At this critical juncture in Thai history, lifting the sanctions against Thailand under Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act would send a clear message to the Thai military government: We endorse human rights abuses, we endorse media censorship, we endorse the theft of American intellectual property and we endorse the overthrow of freely elected democratic governments.
The military-installed government of Thailand can offer excuses and explanations. Its Embassy in Washington can publish colorful booklets and distribute optimistic talking points to members of Congress. But one fact remains—the government is illegitimate, having overthrown a freely elected democracy.
Rather than debating the application of 508 sanctions, we should be having a discussion on Thailand’s continued designation as a major non-NATO ally of the United States—a status that gives Thailand a range of benefits, including preferred American lending, participation in military exercises and preferential bidding on Department of Defense contracts.
- Extract from the testimony of Congressman Mark Steven Kirk, to the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, 1 August 2007. The full text of the Congressman’s statement is available here. Thanks to Nick for drawing New Mandala’s attention to these comments.
Update (4 August): It has come to my attention that Abbott Laboratories is reportedly the largest employer in Congressman Kirk’s district. New Mandala readers may remember Abbott from earlier in the year when the storm over Thailand’s compulsory license for a HIV/AIDS drug broke.
6 responses so far ↓
1 anon // Aug 4, 2007 at 6:34 am
At this critical juncture in Thai history, lifting the sanctions against Thailand under Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act would send a clear message to the Thai military government: We endorse human rights abuses, we endorse media censorship, we endorse the theft of American intellectual property and we endorse the overthrow of freely elected democratic governments.
I never expected so much sense out of the mouth of a member of the Republican party!
He was even prepared for the junta lie that “Thailand is a poor country and has no choice but to steal intellectual property” by noting that the junta bosses gave themselves a pay raise, increased the military’s budget by 67%, but reduced the public health budget.
2 Daniel // Aug 4, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Why does the Congressman from Illinois have such a focused view on Thailand? Searching public comments by Congressman Kirk, I find no equivalent statements opposing the American alliance with the military government of Pakistan. He pays no attention to this years coup in Bangladesh.
Why does Thailand alone merit his interest?
Why does the deposed Prime Minister pay lobbyists in Washington?
3 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 4, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Re Daniel> Your attempt to deprecate Representative Kirk’s comments is nothing more than ignoratio elenchi, that is, a fallacy of relevance. Indeed, the logic behind your rhetoric is so weak, it is hard to definitively classify your fallacy as a “Red Herring” fallacy, a Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, or a Genetic fallacy.
The point being, the fact that Rep. Kirk has not commented on events in Pakistan or Bangladesh bears no effect on the validity of his statements concerning Thailand.
The fact is, in this case, Rep. Kirk speaks truth to power. To imply that any criticism of post-coup Thailand’s domestic and foreign policy must stem from political lobbying by Thaksin borders on paranoia.
4 Thad Williamson // Aug 5, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Kirk is rated by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action as a very moderate voter–45% on a right to left, 1-100% scale. Just slightly right of center. This is based on 20 House votes in 2006. One of the “liberal” votes he cast was for more money to act on the Darfur situation. He got a 30% rating from the same group for 2005 and another 45% for 2004. So he does appear to be one of that dying breed, the moderate Republican. He represents suburban Chicago which is certainly conservative relative to Chicago proper but not very conservative relative to many other places in the U.S. So, it’s possible this vote represents a genuine conviction of some kind.
5 Grasshopper // Aug 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Kirk is rated by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action as a very moderate voter
So he’s fairly conservative then?
6 Thad Williamson // Aug 6, 2007 at 7:03 am
well all such terms like “conservative” are dependent on their context to have any meaning, but relative to say opinion in Europe or Australia your point is valid. But this guy is not one of true Bush-believers–he’s sponsoring a bill now to increase health care access for children through increased cigarette taxes. I know, I know, the fact America even needs such a bill reflects the barbarism of our society and our pitiful welfare state, but to be for it as a Republican is within the context of mainstream American politics practically and act of political courage.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.