- Published: 20/06/2012 at 12:00 AM
Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat and others are looking at the US suggestion to make U-tapao the site of a regional disaster response centre.
While it may be true that "the devil is in the details," both these matters are simple as international relations go. But both the government and the US embassy in Thailand have done a poor job of introducing both proposals. This seems to have caused confusion and even consternation in some circles. The government and US spokesmen should have known this long before the issues were dribbled out.
There should be no hesitation about the Nasa missions. The US space agency's climate studies are ongoing, and there is nothing new or sinister about the request to use U-tapao. Indeed, Nasa has a long-standing arrangement to use U-tapao. The naval air base was a standing alternate landing strip for the US space shuttles, now discontinued. U-tapao, improved to its current standards during the Vietnam War, remains the longest and most open airstrip anywhere on this side of the world.
In the event, no space shuttle ever used U-tapao. But Nasa's standing contract with the government and the Royal Thai Navy was only one such deal between Washington and Bangkok. Since shortly after the post-Vietnam War US military withdrawal from Thailand in 1976, U-tapao has been used as a transit and refuelling base for US Air Force transport planes.
Under special and separate agreements, it also has been used as a combat transit base, most notably during the 2003 build-up for the invasion of Iraq.
On the face of it, the proposal to base a joint Thai-US Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) centre there seems extremely worthwhile. The US Defence Department manages HADR facilities in other parts of the world. The US military response to the 2006 tsunami bears remembering. In that case, it had to first assemble relief in Japan, then carry it to U-tapao for staging. In Aceh, aid by the US Navy was truly effective.
There is an easy way to determine if neighbouring countries have objections to either proposal for U-tapao: Ask them. When critics of the US talk about neighbours, they mean China. But China has expressed no official opposition to such actions. The China Daily, for example, stated of the US intention to "pivot" towards the Pacific, that the "United States is more than welcome [in East Asia], so long as it plays a constructive role".
It is difficult to think of more constructive projects than a disaster relief centre and a regional climate study _ whose results must be made public. For certain, opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is correct that the proposed disaster centre should be put to parliament. But then, Mr Abhisit has not expressed opposition to either plan. Barring some unknown and troubling issue which could still arise, these proposals should sail through so authorities can get back to considering important national matters.
Share your thoughts
- Discussion 1 : 21/06/2012 at 07:44 AM
-
The entire NASA U-tapeo plan was proposed and drawn up during the Dem administration by ex-Foreign Minister Kasit. But lets blame it on TS anyway.
- Discussion 2 : 20/06/2012 at 12:28 PM
-
Disc 3 I think you are a bit out of touch. It was the Democrats who politicized the issue and caused the delay by coming up with a far-fetched claim that the government planned on agreeing to the NASA request in return for a promise to grant Thaksin a US visa, without producing any evidence in support of its allegation.
On the face of it, the US request provides a good opportunity for Thailand to benefit from technology transfer. If on closer inspection this assessment proves correct, as the editorial rightly suggests, the proposal should be approved without further unnecessary delay.
- Discussion 3 : 20/06/2012 at 11:20 AM
-
The objections of Khun Abhisit's party that the civilian use of U Tapao by NASA for meteorological surveys could concern Thailand's neighbors are rather absurd.
His party had no such neighborly concerns when they were in power and started a border war with Cambodia that had all of ASEAN calling for a ceasefire.
- Discussion 4 : 20/06/2012 at 09:32 AM
-
#Just-1-Voice -- you are right, it is not mentioned about discussion of this issue in the Parliament. Obviously it is not of a legislative nature, like a bill - becoming into a law or no point of order has been raised, till now in the Parliament (which is today out of session) The issue of PTP bypassing the Parliament does not arise.
- Discussion 5 : 20/06/2012 at 08:49 AM
-
RE: D2 - Can you please point out to me, and others, where it says PTP has refused to discuss the matter in Parliament?
RE: D5 - Apparently you didn't read the entire article, such as the part: But China has expressed no official opposition to such actions. The China Daily, for example, stated of the US intention to "pivot" towards the Pacific, that the "United States is more than welcome [in East Asia], so long as it plays a constructive role".
- Discussion 6 : 20/06/2012 at 08:33 AM
-
The decisions not all that simple. Thailand should be concerned about how other Asian countries, especially China feel about this, alienating China is not in Thailands best interests. Then there is the legitimate question of how much credibility the American Government has after some of its activities in the last decade, is this disaster center an excuse for something sinister is a question that deserves serious consideration.
- Discussion 7 : 20/06/2012 at 07:43 AM
-
I agree to the Cabinet deferring a decision and setting up a special committee to examine/re-examine the issue. This cat-on-the-wall attitude on the part of the Government comes in the light of the recent happenings, which has created a fear-uncertainty psychosis. If the Government were to have okayed, the Opposition would call it a sell-out, and the action would have been questioned legally -- and it even could go till the ruling party is dissolved ! It is not if Abhisit has objected or not, he has not whole-heartedly okayed it either; the Opposition is on a collision course, and hence the Government has decided to play safe ! This is no brouhaha either.
- Discussion 8 : 20/06/2012 at 06:37 AM
-
Domdunn, has Abhisit made any objection to the proposal?
So why the delay by the government and yet another endless committee to look at the facts before reporting back by when?
NASA want to start in less than 6 weeks and you are blaming the Democrats who are not in power for the delay?
- Discussion 9 : 20/06/2012 at 05:30 AM
-
Once again the Puea Thaksin Party believe they are above the law, refusing to discuss the matter in parliament.
- Discussion 10 : 20/06/2012 at 04:19 AM
-
It's a complete non event, it's just Abhisit playing politics in a desperate attempt to get someone to notice him.
Bangkok Post
