"Bamboo Stuck in the Chinese Wind": The Continuing Significance of the China Factor in Thailand's Foreign Policy Orientation.

• Date: 01 April 2024
• Author: Busbarat, Pongphisoot

According to Arne Kislenko, Thai diplomacy is "always solidly rooted, but flexible enough to be whichever way the wind blows to survive". (1) Hence the moniker "bamboo diplomacy". Through such statesmanship, Thai policymakers have navigated great power rivalries over the centuries by pursuing policies that, while negatively impacting the country in the short term, work towards broader goals of preserving Thailand's independence and autonomy. Bangkok employed various diplomatic tactics in the late nineteenth century to balance competing European colonial powers against one another, accommodating some of their demands for territorial expansion into Thailand's periphery in return for Bangkok preserving its control over the bulk of the country. As such, Thailand was the only Southeast Asian country that avoided outright colonization by a European power. In recent decades, Bangkok has had to attempt another balancing act because of the intensifying US-China strategic competition.

Domestic politics have played a key role in determining Thailand's response. Political fragmentation since the mid-2000s--a political struggle between a royalist-conservative coalition and progressives since the military coup that toppled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's democratically-elected government in 2006--has shaped each successive government's foreign policy direction. On the one hand, an unstable political system at home has distracted Thai policymakers from foreign affairs, meaning they have primarily been reactive, not proactive, to the pressure exerted on them by China and the United States. On the other hand, ruling elites have prioritized their own domestic legitimacy and survival when responding to external concerns.

The existing literature has attempted to elucidate a general pattern in Thai foreign policy behaviour, primarily by looking for continuity between successive governments (democratically elected or military-run). These studies can be divided into two main groups. The first contends that Bangkok continues its traditional foreign policy behaviour--"bamboo bending with the wind"--to balance external power. (2) The second doubts Thailand's maintenance of this bamboo diplomacy and instead argues that it has increasingly leaned towards China. (3)

"Bending with the wind" presupposes that Thailand has two corollary foreign policy goals. In its relations with great powers, policymakers think maintaining a balanced position safeguards national sovereignty and independence. Thus, Bangkok should be flexible in accommodating the demands of external powers so long as the country's vital interests are not compromised. At the same time, balancing multiple powers creates a competitive environment, maximizing the potential rewards Thailand can reap from interactions with foreign powers. Much of the existing literature on this topic explores how bamboo diplomacy functioned during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when Siam (as Thailand was called before 1939) proactively managed the competing interests of competing European colonial powers. For instance, Siam invited the European states to contribute to its modernization programmes but, at the same time, counterbalanced each of their colonial ambitions against one another. (4)

According to the existing literature on this, flexibility and pragmatism are key. By allowing numerous powers a stake in Thailand, its policymakers could swiftly evaluate the external situation and adjust their policies to align more closely with whichever power they thought was prevailing. Despite having good relations with Imperial Germany, Siam entered the First World War on the side of the Allies, not Berlin's Central Powers. In fact, Siam only entered the war during its final year because Bangkok predicted an Allied victory, which, it reasoned, would give Siam a better position to renegotiate the unequal treaties it had previously been compelled to sign by the Allied countries. (5) Similarly, Siam remained neutral during the first two years of the Second World War but sided with Japan in 1941 after Tokyo's forces invaded much of the rest of Southeast Asia. However, it switched allegiance in the war's latter stages once it was clear that Japan was heading for defeat. (6) During the early years of the Cold War, Thailand fully aligned with the United States to receive support from the West and in response to the perceived threat of communist expansion in Southeast Asia, yet Thailand also maintained contact with communist China and quietly encouraged cultural exchanges.

This historical pattern of foreign policy established normative guidelines for subsequent Thai policymakers to interpret, and much of the existing literature on Thai foreign affairs still aligns with the concept. Indeed, scholars argue that Thailand still bends towards the major power that can provide the most benefits while simultaneously diversifying cooperation with other powers for risk management. As this is usually defined in the post-Cold War era, Bangkok considers the United States its security guarantor and seeks improved relations with Beijing to benefit from China's growing economy. (7)

In many ways, Thailand's so-called bamboo diplomacy is much like the hedging strategies employed by other Southeast Asian states. While scholars differ on how to define "hedging", they generally agree that it means that smaller states pursue neither absolute balancing nor bandwagoning vis-a-vis great powers while also, in contrast to the presuppositions of neorealist theorists, adjusting their strategies according to their national interests. Put simply, they strengthen their political and economic ties with external powers while being cautious about losing their autonomy; they diversify their political and security partnerships to minimize dependency on any one power while engaging multiple external powers in political and security affairs, thus creating a balance that prevents any one power from dominating them. (8)

Although China has become a major economic partner in Thailand, Bangkok still wants to expand trade with as many markets as possible so that it does not become economically dependent on China. At the same time, although its treaty alliance with the United States remains a cornerstone of security, Bangkok does not want to rely solely on Washington for defence, so it increasingly engages in security cooperation with China. This strategy also serves to shield Bangkok from pressures exerted by Washington, especially in anticipation of periods of democratic and human rights deterioration in Thailand--when the United States is likely to constrain relations or impose sanctions--or when the United States' attention on Southeast Asia wanes, as was experienced in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s.

However, this research article concurs with a growing body of research that doubts whether Thailand has continued to exercise bamboo diplomacy (or hedging) because of China's rise. (9) Increased trade with China has undeniably contributed to Thailand's economic development, yet it has also increased Chinese influence and pressure on Bangkok, especially after the military coup in 2014. For instance, when Beijing did not invite Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha to the inaugural Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Summit in 2017, it was widely interpreted as a sign of China's frustration with the slow pace of the Thai-Chinese high-speed railway project. In response, Prayut took swift action and ordered any legal obstacles to be removed, which paved the way for the project to commence. (10) Meanwhile, Bangkok's reluctance since 2014 to cooperate with the United States, even on non-security issues, is driven by concerns that China will misinterpret such cooperation as Thailand aligning with Washington's alleged containment of China. (11)

This research article argues that deviation from Thailand's traditional bamboo diplomacy is the result of domestic politics, particularly the resurgence of the Thai military in politics since 2014. The military junta, formally the National Council for Peace and Order, that ruled between 2014 and 2019 suffered a crisis of legitimacy at home (and abroad), leading to a reciprocal accommodation of China, including in security, as Beijing offered political support to the Thai regime. (12) Hence, domestic variables should be considered as significant as structural determinants when analysing Thai foreign policy. (13) However, much of the existing literature that takes this perspective focuses on events between 2014 and 2019; few studies attempt to connect it with broader domestic transformations since the early 2000s. However, since the turn of the century, Thailand has sought to rebalance its foreign policy, but the process has been slow and inconsequential, which this article argues is because successive governments have overly focused on boosting their domestic legitimacy, including the legitimacy derived from rapid economic growth, which has required ever-greater assimilation with China's fast-growing economy. This article employs qualitative research, utilizing a diverse range of open-source documents and information for analysis. The primary sources include official websites of various government agencies, news reports and digital content, with a focus on materials from Thailand, China and the United States. Additionally, this study is enriched by interviews with Thai government officials and secondary sources from scholarly literature.

This article proceeds as follows. After reviewing the existing literature to establish a foundational understanding of Thailand's bamboo diplomacy, it discusses how regime legitimacy influences foreign policy decisions. The subsequent section explores the relevance of regime legitimacy in Thai foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. This period highlights the increasing significance of the China factor in Thailand's strategic considerations...