatest co-dependency: They stuff Walmart and we let them buy…

Chimerica (ChiCom) Chimera?

Perhaps Homer and Hesiod is after all a good place to begin: A fantabuous creature that Billy Mumy might have cobbled together in the dark reaches of the Twilight Zone from the parts of multiple animals: the body of a lioness, a tail ending in a snake’s head, the head of a goat rising from her back at mid-spine.

 That would be Chimerica.

 I write this looking back from the chiaroscuro terror of the early 1950s. A movie I must have seen at age 6 — Steel Helmet — existentially attuned me in my nightmares to a vision not so distant from Orwell’s 1984.

To Americans who lived through that dark sink of consciousness perhaps Chimerica seems truly chimerical. But then there are my little children, happily soaking up Ni Hao, Kai-Lan on Noggin — and the Chimera looks like Darwin intended — genetically counterintuitive.

 This is of course is the now-way to see a Chimerica future.

What is Chimerica? Well don’t you know? It is all about us. Call it late modernity’s grandest and greatest co-dependency: They stuff Walmart and we let them buy our dollars. Pretty good deal.

Americans generally understand this symbiosis. Some see it as threatening — mostly in the United States Navy, desperate to rediscover a long-sunk Mahanian fleet to fight, requiting angst from losing its precious Samurai-warrior enemy so many years ago.

But consider actual reality. What is China? What is the United States? And please, try not to flow into the molecular “now-conversation.” Just try jumping into the not-so-distant future.

The United States and China are today’s anchors of humanity. This does not mean that they are somehow inclusive or even embracing, but rather simply that these are the two most effective centers of humanity at this time — and at this time may be an important data point.

I believe that humanity is heading, whether it wishes to see this or not, to a crisis of globalization. Climate change, a coming energy crunch, and the negative consequences of human activity worldwide (as in, dying, anoxic oceans) will in just a few years become the urgent agenda for all societies everywhere. Severe water shortage, famine, and pandemic: these are, like or not, our shared human future.

The United States — as part of North America — is well positioned to weather the storm. China is in a far more vulnerable situation. Yet China like the US today is the global center of innovation and creative thinking. Our economies are also inextricably intertwined.

If in the next twenty years China faces the terrible challenges of massive desertification, death of its rivers and seas, massive weather events, and the stress of water shortages as Himalyan glaciers disappear — plus the famine that follows — The Question is:

Will the United States step up to the plate and ensure the survival of China?

So you see, this is not about some replay of “The Great Game” — Cigar grand strategy in a Victorian Gentleman’s club — nor is this is about a recherché to rediscover the perfect — and all-giving — new bi-polar world.

To be honest — the question begs itself by implication — India will be just as critical and essential as China in our future — and if this is a truly stressed collective future, the incumbency is on the United States to help save literally a third of humanity. The 3 billion Chinese and Indians of 2030 are — in sacred terms from our own and still-surviving mythic national mission — Our charge.

However slowly it works its way into our day-to-day consciousness: Our world is transitioning right now from its ancient (which is to say Cold War) neuralgias … To something entirely different. Most visible are the “people movements” — the riotous proliferation of non-state groups and movements, like a global Petrie Dish — unfolding before us without respect to future earth shocks waiting in the wings.

All of this strongly suggests a new vantage for us. It is a challenge to step back a bit from national security neuralgias, but we must. Can you?

Only then can we even begin as American to get ready to be leaders of a future we did not anticipate — and yet which nonetheless faces us ferociously.

If on the other hand we cannot face this thing, then our historical marker will become, year-by-year, increasingly clear. What we shirk — starting with China — will become the testament of how, over time, we fail our own posterity.

And they will be our sternest jury, and also, our final judge.

Michael Brenner, Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh

Sun Rise, Sun Set  

The sun rising in the East continues its ascent even while we distract ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. The shadows that it is casting over the international scene are visible nearly everywhere. Here at home, they noticeably darken the outlook for the country’s troubled financial prospects. The challenge to thinking through the full implications of China’s growing strength and confidence lies at once in its immensity and in its pervasive effects on all manner of international affairs.

