From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai
Subject: Re: How is the Clinton administration going to affect Thailand and Asia?
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:36:49 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <BxE2pI.Ar9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong) writes:
>Here is my two PaiBia" opinion:
>	
>	I believe in general the US foreign policy will not drastically change.
>Remember Vietnam War? Either JFK, Nixon, or LJB, was all alike in their 
>attitude toward communism. Now that communism become defunct. The Republican
>US looked at it as an opportunity to expand market and source of cheap labor
>for the US manufacturers. The Democrats, IMO, is less enthusiastic about it.
>This is where Republicans and Democrats differ. 
>	I believe Democrats are more sincere about human rights policy as
>compared to the Republicans (see the case of China to where Bush sent his
>national security adviser to visit few weeks after the Tienanmuen massacre).
>Clinton should follow what Carter had done in his presidency. Now that
>Bush has paved the way to what he calls "new world order". Clinton could 
>switch such world order around a bit to suit the Democrat tradition. I predict
>that Clinton would still want to maintain the US as the world police.
>	As far as the trade relations with the US, I believe Clinton Adminis-
>tration will be more understanding the unique problems of developing countries.
>Unlike Bush administration, Clinton would relax the demand for copyright 
>and patent law enforcement in Thailand. 
>	The pressure from the need to cut deficit within the political period 
>(4 years) should not allow Clinton administration to be much generous in giving 
>away foreign aid. Besides, the economic boom in the past decade in term of
>GNP growth, should move Thailand from the US list of recipient countries.
>Nonetheless, the programs on drug suppression, hill peoples, AIDS,
>and environment should be favorably considered by the USAID under Clinton. 
>	Unlike Republican administration, Clinton government would be more
>fond of protectionism. You begin to see what Bush, after some years of
>patiance, is now doing as a revenge action against the EC. Thai exporters
>need to take serious in diverting their market. In a way, since Thailand
>has seemed to shift from exporting produces to manufactured goods,
>protectionism should have less impact. 
>	As a whole, the Democrat people oriented policy should provide positive
>atmosphere to the world human rights and social developments in the Third World
>countries including Thailand not to mention Gore's input in the US policy on
>environments. Such attitude might help balance the trend in Thailand which 
>has, in the past decade, been geared toward material wealth. 
>	This is just my vision of what is going to happen to Thailand as the
>result of the shift in the US administration. Any comments are welcomed.
>
>


Wow! I couldn't agree more with you.  You are probably one of the first
Thai people I've encountered with this opinion besides myself.  I think
Bill Clinton has more humanitarian approach to his foreign or even his
domestic policy.  Mr. Bushes' policy sounds appealing if one looks at it
on the surface level.  Free trade, free world, freedom fighter, sounds
good but it all ends up with millions of dead bodies, starving people and
cheap child labor all over the world.
I'm afraid though that most Thai people may miss the point and find
Clinton's administration less friendly than Mr. Tricky Bushes'.  I
remember most or at least many Thai didn't like Mr. Carter that much.  He
was not quite popular in the U.S. either back then because people didn't
understand him well.  But he's getting more and more support after leaving
his office.  On the other hand,  Mr. Regan and Bush are getting less and
less popular as time goes.