Accused of offensive actions that have been happened throughout the most recent decade, the U.S. is now challenged by a possible loss of her long-living honor. Over the Bush administration term the existing prestige of the US was tarnished by her blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, where brutal military operations of the U.S. Troops were launched against. The Americanization spreading around the globe is perceived to be the revived imperialism of the American empire. From political economy point of views, the influence of the States has been substantial in globally spreading a belief in liberalism and commercialism through dominating institutional mechanisms, such as her right in International Monetary Fund and WTO. However, various kinds of organizations have been established worldwide to play a role in stopping any increasing loss from exploitation of resources and individual incomes resulting from encouragements of liberalism, being people voice. These organizations seem to be hostile towards America as developed nation having a strong faith on globalization-driven capitalism. Consequently, the U.S. should be regarded as a problematic nation. However, looking back at Thai history involving the U.S., I could see admirable images of her. I personally believe that in a world order some difficulty may not be able to be relieved without source of reasonable interventions from sufficiently-powerful country that is willing to play leadership role. As an illustration, the U.S. navy troops influencing the Asia Pacific region during the tense decade of cold war, 1950s, more or less, helped prevent the possible threats of communism form happening. This role is likely to be well suited with the state of America.
Why did those colonized countries fight for independence and sovereignty? Is it because it is a valuable human-being for them to have a freedom and to be equality? We all know that the U.S country has been the origin of doctrine of right, freedom, and equality. The U.S. was the first nation that restored the sovereignty of my country losing from being legally discriminated by a number of resource-seeking western nations in a return for an assurance of national security during the reign of global colonization. The U.S. at the prior period of WWI, the middle of 1920s, returned Thailand the justiciary right which in general indicates the existence of sovereignty of a particular country, so-called extra territory. From 1870s up to early WWII time, Siam (former name of Thailand) invited many western countries to establish trading stations and take investments on essential infrastructures in the country. Cooperation of Siam with the outside countries was believed to bring the country prosperity. In the meantime, those Siam-welcomed nations were unfairly gaining advantages over my country in terms of trade agreement and the citizen’s right. The enforcement of extra territory that was in agreements between Siam and western nations, for example, induced the full authority to sentence any case related to the mistake performed by their own citizens who lived legally in Siam. What the U.S. contributed to Thailand was the abortion of all the Siam's disadvantageous agreements in accordance with our bilateral treaty. It was not until later 23 years that all unfair treaties were fixed. Many nations were willing to do away with any unjustly-excessive benefits they had kept gaining since their first coming in the midst of 18th century.
In another age, right after WWII, Thailand was forced by some ally’s nations to pay the war reparation fee as the loser nation. Fortunately, the US, which had enough big say in the world's stage at that time, could weaken the Great Britain's effort to claim the responsibility toward Thailand. All Siam’s charges were therefore absolved because of her powerful support. The U.S. well understood how tough the situation Thailand was facing and had some sympathy on Siam country. Considering what happened in the East Asian battleground, the US realized that it was not easy for Thailand to maintain its full sovereignty without Japan's dissatisfaction on the country. Thailand had no option, besides to inevitably act as Japan’s ally and consequently to declare a war on the U.S. unwillingly. Accordingly, the US after the end of war decided not to call for any obligation from Thailand as official hostility to the ally.
Furthermore, at a time of expanding influence of Communism, the US considered that Thailand had strongly adhered to democratic idea relative to its neighboring counties. The states anticipated Thailand to play a great role in opposing the Communist regime. This could be possible if and only if Thailand was able to maintain its independent sovereignty and freedom. For her, Thailand had better be fostered the independence. Although this was seem to promote some kinds of interests of the US, there is no point hesitating her dominant role because it was necessary for South-East Asia to be ruled by some stronger country due to its fear over the threatening Communism in the region. Several forms of intervention thus were not avoided. Unlike Cambodia, where military interferences accelerated severity of nationalist’s actions and thereby caused much damage on the country as a whole, Thailand chose to react in compromising ways. The US military base was built in SATTAHIB district and has been in use until nowadays. The spillover of U.S. intervention also can be seen in form of budgetary support of national social development.
In sum, different actions in different times imply different motivation and diverse necessity of intervention. This is the prominent characteristic of the U.S… For me, paying attention to her history of incremental prosperity and of increasing power suggests that the U.S. wish to see a better world under the belief that impediment to the essence of compromise, peace, democracy, and economic growth should not be allowed to happen. She has always advocated the elimination of any barrier to achieve them. I would not say that what are the U.S.’s interests are capable of making a better world, but I would rather say that her commitment to distribute her own belief through a means of intervention , more or less, is driven by a sincere intention. Some times it has been carried out appropriately, while many times the suitability of her action still remain controversial for a century.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น