Thailand’s Princess as WIPO Envoy Masks Deeper Power Plays
Royal accolades, international organizations, sustainable development — the pieces seem innocuous, almost charmingly archaic. But tucked within this news story about Princess Sirivannavari Nariratana Rajakanya being named a WIPO Ambassador for Design and Fashion lies a carefully constructed tableau, one that reveals far more about the global power dynamics of cultural capital than it does about design itself. The question isn’t whether this is good — it’s what this ritual says about the machinery that orchestrates these moments, and whose interests that machinery ultimately serves.
The Bangkok Post reports that the Princess’s appointment is tied to her “creative achievements and commitment to promoting intellectual property as a tool for sustainable community and global development.” Deputy Commerce Minister Suchart Chomklin emphasizes her role in preserving and promoting Thai textiles. And while the stated aim — safeguarding cultural heritage — is commendable, framing it through the language of intellectual property exposes a deeper, and more troubling, agenda. It raises fundamental questions: who decides what constitutes that heritage? Who owns it? And who truly profits from its protection?
“This recognition is a source of national pride,” said Mr. Suchart.
Consider the historical context: Thailand’s monarchy, while deeply revered by many, exists within a precariously balanced political environment. The 2014 coup, for example, demonstrated the military’s willingness to intervene in civilian governance, a reality the monarchy can’t ignore. A 2022 Chatham House briefing highlights the monarchy’s ongoing influence, which inevitably shapes policies around cultural preservation and economic development. Awarding titles to royals is therefore not merely ceremonial. It’s a calculated act of image management, carefully calibrating the monarchy’s image with global institutions like WIPO. It’s a strategic choreography that reinforces existing power structures, both domestically and within the global order.
This points to a broader trend: the weaponization of intellectual property as a tool for national branding and soft power projection. Nations are increasingly engaged in a global charm offensive, strategically deploying cultural products — textiles, design, AI technologies — to amplify their global influence. As Joseph Nye famously argued in his theory on the topic, the true value lies in attraction, in shaping the perceptions of others, rather than brute force. But attraction requires careful cultivation, and in the 21st century, that often means strategically leveraging IP.
The rise of AI and data centers in Thailand adds another layer of complexity. WIPO Director-General Daren Tang’s visit also included discussions on leveraging technology for economic growth, including a potential pilot project using intellectual property as collateral for financial funding. But who will have access to that funding? And on what terms? As economist Daron Acemoglu has argued, technological progress isn’t inherently equitable; it requires careful policy design to prevent further concentration of wealth and power. The risk is clear: turning IP into collateral could easily become another mechanism for transferring wealth upwards, further marginalizing already vulnerable populations.
Moreover, intellectual property rights, particularly when wielded by powerful actors, can become instruments of exclusion, stifling innovation rather than fostering it. Research by legal scholar Madhavi Sunder reveals how IP regimes can reinforce existing power imbalances, making it harder for smaller businesses and local artisans to compete. The “Pha Thai Sai Hai Sanook” initiative, while ostensibly promoting Thai textiles, could inadvertently create a legal thicket, leading to costly IP disputes that disproportionately harm smaller players. This highlights a recurring pattern: seemingly benevolent initiatives, when filtered through the lens of IP, often serve to consolidate existing power structures.
Ultimately, this news story is less about Princess Sirivannavari as an individual, and more about the intricate web of power in which she is entangled. It’s a system where cultural preservation, intellectual property, and national pride are strategically interwoven, creating opportunities for both celebration and constriction. The challenge, then, isn’t to simply applaud the promotion of Thai culture. It’s to critically examine the machinery that enables it, ensuring that the benefits of innovation and cultural preservation are truly shared, and not simply hoarded by those already in power. This is not about good intentions; it is about understanding the incentives and unintended consequences of a system operating precisely as designed.