It makes sense to begin with the big picture. In historical perspective, there is reason to expect a clash between today’s dominant power (the United States) and its putative rival. That configuration has led to direct conflict at every historical juncture except one – the transition from pax Britannica to American predominance. That exception is generally understood in terms of unique affinities and few differences over core interests. The latter had something to do with geography. A simple extrapolation of the logic at work in other eras points to a Sino-American contest for being ‘king of the hill.’ Such a rough comparison is inadequate, though. For all other things in the equation are not equal. What has changed in the world is the twin phenomena of deep economic interdependence and material well-being reaching at the apex of peoples’ wants and desires. The apparent correlation of the latter with internal political liberalization offers further encouragement that a status /power sharing arrangement might be arrived at without bloodshed or other nasty confrontations.

This, of course, is pure Kant – not just as a superimposed intellectual construct but a logic supported by actual developments in the world we inhabit. A very large segment of world affairs, defined both sectorally and geographically, does represent a partial reification of the Kantian vision, objectively speaking. American strategic attitudes toward China for the past two decades have followed this logic and have been grounded on that perceived reality. It is a bet of historic dimensions made for high stakes – the future stability of the international system. To state its underlying precepts simply, they are: (1) economic development roughly along free market lines brings with it an attendant political liberalization, even if the lag time is unknowable; (2) countries whose political system makes leaders accountable to the populace – preferably directly, possibly indirectly too – are likely to be peaceable in their external relation; (3) countries that place the greatest importance on economic well-being are less likely to be aggressive because of both the financial costs and, above all, the disruption of the fruitful economic ties across national borders; and (4) therefore, the more extensively China, and its economy, can be enmeshed in global markets and multilateral institutions for maintaining them, the better the prospects that China’s mounting power will not manifest itself in military actions or expansionist, empire building projects generally.

The United States, at the same time, has kept a strong military presence in the Pacific and East Asia so as to reinforce this logic by maintaining disincentives for aggressive behavior. This containment component of American strategy aims to remove temptation, e.g. South Korea and Japan, and to create an existential counterforce to any Chinese illicit ambitions. Taiwan, needless to say, is the most ticklish issue. Sooner or later, China expects its integration with the mainland in some form or other. The question is whether the larger strategic context will induce China to extend the time frame and loosen the notion of what integration means.

Even an optimistic view of Chinese power/influence progression cannot elide the many places and instances where there will be frictions. It is worthwhile to delineate them. Before doing so, it is useful to highlight a couple of features of Sino-American relations that will be omnipresent background factors. By far the most significant is that China is now and, as far as the eye can see, will be the United States’ creditor. The latter’s chronic budget deficits, trade deficits and currency value can only be managed with China’s benign assistance. It is incontrovertibly true that mutual dependence on stable global finance creates something of an economic Mutual Assured Destruction situation. None the less, this pronounced asymmetry cannot fail to exercise some constraint on American behavior toward China. For there are easy ways by which China’s action in the financial realm could generate immediate pressures on the American economy. The psychological effect, barely visible today, can be expected to grow down the road.

The second background factor derives from history. China traditionally has not been in the empire building business. It feels neither compulsion to achieve glory nor confirmation of its national mission by controlling directly other places and peoples. As noted back in May:

China mtches the United States in the depth of its belief in its own exceptionality. Historically, China as Heaven’s Middle Kingdom was felt to stand at the summit of earthly attainments. There is a basic difference between the two countries’ self image, however. The United States’ sense of exceptionality and uniqueness is closely tied to its sense of mission as model and agent of world progress. Others are presumed to emulate the United States in aspiring to its achievements. The Chinese by contrast have no sense of mission. After all, to their way of thinking, no other people is capable of matching them. This may be a good thing in that there is no inevitable clash between two proselytizing nations.”

Against this background, here is a notation of foreseeable points of friction that one can envisage.

Resource conflicts – especially over dwindling energy supplies. Consequences are already evident in Central Asia, Iran and the Gulf, Africa, and the South China Sea where politics intersects economics. Less charged competition for minerals is also evident.

• Multilateral interventions for humanitarian, peacekeeping or peacemaking missions.

