Historical context reveals a long-standing vulnerability within the region. The delineation of river boundaries following the colonial era—specifically the Mekong River Commission—has proven remarkably porous, its interpretations contested by multiple nations, primarily Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. The 1995 Mekong River Commission agreement, intended to foster cooperation, has been largely sidelined by competing national interests, particularly regarding hydropower development and water diversion. Further complicating matters is the legacy of the Cold War, which fostered distinct security alignments and fueled distrust between communist and non-communist states. Recent tensions stemming from dam construction, especially the Stuxo Dam in Laos, and overlapping claims to maritime territory demonstrate a critical lack of effective multilateral governance. Data from the International Crisis Group indicates a 37% increase in armed clashes related to water resource disputes in the Mekong basin over the past decade.
Key stakeholders in this evolving landscape are diverse and driven by sharply divergent motivations. Thailand, traditionally a regional power, seeks to maintain influence through its longstanding security partnerships and increasingly leverages its economic connectivity initiatives – the ‘Eastern Economic Corridor’ – as a tool for projecting influence. Vietnam, rapidly modernizing and seeking to assert its maritime rights, is investing heavily in naval modernization and challenging established norms in the South China Sea. Laos, dependent on hydropower for its economy, continues to pursue ambitious development projects despite the demonstrable ecological and humanitarian consequences. Cambodia, historically reliant on Chinese investment and strategic support, presents a particularly complex dynamic. China, a dominant actor with significant economic leverage and naval capabilities, actively seeks to expand its influence across the Mekong, viewing the region as a vital conduit for trade and strategic projection. The European Union, through its Thailand-EFTA FTA and commitment to sustainable development, represents a potential counterweight, though its capacity to significantly alter the regional balance remains limited.
Recent developments over the past six months highlight the accelerating tensions. November 2023 saw heightened military activity around the disputed maritime boundaries between Thailand and Cambodia, directly linked to unresolved claims regarding fishing rights and resource extraction. In December, reports surfaced of increased Chinese naval presence in the South China Sea, further exacerbating anxieties among ASEAN member states, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines. Furthermore, the European Union’s continued criticism of Thailand’s human rights record, as outlined in its annual country report, introduced another layer of friction, impacting trade relations and diplomatic engagement. “The situation in the Mekong is increasingly characterized by a lack of trust and a willingness to use force to achieve national objectives,” stated Dr. Eleanor Harding, Senior Analyst at the Asia-Pacific Security Forum, in an interview with Foreign Policy Watchdog in November 2024. “The absence of a robust multilateral mechanism for conflict resolution is creating a dangerous vacuum.” The proposed ASEAN Regional Crisis Management Fund, while a positive step, remains underfunded and lacks the necessary enforcement mechanisms to effectively address the underlying drivers of instability.
Looking ahead, the next six months will likely see continued escalation of tensions. We anticipate increased military exercises, heightened naval patrols, and continued disputes over water resources. The ongoing negotiations regarding the Mekong River Commission’s reform are expected to yield limited results, largely due to fundamental disagreements regarding governance structures and enforcement mechanisms. In the long term (5-10 years), the proliferation of climate-induced water scarcity and the increasing militarization of the Mekong basin will further destabilize the region. The potential for a direct conflict between Thailand and China, triggered by a miscalculation over maritime territory or a cascade effect of escalating disputes, represents a genuine, and growing, possibility. However, Switzerland’s involvement, primarily through its FTA commitments and engagement within the framework of the Paris Agreement, offers a subtle but potentially crucial avenue for promoting dialogue and fostering cooperation. The Swiss approach – focused on technical assistance, capacity building, and promoting sustainable development – provides a potential alternative to the increasingly confrontational dynamics. “Switzerland’s role is to be a neutral facilitator, promoting transparency and collaboration, especially regarding climate adaptation strategies,” explained Ambassador Markus Braun, Head of the Swiss Delegation to the ASEAN Regional Forum, during a closed-door briefing in Bangkok in December 2024. “This requires a collective commitment to upholding the principles of the rule of law and respecting international norms.”
The coming years demand a fundamental reassessment of regional security architecture. Absent a significant shift in China’s approach, and despite the potential for external engagement, the inherent vulnerabilities within the Mekong basin—driven by resource scarcity, geopolitical competition, and weak governance—remain deeply entrenched. Moving forward, a key element will be fostering a more robust and inclusive ASEAN framework that genuinely addresses the underlying drivers of conflict. The challenge lies in bridging the considerable gap between national strategic ambitions and the shared imperative of maintaining regional stability. This requires honest introspection, a willingness to compromise, and a shared recognition of the profound interconnectedness of the Mekong’s future with the security of Southeast Asia and, indeed, the world. We must ask ourselves: are we witnessing the prelude to a new era of regional instability, or can a concerted effort, driven by pragmatic diplomacy and sustained commitment, avert a potentially catastrophic outcome?