In response to Rainer Pawli's letter "Support for Rangoon is support for terror" (Postbag, Sept 26), I have a different view to offer. Mr Pawli has the Bangkok Post as his window to express his anger and frustration, and to advocate human rights and democracy for the peoples of different origins in Burma.
Thailand's diplomatic movement is to keep the door open for a country which is isolated by the rest of the world. The isolation is Burma's own choice as much as the choice of the majority of free and democratic nations. The outstanding difference Thailand has had from the rest of the world is that she shares a very long border with Burma, and over a million citizens of Burma have migrated to find work and a better livelihood in Thailand.
The phenomenon is natural for the two neighbours, and a long-lasting channel of talks and communication is imperative. I think that the objectives of the policy of Thailand are very clear: 1) A peaceful and prosperous Burma is good for Thailand and Southeast Asia; 2) A free and democratic Burma is good for Thailand and Southeast Asia; 3) Cooperation and not confrontation with Burma is good for Thailand and Southeast Asia.
Major powers have failed to convince Burma by their policy of isolation and punishment to quicken the pace of reform and democratisation.
Thailand is not a major power. Thailand is just a neighbouring country, limited by geographic adjacence _ she has only power of persuasion through diplomatic exercises.
The diplomatic finesse facing Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon is how to build trust with the leaders of Burma in order to minimise bilateral problems and at the same time build confidence among the peoples of Burma that Thailand will not simply abandon them but will continue to act as a window where constructive engagement, and not isolation, will work for the best possible solution for them.
For the West, without Thailand acting as a window _ based on trust and confidence with Burmese leaders _ it will be very difficult for them to do anything better to improve the livelihood of the peoples of Burma. If the policies of isolation and punishment had had any positive impact on Burma for the past decade, the task of Mr Kantathi could have been much easier and by now Thailand could have enjoyed the best of our bilateral relations.
As a window of communication, Thailand lets Burma's leaders know what the world at large thinks about her political rule and, vice versa, lets the world know what the concerns of the Burmese leadership are.
It is a carefully crafted foreign policy, a good sense of practicality, and not a simplistic pursuit of idealism, that will prevent armed conflict between both countries and create an atmosphere conducive for national reconciliation inside Burma and that between Burma and the rest of the world.