To get straight to the point, the answer to what the European Union and Victoria Beckham have in common lies in the manner in which they both aspire to have their presence felt; their ability to do so through various conspicuous methods; and the use of the considerable assets they possess.

Published on September 12, 2007

Watching the analysis made in Thailand about the EU's desire to monitor our election from the perspective of a European academic has been a frustrating experience. The use of the term EU as if it were some sort of unified political actor is the first of many frustrations, since the EU has far from achieved agreement on a Common Foreign and Security Policy. This somehow suggests that all 27 EU member states and their governments are in agreement that Thailand is a failed democracy. Once again, this is inaccurate.

To understand the EU, looking at Victoria Beckham would be a good start. David Beckham's wife is an expert in manipulating the paparazzi and making sure she has a presence in the media all the time. Making use of her husband's football prowess, her sense of design, and considerable monetary clout, Victoria has made herself an A-grade celebrity arguably without having any real talent. The key is to be in the eye of the public all the time and to portray an image of being a perfect wife, mother, and fashion icon.

The EU is not a unified actor, unlike Victoria, but current analysts agree that the its most effective area for collective action is under its first pillar, or in the area of Common Commercial Policy. Dig a little deeper and you'll see that the European Commission has been given full competency to represent the interests of the EU in the area of CCP, which covers economic, social and environmental policies.

Understanding that the Commission - not Gordon Brown, not Nicolas Sarkozy, not Angela Merkel - was behind the EU's desire to monitor the Thai election, solves half the mystery. The Commission, populated by European technocrats and technically working for European (not national) interests, initiated these proposals. It was European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who put in the request to monitor the election, not any other European head of state.

This leads to the other half of the puzzle: why they would want to monitor the elections. Like Mrs Beckham, the EU has long harboured desires to become a major global actor instead of just being a major economic actor. This has been described as maintaining a presence and bolstering its status as an international political actor.

The EU has long had minimal political presence within Asia, normally being overshadowed by America's close ties to Asia. The creation of the Asia-Europe Meeting was the EU playing catch-up with Apec. At Asem the EU has tried to increase the political dialogue while the Asian members have preferred to talk trade.

The reason why the EU's sometimes over-ambitious Commission wants to monitor the Thai election is to increase its political presence and its political actor status in Asia. This is not dissimilar to Victoria's poorly rated documentary on US television to promote herself after the Beckhams' move to Los Angeles.

One might want to ask the further question of whether rejecting the EC's request might have serious consequences for Thailand. In short, the answer is that it could.

The answer perhaps lies in the 2003 New Partnership with Southeast Asia Communication Commission, in which the EC insisted that new bilateral agreements with countries in Southeast Asian "should all contain the essential element clause regarding human rights". Human rights, democratic principles and good governance are all coveted by the EU.

In other words, failure to follow any of these principles the EU holds dear could mean difficulty in concluding a future bilateral agreement between Thailand and the EU. An agreement was ben drafted and negotiated during Thaksin Shinawatra's government but has yet to be concluded.

In simple terms, the lack of a bilateral dialogue and a framework agreement between the EU and Thailand could put Thailand at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. This is particularly true in the area of trade, where the EU is Thailand's third largest trading partner. Apart from the Asean framework, Thailand is a relatively insignificant trading partner of the EU. In addition, Thailand has a healthy trade surplus against the EU, which means the EU stands to lose very little if bilateral dialogue is suspended.

Victoria Beckham would be proud of the EU's strategies. Just as she favours some magazines while depriving others of much desired "Royal Beckham" pictures, the EU can similarly use its economic power as a carrot or stick to enhance its own status and induce countries into behaving according to Europe's own values and ideas.

The roots of the EU's desire to monitor the Thai election lie in the EC's ambitions, the EU's desire to increase its presence in Asia, and its ability to use trade carrots and sticks to influence decisions. How well we are able to deal with the EU's desires should be the main criterion in our decision on whether to accept or to reject the EU's request to monitor our election.

Natee Vichitsorasatra

Special to The Nation

The author, a former Nation journalist, is currently a doctoral research student at Loughborough University in England.