Content area
Full Text
This research article examines how domestic politics has affected Thailand's engagement with the United States and China since the 2014 military coup. It argues that Thai conservative elites, primarily the military, perceive the United States as a threat to their political legitimacy because of Washington's emphasis on human rights and democracy. In contrast, they appreciate Beijing's commitment to noninterference while increased economic ties with China strengthen their domestic legitimacy. Although Thailand's foreign policy underwent an adjustment following the 2019 general elections, with Bangkok and Washington reaffirming their security ties, Thai policymakers continue to perceive China as a more dependable partner and think they must reassure Beijing that they are not aligned with the alleged US goal of containing China.
Keywords: Thai domestic politics, foreign policy, great power competition, US-Thai relations, Sino-Thai relations.
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.