EDITORIAL – President silent on Thai coup

While lecturing about global democracy at the United Nations this week, President Bush… While lecturing about global democracy at the United Nations this week, President Bush failed to recognize the recent toppling of democratically elected Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The oversight leads many to wonder where the president’s priorities are on global democracy. Bush’s “freedom agenda” has left a few holes in the some parts of the world with the recent American military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president has spoken numerous times on the importance of preserving and spreading democracy globally, most recently stating, “from Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom,” according to the Washington Post.

So, when a democratically elected leader is ousted by a military coup, the president would come down hard on the side of democracy, right?

Apparently not.

The president blatantly avoided the topic when addressing the U.N. General Assembly this week, leaving New York on Tuesday without speaking to the deposed prime minister, who was in town for the session.

The president’s aides later explained that Bush did not mention the issue because they were still gathering information, offering only that they were “disappointed in the coup.”

Bush’s avoidance of the Thai coup raises questions of whether America is promoting democracy or promoting its own priorities. The United States has not been shy about fighting for democratic institutions in the Middle East, where oil flows readily and many American interests are at stake. Yet Bush has been noticeably soft on, even supportive of, certain non-democratic countries, including Pakistan, Russia, China and now Thailand.

It seems Bush’s freedom agenda comes with a lengthy footnote. We support freedom when freedom supports us.

In particular, Bush has had a recent falling out with the former Thai leader when Shinawatra was accused of selling his family’s holdings in a satellite company for a tax-free $1.9 billion. These accusations were what led to disapproval of the prime minister and, ultimately, the coup.

While what the prime minister did was neither justified nor “democratic,” he was democratically elected, and a military coup does not follow traditional democratic standards.

By turning a blind eye toward the coup, Bush is making a silent statement, choosing that in this case, it is not necessary to defend democracy.

Internationally, democracy comes in many shapes and sizes. Not every country is going to implement Americanized democratic institutions. Supporting participatory governments means taking the bad with the good. The president needs to realize that there are benefits and consequences to supporting international democracy, and when he promises to support “freedom,” we expect him to take a stand when democracy comes under attack.