US Ambassador to Thailand Darryl Johnson has dealt with issues ranging from the war on terrorism, to the Tropical Forest Conservation Agreement, to the tense relations between the press and the Thai government during his short few months in Thailand.

Returning to Thailand, where he first worked as a Peace Corp volunteer in 1965, Ambassador Johnson brings a wealth of diplomatic experience and deep understanding of the Asian environment. After leaving the Peace Corp, Ambassador Johnson served as a Foreign Service Office in Mumbai, Hong Kong, Moscow, Beijing and Warsaw. Before departing for Bangkok, he served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Last week, Ambassador Johnson was in Washington, DC and sat down with USTBC’s Kevin Widlansky. Excerpts:

USTBC : In your view, how has Thailand’s cooperation been with the United States in terms of security relations after September 11th? Are you satisfied with Thailand’s response?

Ambassador Johnson : Yes. I am satisfied. We are completely satisfied. They have been very supportive of everything that we have asked on all aspects of counter-terrorism cooperation. For example in terms of the use of military facilities, in terms of intelligence cooperation, in terms of law enforcement cooperation, and in terms of identifying potential problems they have worked very closely with us and with other regional neighbors (this is not just a U.S. operation, of course) the Thais have been very supportive and we’re very satisfied with what they’ve done.

USTBC : What’s your view on the recent troubles between the Thai government and the media? Do you think this is a trend, or just an aberration that will disappear shortly?

Ambassador Johnson : On the later point, I don’t think we will know until there is more history or more passage of time to be able to judge. As for the first part, I think that these questions need to be disaggregated and treated separately. In the case of the Far Eastern Economic Review, there was a specific item with which the government took issue. They claim that it was not an issue of freedom of the press, but rather of the discussion of issues regarding the relationship between the government and the monarchy which were inappropriate, and possibly illegal. In the case of the Economist, this article, which didn’t refer to the kind of specifics that the Far Eastern Economic Review did, it was really considered prudent simply to withdraw the issue before it was circulated because of references to the monarchy. In the subsequent case involving allegations that the Anti-Money Laundering Office was used against media people and others who were critics of the current government, that one is not yet resolved. And I think that, while there has been an important decision to stop this investigation, the broader implications we don’t know yet. I think we have to see how that plays out.

USTBC :Investors are all sort of confused right now about Thailand. In one instance, Calpers pulls out, in another Cerebrus says its time to buy assets. How is the investment climate right now in Thailand?

Ambassador Johnson : I think the investment climate is actually quite promising, and in that regard I have a lot of questions of course about the Calpers decision because it was portrayed in Thailand as having to day with human rights violations. I said to myself that there must be something wrong with this. And by looking more thoroughly at what Calpers said and what the Wilshire Associates said, it’s clear that it has much more to do with transparency and financial sector reform and various other things. And the other thing not to be ignored is that this was a region-wide decision not unique to Thailand. I am hoping that the follow-up meeting that the Thais are having with Calpers and others now will help to explain things and to highlight those sectors where investment may be more attractive. My sense is that for most kinds of investment, whether they are mutual fund types are specific targeted investments, Thailand is a good place to invest. It’s a good domestic market, the currency is solid, the political system is stable, and it’s regional links are good. I think that’s the reason that Ford and GM decided that Thailand was a good place establish their manufacturing plants.

USTBC :The Tropical Forest Conservation Agreement, why do you think that it fell through in the end?

Ambassador Johnson : You know, I have to say that I really don’t know. I’ve been interviewed several times about this by the Thai press, and each time I’ve expressed surprise and disappointment. But, I have to assume that it’s because of some major misunderstanding about what was actually in the agreement. There were allegations about things having to do with the Kyoto Protocol’s credit, which has absolutely zero relevance to this agreement. There were other things about U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers making use of genetic materials that they would find in the Thai forests. This is all completely make believe. I don’t know where it’s coming from. I mean, I just have to assume that there is a certain assumption, at least in some circles, that we must be up to no-good. On the face of it, this is an agreement that conservationists and pro-environment groups in Thailand should have loved. It’s an absolutely wonderful agreement, or it would have been. But, frankly, it’s gone on too long now, and there’s too much conflict. There’s no point in continuing. We’ve decided and they’ve decided, I think that it’s not worth pursuing.

USTBC :So it’s a dead letter?

Ambassador Johnson : Yes, it’s gone.

USTBC :Just as a final summary question: You’ve been in Thailand for a couple of months now, and you have a long time ahead. What do you see as your two main U.S. policy objectives in Thailand for your term?

Ambassador Johnson : I would say in the short term, it’s to make sure that the cooperation on counter-terrorism remains strong and, in fact, grows even stronger. This has lots of facets, and I think in the coming couple of months when we have the Cobra Gold exercises there will be a counter-terrorism piece to that now. There is a lot more that can be done and is being done, and this will certainly be at the top of the list for the coming year, at least. If we’re looking at five years or four years or however long I might be there, then I think we need to look more broadly at generally improving the tone and the climate of the relationship. That involves visits back and forth, it includes greater understanding and more public diplomacy (for example more outreach programs). Frankly, we need to do a better job of getting our message out. I think part of the reason we are misunderstood is because programs which in the past provided those kinds of services through, what used to be USIA for example, through AID or other programs, these things have been cut back. It’s a very foolish kind of economy that brings this kind of thing about. We need more programs in public diplomacy in Thailand, not fewer. So, I am certainly from an operational standpoint, going to work to make that happen. But, it’s basically a successful relationship to begin with. I think that’s the important point: it really is a successful relationship. So, yes there are bumps; we have things like the Forestry Agreement, we have other things like the jasmine rice issue from a few months ago. But basically, this is against the backdrop of a very solid and mutually supportive relationship. It’s healthy, we want to keep it healthy, and we want to make it healthier, and that’s the challenge that I look forward to.