The United States has long been the “arsenal for democracy”. Additionally, it is conventionally argued that the U. S. can explain inaction on two grounds: first, a fine line separates support for a democratic movement and interference in the internal affairs of another country; and the risk of a confrontation with the Soviet Union is too great. This article challenges the dominant paradigm in the study of the U. S. foreign policy. By taking the U. S. response to the 1973 democratic uprising in Thailand as a case study, this article argues that the U. S. foreign policy did not always match rhetoric in spite of non-existence of those two conditions, suggesting that U. S. foreign policy studies need to refresh and update their analytical paradigm.
U. S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs.Political Situation in Thailand: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs. 93 Cong., 1st sess., (October 24, 1973)
2.
U. S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs.Our Commitments in Asia: Hearings before the Subcommittee in Asian and Pacific Affairs. 93d Cong., 2d. sess., (1974)
3.
U. S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations.U. S. Nonmilitary Assistance to Southeast Asia: Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. 93d Cong., 1st sess., (November, 1973)
4.
U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations.U. S. Commitments to SEATO: Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations on S.Res. 174, A Review of United States Commitment to the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty and Organization. 93d Cong., 2d sess., (March, 1974)
5.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Foreign Affairs Bulletin. Volumes 8 & 9
6.
Bangkok Post. Various issues from 1969–1976
7.
New York Times. Various issues from 1973–1976
8.
Washington Post. Various issues from 1973–1976
9.
CaldwellJ. AlexanderAmerican Economic Aid to Thailand. Massachusetts: Heath & Lexington, 1974
10.
GirlingJohn L. S.Thailand: Society and Politics. KahinGeorge Mct. ed. Politics and International Relations of Southeast Asia Series. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981
11.
HeinzeRuth-Inge. “Ten Days in October-Students vs. the Military”. Asian Survey14 (June 1974): 491–508
12.
IndorfHans H. ed. Thai-American Relations in Comtemporary Affairs. Singapore: Executive Publications1982
13.
KissingerHenryWhite House Years. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979
14.
MorellDavidSamudavanijaChai-ananPolitical Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution. Masachusetts: Olegeschlager, Gunn and Hain, 1981
15.
RaceJeffrey“Thailand in 1973: We Certainly Have Been Ravaged by Something”. Asian Survey14 (February 1974): 192–203
16.
RandolphR. SeanThe United States and Thailand: Alliance Dynamics, 1950–1985. Institute of East Asian Studies Research Papers and Policy Studies No. 12. California: University of California Institute of East Asian Studies, 1986
17.
ShawcrossWilliam“Legacy of a Revolt”. Far Eastern Economic Review (November 19 1973): 31–2
18.
SteinbergDavid I.“The Role of External Assistance in Thai Economic Development and Planning: Dichotomies of Security and Growth in the American AID Program”. JacksonKarl D.MungkandiWiwat eds. United States-Thailand Relations, Research and Policy Studies 20. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies1986. pp. 441–57
19.
StockwinHarvey“Thanat's Ostpolitik”. Far Eastern Economic Review (July 23 1973): 24–5
20.
ViksninsGeorge J.“United States Military Spending and the Economy of Thailand, 1967–1972”. Asian Survey13 (May 1973): 441–57
21.
ZimmermanRobert F.Reflections on the Collapse of Democracy in Thailand. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Occasional Papers Series No. 50, 1978
22.
ZimmermanRobert F.“Student ‘Revolution’ in Thailand: The End of Thai Bureaucratic Polity?”Asian Survey14 (June 1974): 509–29
23.
ZimmermanRobert F.“Thailand 1975: Transition to Constitutional Democracy Continues”. Asian Survey16 (February 1976): 159–72
