US domestic politics stalls replacement of Kenney

US domestic politics stalls replacement of Kenney

Kristie Kenney, former US ambassador to Bangkok, bade farewell to Thailand and is on her way back to Washington DC. She held the position for much longer than the normal three-year term, raising questions of whether there might be internal political problems in the United States.

But Thailand is not the only country where the US diplomatic mission will be without its ambassador. A vacancy in such an important position could be detrimental to US foreign policy at this critical time in international politics.

In the case of Thailand, the fact that the US will not immediately send a new ambassador to be stationed at its embassy could be interpreted in many ways.

It needs to be noted that the absence of a US ambassador in Bangkok does not mean the US has downgraded its relationship with Thailand. The appointment of a chargé d'affaires — who is usually a deputy chief of mission and who will represent the US in lieu of the ambassador — is normal practice for many embassies throughout the world.

For example, the Thai Foreign Ministry could nominate the deputy chief of mission to assume the post of charge d'affaires until the new ambassador receives an agrément from the host country.

Thus, referring back to the US embassy in Bangkok, the missing ambassador may be the result of a technical problem, rather than solely a bilateral political issue.

As mentioned earlier however, the Thai case deserves a closer look. Since the May 22 coup, the US has been obliged to impose soft sanctions against the junta, according to its own internal laws.

US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke in the aftermath of the coup, saying he was disappointed about the disruption of democracy. He urged the junta to return power to Thais quickly.

Subsequently, the US suspended US$4.7 million (125 million baht) worth of financial assistance to the Thai army. It also excluded Thailand from the Rim of Pacific Exercise (Rimpac), a joint naval exercise in the Asia-Pacific region, which took place in July this year.

At this point, it is unclear whether the US will send an invitation to Thailand to join the annual Cobra Gold joint military exercise.

Early reports seem to suggest the exercise could instead be moved to Australia. Cobra Gold represents an important hallmark in US-Thai relations, being the largest and longest-running military exercise in this region.

All these reasons could indicate the US is not satisfied with the pace of political reform in the hands of the junta.

Many in Thailand have explained the US decision not to send a new ambassador as a symbol of disapproval with the military government. Again, one must look at politics in Washington DC to understand the difficulties facing the US State Department.

Currently, the Obama administration is unable to send ambassadors to US diplomatic missions in more than 50 countries, including Turkey, Sierra Leone and some nine Eastern European nations.

Appointment of ambassadors has become a politicised issue in the US.

The Republicans claimed President Obama handpicked his own political allies to serve as ambassadors at the expense of career diplomats. The claim soon turned out to be a major obstacle to the dispatch of US ambassadors overseas. This will cost the US its national interests in many countries.

Today, the US is encountering significant challenges, from a security threat by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the civil war in Ukraine, instability on the Korean Peninsula, the economic and military rise of China, to non-traditional security threats such as natural disasters and pandemics. The spread of Ebola in Africa has the potential to threaten US interests in that continent as well as on its own soil.

In Southeast Asia, the US embassy in Bangkok is not the only post without an ambassador.

The US embassy in Vietnam is coping with the same problem.

Ted Osius has been nominated as the US envoy to Hanoi since May, but is still unable to travel there and assume his position. Republican senators accused the Obama government of relaxing its weapons sanctions against Vietnam in exchange for narrow economic benefits.

Since Mr Obama took office, he was keen to restrengthen ties with Southeast Asia, a region that had long been out of the US's strategic focus.

The indifferent US attitude towards Southeast Asia was evident in the past with American leaders' failure to attend a number of Asean meetings over the years. Admittedly, the United States recognised that its interests lay mainly in the Middle East, Europe, or East Asia especially China, Japan and Korea.

But, owing to the rise of China in recent years, Southeast Asia has begun to attract US foreign policy-makers. Furthermore, the territorial conflicts in the South China Sea have greatly worried the US over a possible blockage in navigation which will directly affect American interests.

Lately, the US has appeared to shift its policy towards Southeast Asia, to correspond with its new policy of an Asia "pivot".

A rapprochement policy was on its way. In 2008, the US signed Asean's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, which allows it to participate in the East Asia Summit.

Around the same time, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton introduced the discourse of "Pacific power". Finally, the United States returned to its home in the Pacific.

This is why the delay in installing its ambassadors to countries like Thailand and Vietnam contradicts the US's vision and policy of the pivot to Asia, failing to promote long-lasting and sustainable relationships with its key partners in the region.

This will provide an excellent opportunity for China to entrench its influence in Southeast Asia.


Pavin Chachavalpongpun is associate professor at Kyoto University's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (3)