JOINT PSI DEMARCHE - THAILAND STILL RELUCTANT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 001419 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2016 TAGS: PARM PREL KNNP TH SUBJECT: JOINT PSI DEMARCHE - THAILAND STILL RELUCTANT REF: STATE 17716 Classified By: Political Counselor Susan M. Sutton, reason 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Embassy joined in the Australian-led demarche on PSI on March 8. The MFA now recognizes that PSI is consistent with international law, but still raised a series of objections to Thailand's endorsement. These included concerns that endorsing PSI could inflame the insurgency in the Malay-Muslim majority southern provinces, and a desire to have a policy consistent with that of ASEAN's major Muslim countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. Although the MFA said it would review the PSI issue following its participation in the upcoming PSI event in New Zealand, it appears unlikely that the interim government, expected to leave office by the end of the year, will endorse PSI. End summary. ¶2. (C) The Australian DCM led a delegation including representatives from the US, UK, Canadian, NZ and Japanese embassies to make reftel PSI demarche at the Thai MFA on March 8. Ambassador Kriengsak Kittichaisuree, Director General of the Department of International Organizations, responded to the demarche points. He was joined by representatives of the Legal and Treaty Affairs Department, the International Security Unit, and regional departments. ¶3. (C) Ambassador Kriengsak reviewed at length Thailand's efforts to comply with UNSC resolutions on North Korea and Iran, citing these as evidence of Thailand's commitment to support international counter-proliferation efforts. He recounted the concerns raised by Thai government agencies in previous discussions over PSI, highlighting their questions about whether PSI would be consistent with international law and Thai law; how Thailand would be compensated if its officials were sued as a result of boarding or searching an innocent vessel; and the possible negative effect on the situation in Thailand's insurgent-plagued southern provinces. Amb. Kriengsak, citing consultations with Australian experts at the ASTOP talks in Tokyo this year, said he was now satisfied that PSI was consistent with international law. He also said that Australian counterparts had assured him that, should Thailand be sued as a result of actions taken pursuant to a PSI-based request to search a vessel, then the requesting country would pay any damages that resulted. However, he said that the security agencies who would be responsible for carrying out PSI activities were not yet reassured. ¶4. (C) The UK DCM questioned whether participation in PSI would really have any impact on the situation in the Malay-Muslim majority South, where the insurgency was primarily linked to local, historical grievances. Amb. Kriengsak noted that the southern insurgency had flared up after Thailand had sent medical and construction units to Iraq in 2003; the deployment "was seen as linked to the increased violence." Thailand believed that it should stay in line with ASEAN's major Muslim countries on this issue. (He also later contended that Malaysia and Indonesia "would never endorse" PSI.) ¶5. (C) Ambassador Kriengsak also raised concerns that the current, interim government wished to avoid criticism. He said that the government of the time had been subject to a "no-confidence" vote in the Parliament when it reached an Article 98 agreement with the US. The government was also criticized when it extradited JI member Hambali to the US. Ambassador Kriengsak did note that the US and Thailand were cooperating on a Container Security Initiative. This was going smoothly, and had not given rise to any criticism or controversy. He suggested that we look further into this model to see if we could learn anything that might be useful in pursuing an agreement on PSI. ¶6. (C) Ambassador Kriengsak explained that the nature of PSI presented procedural problems for the MFA. "We can implement the UN sanctions on North Korea and Iraq because the cabinet authorized them. But PSI is not a legal instrument." He said that PSI just relied on good faith and building cooperative relationships. "You cannot submit it to the cabinet for approval." Polcouns underscored that we hoped to continue to work with the RTG to ease their concerns on these issues. The Japanese DCM reminded the MFA representatives that there were many questions now about the situation in Thailand. The international community was worried about the proposed changes in the Foreign Business Act and other economic policies. The interim government said that it was trying to introduce a more democratic system. Endorsing PSI would be very well-received internationally, "a good sales point." BANGKOK 00001419 002 OF 002 ¶8. (C) Comment: The MFA now (grudgingly) concedes that PSI is consistent with international law. This is a step forward, but there is still a long way to go before Thailand will be ready to seriously consider PSI. The interim government is unlikely to take on this issue in the few months remaining in its term of office. Overall, the demarche was useful to remind the Thai that there is broad international support for PSI, and that we have not forgotten them. However, we do not anticipate any change in the Thai position in the near future. End comment. BOYCE