James W. Pfister: Thai Triangle: the U.S. vs. China

Thailand, formerly Siam, grew out of the movement of peoples south from Yunan China around 600 A.D. They eventually set up a kingdom at Sukhotai in 1238 A.D. Rama Khamheng founded the government. “The linch-pin of Rama Khamheng’s policy was the maintenance of the most cordial relations with China.” (D.G.E. Hall, “A History of South-East Asia,” 1981). China, I believe, never attacked the Thai, unlike its attacks on the Burmese and the Vietnamese. Many Chinese were assimilated into Thai society over the centuries. The major Thai enemy was Burma, not China.

My thesis is that China is about to replace the United States as the partner of the Thai. This is only natural, since China is emerging as the most powerful state in the region and is geographically proximate. Thailand tends to align itself with the most powerful state in the region, and to thereby maintain its independence.

The Thai are very adaptable to the international relations environment. In the 19th century they adapted to Western colonialism. King Mongkut (Rama IV), who knew English and Western science, entered into the Bowring Treaty in 1855, giving many concessions to Britain. Other Western countries followed with similar trade deals, including the United States (the U.S. trading relationship goes back at least to 1833). Thailand was the only state in Southeast Asia not to be colonized by a European state. They accommodated themselves to the West, being like a reed in the wind, not a tree that could be broken in the wind.

Thailand aligned itself with Japan during World War II, even declared war on the United States and Britain, although lawyer Seni Pramoj went to Washington, D.C., as leader of the Free Thai Movement. When the war was over, there was a coup and Seni Pramoj greeted the United States as the new prime minister. The Thai declaration of war on the United States was forgiven.

During the Cold War, the Thai aligned themselves with the United States. The close relationship with Thailand may have been the basis in the domino theory for the American defense of South Vietnam. Thailand was the only Mainland Southeast Asian state to join the U.S.-led Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), an anti-communist defense treaty. Even though SEATO dissolved in 1977, the Manila Pact commitment remained in force. The 2020 Joint Vision Statement for the Thai-U.S. Alliance is the foundation of the U.S.-Thai defense alliance today. (Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, May 4, 2021). In 2003, the United States “designated Thailand a major non-NATO Ally.” (Ibid.).

Thailand is expected to have an election this May 14th, but do not expect the election to be beyond the military’s control. (The Editorial Board, The Washington Post, April 12, 2023). “Bangkok has grown tired of Washington’s chiding over democratic backsliding and human rights abuses…” (Jack Detsch, “Washington Worries China is Winning Over Thailand,” Foreign Policy, June 17, 2022).

In recent years, China has become a leading trading partner. Thailand has purchased Chinese military equipment, and China’s premier has addressed the Thai parliament, the first foreign national ever to do so. Xi Jinping said on a trip to Bangkok last November: “China and Thailand are as close as one family.” (CGTN, Nov. 20, 2022). The two had established diplomatic relations in 1975, interestingly, the year South Vietnam fell.

The United States relationship had the logic of our forward containment policy regarding communism. Those days are over, a relic of the Vietnam era. We can expect Thailand to adjust to a new international environment, as it did in the 19th century and during World War II. Our Cold War relationship with Thailand was such an adjustment. China is now dominant.

It is likely China will dominate Thailand’s world. The United States’ influence will eclipse. As the saying goes, it is better to have loved and lost – much better. The new balance of power in Asia does not require the United States to defend any Mainland Southeast Asian state, nor should it. The United States should pursue a policy of deference to Mainland Southeast Asia, except for trade and tourism. The Thai will adjust to the new world order, as a reed in the wind, and survive.

James W. Pfister, J.D. University of Toledo, Ph.D. University of Michigan (political science), retired after 46 years in the Political Science Department at Eastern Michigan University. He lives at Devils Lake and can be reached at jpfister@emich.edu. 

This article originally appeared on The Daily Telegram: James Pfister: Thai Triangle: the U.S. vs. China