Post-mortem of Thai govt's handing of Preah Vihear

In recent weeks, several Foreign Ministry officials have experienced the utmost humiliation when taxi drivers have refused to take them to their offices on Sri Ayudhya Road. Why? They were labelled "traitors" by the cabbies.

In the 133-year history of the Foreign Ministry, the word "traitor" has been used for the first time to refer to the proud bureaucrats who cherish their long tradition of preserving Thailand's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as promoting its national interests, all over the world.

A post-mortem of the ministry's handling of the Preah Vihear Temple case reveals symptoms linked to the credibility of elected officials and the role of public diplomacy. Furthermore, the controversy also shows that the country's foreign-policy decision-making process has changed. It is no longer the domain of a few educated diplomats or elite. Public knowledge and participation, through elected MPs or civil society groups, have become important factors. Proper consultations with all stakeholders are now prerequisites.

It was a curse that Noppadon Pattama, the former lawyer of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was appointed to this prestigious position five months ago. Before that he was an outspoken lawyer defending his boss. Time and again, he praised Thaksin and maintained that he was an innocent man. Even after his appointment, he continued his rhetoric defending Thaksin.

Therefore, Noppadon's political capital was extremely low when he came to the ministry. Instead of augmenting his creditability and fostering public trust, he immediately chose to rail against senior officials who failed to court Thaksin while he was in exile. His first task was pushing for the immediate restoration of Thaksin's diplomatic passport, which was revoked right after the coup. On several occasions, he went overseas in his official capacity to meet with Thaksin, especially in China.

The choice of a Thai foreign minister these days is crucial. Gone are the days when just any politician can head the ministry. In Thai politics, the foreign affairs portfolio requires a capable and honest person, even though it is not a major or financially rewarding ministry in comparison to commerce, finance, industry and education.

As such, the next foreign minister will face similar scrutiny if Noppadon's successor lacks creditability and is perceived as a Thaksin nominee. According to the latest unconfirmed press reports, the Samak government has Vikrom Khumpairoj, the former Thai ambassador to the UK, in mind for the job. If that were the case, it would be problematic because of his close association with Thaksin, both during and after his tenure. After his retirement, Vikrom went on to look after Thaksin's interests in the UK. Due to the negative precedent set by Noppadon, the new minister would be under a cloud of suspicion, despite his diplomatic experience. Public trust and creditability begins at home.

Thailand will be chairing Asean for the next 18 months, from July 25 of this year until December 31 of next year. It is a small window that can boost Thailand's regional and international standing. Any controversy over the ministerial choice at this juncture would be disastrous to Thailand's foreign policy and leadership role in Asean.

It's a sad but true fact, but the Foreign Ministry's work and professionalism in the past five months has been belittled and unwittingly linked to Noppadon's mediocrity and brinkmanship. The ministry has also lacked public diplomacy. The ministry should have anticipated the fallout long before the World Heritage Committee's decision over the Preah Vihear Temple. After all, this issue came up four years ago when Cambodia first made clear to Thailand its attention to list its national treasure as a world heritage site.

In 2004, both countries set up a subcommittee to develop the temple and surrounding areas to attract tourists. A year later, Cambodia made an unsuccessful bid to have the site included on the world heritage list due to incomplete documents. In 2006, Phnom Penh reapplied and was accepted for consideration during last year's meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Thai delegation succeeded in delaying consideration of the proposal until this year's meeting in Quebec.

A four-year span should have been sufficient for the ministry to have begun a concerted campaign to educate concerned authorities, including the armed forces and the public, about the issues and stakes involved. During this pause, misunderstandings and stereotypes caused by emotional swings, political spin and nationalistic fervour could have been better managed, if not mitigated. Popular debates on Preah Vihear were often misleading and were not based on facts and historical evidence. Thailand should learn from the experience and civilised manners which Singapore and Malaysia handled their 29-year old Pedra Branca dispute which was amicably settled in May by a World Court decision.

Thailand and Cambodia have 798 kilometres of a shared border. The demarcation effort has started, but it will take years before the issue of overlapping areas near the temple will be taken up. Both countries have so far completed only 48 of the 73 demarcation points. Thailand's border demarcations with neighbours have never been easy. Recurring border disputes are to be expected, especially when bilateral relations are deteriorating as they are now. Both sides need further dialogue.

To be fair, the ministry is capable of dealing with important diplomatic issues and publicising information of Thailand's diplomatic initiatives and accomplishments. Certainly on emotionally charged issues, a better-coordinated media strategy and public diplomacy is crucial in providing a timely dissemination of information and views.

Finally, the role of Parliament and civil society groups cannot be ignored. The Constitution Court ruled the June 18 joint communique with Cambodia was unconstitutional because it was weighted as a legally binding treaty and should go through parliamentary procedures. After the new charter came into effect last year, the Foreign Ministry and the House Foreign Affairs Committee have yet to meet and work together, as mandated by Article 190, which lists sets of criteria on what decisions and issues need parliamentary vetting and approval. Otherwise, Thai diplomacy would be a murky and dangerous affair. The Constitution Court's ruling on the communique could be an isolated case if and when the concerned authorities agreed on such consultative frameworks.

As the Asean chair, Thailand would like to transform Asean into a more friendly and people-oriented organisation with broader and deeper participation from civil society sectors. Dozens of programmes are planned to enhance dialogue and cooperation between Asean-based civil society groups and Asean leaders. This is part of the ongoing campaign to materialise the third pillar of Asean community - a Sociocultural Community in 2015.