Thai ‘Hostility’ To U.S. Build-up

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31596, 6 February 1968, Page 13

Thai ‘Hostility’ To U.S. Build-up

(N.Z. Press Association— Copyright)

BANGKOK, February 5.

The underlying hostility felt by many Thais to the build-up of United States military and civilian staff in Thailand has exploded into the open in recent weeks, according to the “New York Times” News Service.

Relations at the official level remain generally good. But the American impact on the Thai Society and economy is beginning to be felt at nearly all levels as Thailand’s commitment in the Vietnam war increases. There are about 50,000 Americans, military and civilian, in Thailand now, fourfifths of them involved in the air war against Vietnam. There are also about 5000 American soldiers from Vietnam on “rest and recreation” each month.

Thailand’s need to line up on the American side over Vietnam does not seem in question in the increasingly public debate over the American presence. The Government recently committed itself to raising the number of Thai combat troops in Vietnam from 3000 to a full division of 12,000 to 13,000. A critical book about Thailand by Louis Lomax, a Los Angeles radio and television commentator, caused the explosion of criticism of the American presence. And an item in the weekly magazine, “Newsweek” that the Thais felt impugned King Bhumibol’s courage on a visit to the insurgency area in north-east Thailand sharpened Thai hostility. But many Americans feel that the violence of the reaction disclosed deep feelings that had only been awaiting an excuse to be aired. The most violent reaction was written by a respected journalist, Kukrit Pramoj, who had never been considered anti-American.

Writing in his newspaper, “Siam Rath,” Kukrit blamed the Americans for practically every evil in Thai social economic life and referred to them as “mung,” a word of contempt. If the Americans were not careful, Kukrit said, the Thais might one day “smash down your embassy and burn down (the offices) of the United States Information Service.” He concluded: “You American beasts, return to your holes.” He accused the United States of economic exploitation of Thailand and of seeking to destroy its independence and economy. He said American troops were creating vast numbers of prosti-

tutes and teaching Thai boys “to indulge in sexual perversion”.

Although the Thai press is controlled strictly by the military-led Government, noone in the Government sought to correct the impression that Kukrit’s article might have spread. Some readers did, pointing out that an economy that was surging ahead at an annual growth-rate of 8 per cent was not being destroyed and criticising him for generalising about Americans because of the possible bad behaviour of a few. The outburst by Kukrit and others led the United States Ambassador, Leonard Unger, to issue a statement that the people writing books and articles about Thailand were “definitely not speaking for the United States Government nor for the American people." In a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce last month, the Ambassador took up the issue again. “Having governed themselves for over 700 years,” he said, “the Thais feel no need to adjust their way of doing things to meet foreign concepts of how things should be done.

“Moreover, having decided that defending Vietnam is in Thailand’s own best interests, they do not want their actions interpreted—or misinterpreted—in lights cast by the clash of conflicting views over similar United States policies.