The GMS, established in 1992 with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as its Secretariat, represents a significant, if somewhat dated, model for sub-regional economic cooperation. Originally conceived to address infrastructure deficits and promote trade, the GMS has achieved demonstrable successes, particularly in transportation connectivity. However, the past six months have exposed several vulnerabilities. China’s ascendance as a global economic power and, crucially, its increased engagement with the GMS, particularly through Yunnan Province and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus. China’s investments in infrastructure and its broader economic influence within the region are viewed with increasing skepticism by some member states, particularly given concerns over water resource management, specifically the potential impact of Chinese dam construction on the Mekong’s flow.
Thailand’s approach, as articulated during the conference, reflects a desire to maintain its central role while acknowledging these shifts. The three proposed strategic priorities – addressing transnational crime, managing water resources, and advancing transport connectivity – are undeniably pressing issues. Transnational crime, encompassing drug trafficking and human smuggling, remains a persistent challenge, exacerbated by the region’s porous borders and weak governance structures in certain areas. Water management is arguably the most contentious, with China’s hydropower projects seen as a potential threat to downstream nations’ access to water resources and fisheries. As Dr. David Yu, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted in a recent analysis, “Thailand’s ability to effectively negotiate with China on water-sharing arrangements will be a defining test of its leadership within the GMS.”
Furthermore, Thailand’s emphasis on seamless connectivity, encapsulated by the full implementation of the Cross-Border Transport Agreement (CBTA), is intended to bolster regional trade and integration. However, bureaucratic hurdles, lack of investment in border infrastructure, and divergent regulatory frameworks continue to impede progress. The conference highlighted the need for greater private sector involvement and local government engagement, aiming to mobilize financial resources and promote innovation. This focus on public-private partnerships aligns with a broader trend in Southeast Asia, reflecting a recognition of the limitations of state-led development models.
Beyond China, other regional frameworks—ACMECS (ASEAN-China Economic Cooperation), the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC), IMT-GT (Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle), and BIMSTEC (Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India)—are creating overlapping areas of influence. Thailand’s strategy is attempting to integrate these frameworks, creating synergies rather than competing with them. However, the relative influence of these frameworks, and Thailand’s position within them, remains fluid.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) will likely see continued efforts to secure investment in GMS infrastructure projects, with a greater emphasis on sustainable development and environmental safeguards. Negotiations with China regarding water resource management are expected to remain difficult, potentially leading to further diplomatic friction. The potential for increased geopolitical competition, driven by China’s assertive foreign policy and the growing involvement of other external actors – such as Russia and, to a lesser extent, the United States – represents a significant long-term (5-10 years) challenge. Maintaining GMS relevance will require a nuanced approach, one that balances economic cooperation with strategic diplomacy. It demands that Thailand proactively shape regional norms, foster deeper ties with other key players, and address the underlying vulnerabilities within the GMS framework. The capacity for Thailand to navigate this increasingly complex landscape will determine whether the Mekong’s currents continue to flow towards prosperity or become a source of regional instability.