Rising nationalism threatens Thailand's international relations

We have unwittingly allowed xenophobic nationalism to take over our rational minds. Over the past several years, the prevailing sentiment has been that outsiders both near and far are hostile to us. They cannot understand or appreciate our efforts to maintain democratic and sustainable development. As such, we have built a high wall around ourselves and we are looking inward more and more. Such paranoia has now become embedded in our national psyche, as society itself becomes more polarised and fragmented.

Thailand today is a far cry from that of yesteryear when its international image as a global citizen reigned. The reputation of the Land of Smiles has continued to plummet and now it is at its nadir.

The squabbling and discourse with Cambodia over Preah Vihear Temple has shown that the Thai government and its people urgently need to improve their overall understanding of their country's history, ties with neighbouring countries and diplomatic practices. Otherwise, we will face similar misunderstandings in the future and they could easily spur hatred and a nationalistic drive leading to hostility or possibly to armed clashes.

Nearly two centuries ago, Thailand successfully warded off foreign powers wanting to colonise the country. Their influences and legacy still haunt Thailand through the maps they drew and their diplomatic affidavits. In the globalised world we are living today, in which every nook and corner is connected, we must look deep into ourselves and see how stoic our nation has become.

When former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra belched out his infamous statement that "The UN is not my father", the country's diplomatic creditability was completely shattered overnight. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his Cabinet use the same vitriol. Civil society organisations, including the People's Alliance for Democracy, and its nemesis, the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, also use the same rhetoric laced with overdosed patriotism.

Since May, the World Court's decision in 1962, which had not been the subject of discussion for 46 years, has suddenly become a torch to stoke the fires of nationalism. The notion that we know better now and will be able to win back the temple is absurd. But it has become a rallying point for all quarters trying to score political points. Worst of all, after the World Heritage Committee's decision in Quebec in early July in favour of Cambodia, any idea associated with international organisations or multinational committees would be rejected outright.

As the temple row drags on, and a military stand-off is in effect, Phnom Penh has appealed to the UN Security Council to help find a solution, Thailand sees red. Suspicion also ran high when the outgoing Asean chair, Singapore, suggested that an Asean contact group be established to help ease tension along the Thai-Cambodian border. Thailand quickly turned down both regional and international mediation efforts fearing that outsiders could be biased. Indeed, it was a good opportunity missed. If both sides agree to have the group as a mediator, it would transform the role of Asean and its future engagement in conflict resolution.

Thailand should have the confidence and welcome international engagement and mediation. These days, there are things that we are able to do, while we have shortcomings in other areas. The ability to recognise our own strengths and weaknesses used to be our national survival instinct. Unfortunately this quality has long evaporated.

After World War II, Thailand emerged from the bruises and wreckage of defeat as part of the Axis Alliance by quickly joining the United Nations. The membership gave the country a greatly needed sense of security and belonging. Thailand should be grateful for that. Five decades have elapsed and Thailand's international consciousness has yet to be mature. Compared to Thailand, neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia have sustained a high level of international visibility and strong international personalities. Malaysia is very active in peacekeeping and forging south-south cooperation. Indonesia strongly supported the "right to protect", which the UN summit approved in 2005, and strengthening the Non-aligned Movement.

In earlier years, apart from being a UN member, Thailand did not have a huge arena in which to perform. In the 1950s, Cambodia was a star country leading diplomatic efforts to build a coalition of newly independent countries. The influx of Indochinese refugees across the border and open seas towards the end of the 1970s through the 1980s was an eye-opener. Thailand learned how to cope with growing international pressure on humanitarian missions and benefited from it. Nonetheless, the government officials still fear international organisations and their powers.

Within Asean, Indonesia has provided an exemplary model for all members to emulate. In 1999, former president Jusuf Habibie invited Asean members to engage in peacekeeping in East Timor. In Aceh in 2006, Jakarta sought help from representatives of Asean and the European Union to monitor the ceasefire. Indonesia understands the values of Asean involvement because it is done to ensure peace and stability.

Thailand should be more open to outsider's mediation efforts and suggestions. Asean, the UN and other members of the international community have goodwill and mean well. They want to see Thailand as a normal country for once that can live securely with its neighbours and contribute constructively to the regional and global developments as we used to do before.