Letters | How EU can balance economic interests and democratic values in Thailand trade talks
- Readers discuss EU-Thailand negotiations on a free-trade agreement, and whether every country is necessarily better off with democracy
As Thailand sets its sights on completing negotiations for a free-trade agreement with the European Union by 2025, a critical question emerges: how will the EU navigate the delicate balance between economic interests and democratic values in its dealings with Thailand?
Thailand’s active pursuit of an FTA with the EU underscores its determination to invigorate trade and investment to fortify its economy. Such an agreement would be economically significant for Thailand, promising increased market access, job creation and overall economic growth. Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has ambitious plans to position Thailand as a regional hub for aviation, tourism and the manufacturing of electric vehicles.
However, despite Srettha’s official visits to France and Germany, the underlying concerns regarding Thailand’s governance post-coup loom large for the negotiations ahead. Potential obstacles to incorporating democratic principles into the EU-Thailand FTA negotiations include divergent EU member states’ interests, Thailand’s sovereignty concerns, challenges in enforcing compliance and domestic political dynamics within both regions.
If the EU wants to leverage its economic influence to advocate for democratic reform in Thailand, it could incorporate specific clauses relating to labour rights, environmental protection and good governance into the FTA framework.
For instance, labour rights clauses could include provisions for the protection of workers’ rights, such as the right to organise and bargain collectively, and measures to prevent forced and child labour. Environmental protection clauses might address issues such as sustainable development, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. Good governance clauses could encompass transparency measures, anti-corruption efforts, and mechanisms for resolving disputes related to the FTA.
The inclusion of such clauses requires careful negotiation and subsequent monitoring to ensure compliance by both parties.
Besides, the EU should use its diplomatic channels to engage with the Thai authorities on issues pertaining to political freedoms, the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties.
Furthermore, the EU should use its influence to support civil society organisations, human rights defenders, and independent media in Thailand. By amplifying their voices and advocating for their protection, the EU can bolster the resilience of Thailand’s democratic institutions and foster an environment conducive to democratic reform. Additionally, the EU should explore avenues for promoting people-to-people exchanges and cultural diplomacy, which can contribute to greater mutual understanding and solidarity between the EU and Thailand.
Prem Singh Gill, visiting scholar, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia
What good has democracy done ‘Referendumstan’?
In a play by Oscar Wilde that premiered in 1883 a character declares that “nothing is impossible in Russia but reform”. But is democracy a panacea there and everywhere else?
In 1997, preparing for my Cambridge English proficiency exam in Moscow, I had to read among others Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day and was particularly struck by one passage: during a party a smart alec grills a humble butler to show the latter’s utter ignorance of politics and laments the UK is still persisting “with the notion that this nation’s decisions be left in the hands of our good man here and to the few million others like him”.
One of the former Soviet republics – Kyrgyzstan – has seen six presidents and 11 referendums since 1991. Some locals even jokingly call their country, one of the poorest in the region, “Referendumstan”.
In Russia, we only once saw Boris Yeltsin securing a slim (what the West would call genuinely democratic) majority of about 54 per cent in a presidential election in 1996. But we’ll always associate the man with the collapse of the Soviet Union and anarchy.
By the way, I scraped through my Cambridge exam to receive my totally useless certificate. In 1998, we got a new director of the Federal Security Service, one Mr Vladimir Putin. The rest is history.
Mergen Mongush, Moscow
