The Case for Engagement
Coming Soon…
“We still believe that engaging is more useful than not engaging. Lots of countries chose to disengage and imposing sanctions and all of that. I think in case of Myanmar, ASEAN has proven that engaging with Myanmar does more good than harm,” stresses Kiat Sitteeamorn, former Thai Deputy Prime Minister and international trade negotiator. In this interview, Kiat draws on decades of experience in the private sector, parliament, and multilateral diplomacy to offer hard-won insights on the moral and practical dilemmas facing Southeast Asia today. In this wide-ranging conversation, he discusses integrity, regional diplomacy, and the ongoing crisis in Myanmar.
For Kiat, public service is grounded in his own story, and the force of his personal code, rooted in childhood struggle and self-reliance. He explains how he learned early on that “[a] free lunch is never good. You have to work for it!” Sure enough, by his teenage years, he was earning his own keep. This ethos stayed with him through an early career as an electrical engineer helping build power plants across Asia and the Middle East. Returning to Thailand, he became the director of the Board of Trade of Thailand. Then, by what he refers to as a “chance accident,” he came to enter politics. Kiat became acquainted with the then Prime Minister during the country’s economic crisis in 1997, who asked for his advice in navigating this period. Then, just a few months later, Kiat was encouraged to run for office, initiating his first of three terms as a Member of Parliament, and eventually serving one term as Deputy Prime Minister.
Kiat describes how moving from solving concrete engineering challenges to confronting national crises and serving in government provided him a steady resolve that helped him stay principled amid the compromises and moral confusion of politics. “If you cannot withstand all these fancy proposals, although it's all wrong, don't get involved with politics!” he exclaims. “That's my message to the younger generation.”
In Thailand as elsewhere, he explains, the destructive effects of power, patronage, and opportunism are not abstract. He points to his own parliamentary work, which he says resulted in dishonest politicians being forced to pay back over 60 billion baht. He says there were personal challenges to this crusade—intimidations, and offers of bribes—which he acknowledges can be challenging to refuse for most, and especially if one is, in his words, “confused.”
Kiat returns to this language of “confusion”—and the discipline needed to resist it—throughout the conversation. He repeatedly stresses the importance of maintaining one’s internal compass amid constant ethical temptations and pressures in politics, such as bribery or rewards for personal gain. At the same time, he also warns that the decay of public life often happens through more ordinary rationalizations and bureaucratic excuses, like “We don’t have the budget,” or “There’s no way to fight back.” For Kiat, these are signs of passive failure: retreating from difficult yet necessary action and avoiding responsibility. “Those politicians who came out and started excusing themselves that, ‘Oh, we don't have enough money to do this, and that,’ it's all bullshit! I'm sorry for my language!” he says, adding that there are always good policies that do not require much money, but bad influences and pressures can quickly overwhelm politicians who are “confused.”
Having established a reputation for integrity and technical acumen, Kiat became a central player in a series of high-stakes trade negotiations with the European Union, Chile, Peru, and within the ASEAN community. He critiques the “market fundamentalism” of the late 20th century, warning that trade liberalization without safeguards perpetuates global inequalities and “collusion,” not real development. His influence extended to the international stage as vice president of Liberal International—a worldwide federation of liberal political parties committed to democracy and human rights—where he successfully advocated for a pivotal change in its economic manifesto, in moving away from using the term “free trade.” As he puts it, “I managed to convince all my colleagues at Liberal International to change the manifesto that we should aspire to free and fair trade. When you insert the word ‘fair,’ it changed the game.”
Kiat’s vision for Southeast Asia embraces economic integration and innovation, but not at the expense of local agency. He describes the creation of the International Chamber of Commerce Thailand chapter, and his role in formulating the “ASEAN Plus Six” regional architecture, as ways to give his country and its neighbors the leverage and “voice” to shape their own futures. Yet, he strikes a note of disappointment with Thailand’s recent trajectory, lamenting that it has underperformed its potential due to “bad politics,” that is, the “confusion” he referenced earlier—corruption and patronage, along with shirking responsibility—combined with political disunity and populist distractions. He believes that without these forces at play, his country could have seen an annual GDP growth of 5-6%.
Kiat’s concerns extend well beyond economic growth alone. He cautions that genuine national progress depends not just on development or democratic rituals, but on achieving real accountability and meaningful improvements in people’s lives. In his view, too many countries—including those that appear democratic or prosperous on paper—fall short because their political systems prioritize appearances over authentic governance and outcomes. Kiat urges that the real challenge is to ensure that democratic institutions and policies deliver on their promises, rather than just be rhetoric and empty gestures.
At the heart of the discussion lies Kiat’s sobering analysis of the Myanmar crisis. Thailand, he notes, has borne the brunt of high migration numbers, caused by decades of turmoil. He complains that while Thailand is criticized for how it has managed this influx, the wider international communities continues to pressure the country to do more, all while ensuring a measure of financial and other support that never materializes. “I have the list of the countries that even do not live up to their promises!” he says with frustration.
And he bristles at the claim that Thailand’s refusal to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention signals indifference, noting that one must look beyond the official terminology of “refugee” and into the support that is provided. Here, he recounts instances of personally resisting extradition requests and working directly with the UN to ensure the safety of refugees, even when other countries failed to meet their obligations. Still, he acknowledges cracks that remain in the system. “We're not perfect,” he admits.
Regarding the effectiveness of multilateral sanctions on Myanmar, Kiat is adamant that sanctions alone are rarely enough, especially when imposed against military regimes insulated from the suffering of their populations. He says that dictators tend to not care about their people in any case, so the added pain of sanctions makes little difference to them.
Kiat is at his most passionate when discussing ASEAN’s style of quiet engagement. It’s an approach he views as misunderstood by Western critics demanding open confrontation with and public denunciation of Myanmar’s junta. For him, what he calls the “Asian” method privileges informal negotiation, private appeals, and a concern for “face,” and crucially, he believes, can achieve results that public isolation and megaphone diplomacy cannot. He offers several accounts of securing humanitarian improvement and legal relief for activists through back-channel communications, adding: “If I start shouting, maybe those guys will be there in three months in jail!” Still, he notes that the line between quiet diplomacy and doing nothing can become dangerously thin, especially in the face of atrocities.
On international election observation and the ongoing debate over legitimizing “sham elections,” Kiat argues that regardless of how compromised an electoral process may appear from the outset, it is better for the international community to maintain some level of engagement rather than to withdraw entirely or dismiss the process from afar. In his view, the mere presence of observers brings a degree of transparency and creates opportunities to gather evidence about the true nature of the proceedings—something that cannot be achieved through isolation or blanket condemnation. While he acknowledges the risk that participation may lend some legitimacy to flawed elections, he insists that disengagement leaves the field open for abuses to go unchallenged and truths unrecorded.
Looking ahead, Kiat’s core message is one of cautious optimsim and responsibility. Despite the region’s daunting challenges—from internal political dysfunction to neighboring crises—he maintains that persistent, principled engagement remains the only path forward. He reminds listeners that progress is incremental and requires international partners, local actors, and public servants alike to act with sincerity and persistence: “We can always do more. We can always engage with people, the recipient side and also the donor side. We have to engage more with all of them, but persuading all sides with the right reason, not political gains.”