• International monetary matters. Recent Chinese initiatives are the harbinger are more serious efforts to reduce the role of the dollar as the international transaction and reserve currency of choice.

• Power shares in multinational organizations – above all the International Monetary Fund for reasons indicated above.

Perhaps the greatest challenge the United States faces is the diplomatic one. This refers not only to direct dealings with China but also dealings with those issues where China will be a party one way or another. That means most matters of consequence. Incorporating the diplomatic factor into our foreign policy making never has been an American forte – especially where we do not control the field of action. We are strongly inclined to take our own counsel, make judgments and then declare our policy with the expectation that most will see the virtue of how we approach affairs and what we want to do about them. Consider policy-making on Iraq and Afghanistan. Contrast it to policy-making on Iran where the slighting of others is a big liability and where we have encountered difficulty in orchestrating an international strategy.

In short, China already is beginning to change just about everything.

James Mann, Author-In-Residence, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

The talk of “Chi-America” is the popular version of the ongoing policy debates about whether the United States and China should team up as a “G-2” to try to coordinate their policies around the world, in a way that would place China above other countries or groups of countries (Europe,Japan, Russia, India) in strategic importance.

As a practical matter, I think that over the past year we have already seen the first signs of an “economic G-2.” The U.S. and China worked closely together to stimulate their economies after the Wall Street upheavals of 2008, at a time when other major countries were far more reluctant to do so. This economic cooperation has been heralded as a success and worked in some ways, but it has not produced any significant change in the value of the undervalued Chinese renminbi. During the 2008 campaign, then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both denounced China for holding down the value of its currency – and as soon as they took office, they changed their tune.

Some times it is best to forget my Siamese cats

By Terry, this blog editor

Before you come to the conclusion that the Thais must be faulted for buying the government’s Nationalism Building too harshly, I think you have to step back and ask why have the Thai tail been wagged so easily.

From my interaction with the Thais, the Thais are a very proud people and have a tradition of joining ranks when faced with external threats. And Cambodia and Thailand go back long in history as competitors.

The best example of this Nationalism in Thailand is that the Thai, still today, blame Soros for its economic crisis years ago, and totally, never have looked inward to see that they themselves let the Thai finances deteriorated to the point that it was ready to fall.

But more importantly, the Thais are a people who never had real democracy and freedom. And that means they are not highly critical and do not question authority well. Most Thais live all their life in a society that is highly hierarchy and much to do with the class system. This again means they are a people who only understands power and ranks.

Many Thais are trying to struggle out of that situation. It is very similar to the millions of Americans who are against the war in the Middle East. But Nationalism is a very strong emotion, and when you have a structural weakness, like even in America, Nationalism have a way to turn even the most rationale person into unreasonableness.

The only way the current far right government in Thailand can stay in power, is through building Nationalism. And if you have been following Thailand since the coup of 2006, it is this simple feeling that have kept the far right in power.

So don’t be too harsh on the Thais. There are some here who can see through the propaganda, trying to fix that structural weakness, and they deserve your continuing support.

Thailand’s only hope, lies with these liberated Thais.

As the noted Thai historian said, “If the structural problems in Thailand is not fixed, Thailand is heading into an epic level blood-bath.” The current Nationalism fervor in Thailand is pushing Thailand in that direction. From one crisis to another, one coup to another, to the current international relation one, it is clear that Thailand is one with a self-destruct course.

Go ahead and fight, I rather dream about strange things

By Pooky, this blog economics journalist

The Thai foreign minister, Kasit, said an agreement on the way to resolve Thai and Cambodia oil and gas area dispute have been terminated.

“The agreement on the way to resolve the dispute was passed by the Taksin government who has a direct interest in the resolution and it is now terminated,” said Kasit.

The World Bank estimated that the Gulf of Thailand area in dispute is rich in oil and gas. Negotiations have fallen through as Thailand have demanded 80% while Cambodia demanded a 50%-50% split.

Cambodia have granted French and Japanese oil interest exploring rights in the area, but advisor to the Thai government told the government that those interest will not explore the area because of the threat of war means those interest can not get insurance.