The immediate context surrounding the bilateral meeting between Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow and Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, held during the APEC Economic Leaders’ Week, offers a microcosm of this strategic positioning. Senator Wong’s expression of condolences regarding the passing of Queen Sirikit, while a standard diplomatic gesture, served a dual purpose. It allowed Australia to demonstrate its longstanding relationship with Thailand – a relationship crucial for trade and security – while simultaneously reinforcing Thailand’s narrative of stability and tradition. This aligns with Thailand’s broader strategy of portraying itself as a regional anchor, particularly in the face of global instability.
However, the substance of the discussions – promoting economic cooperation, discussing the Mekong subregion, and addressing the Myanmar issue – highlights the fundamental tensions driving Thailand’s foreign policy. The “Myanmar issue,” specifically, reveals the central dilemma. Thailand, a key transit route for humanitarian aid destined for internally displaced persons in Myanmar, finds itself increasingly implicated in the ongoing conflict and the subsequent refugee crisis. Thailand’s approach, largely dictated by the need to maintain positive relations with the military junta, has been criticized internationally for prioritizing economic considerations over human rights and security concerns. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, “Thailand’s reluctance to explicitly condemn the regime and its continued engagement with Naypyidaw is effectively legitimizing the junta and undermining regional efforts to promote a political solution.”
Furthermore, Thailand’s relationship with Cambodia, marked by protracted border disputes and concerns over Cambodian incursions into Thai territory, adds another layer of complexity. While Thailand has employed diplomatic channels to manage the situation – including deploying troops and engaging in dialogue – the underlying tensions persist, fueled by historical grievances and overlapping claims. Recent clashes along the border in September 2024, though relatively contained, underscore the fragility of the situation and the potential for escalation. “The Thai military’s response, viewed by some observers as disproportionate,” noted Dr. Chai Anantapol, a specialist in Thai foreign policy at Chulalongkorn University, “further complicates regional stability and demonstrates a willingness to employ hard power to assert Thai sovereignty.”
The government’s “5S” foreign affairs masterplan – Stability, Security, Service, Sustainability, and Synergy – is largely interpreted as an attempt to project strength and control within the Mekong region. This involves bolstering its defense capabilities, expanding its economic influence through initiatives like the Chiang Saen Development Triangle Initiative (CSDTI), and fostering closer ties with neighboring countries. However, this ambitious undertaking is being hampered by internal political instability, fueled by the ongoing protests and constitutional crisis. The government’s attempts to quell dissent, utilizing increasingly restrictive measures, have eroded public trust and created a climate of fear, impacting Thailand’s ability to effectively engage in regional diplomacy.
Looking ahead, Thailand’s Mekong pivot appears poised to become even more crucial in the coming six months. The situation in Myanmar is unlikely to stabilize, presenting Thailand with ongoing challenges related to refugee management and the potential for spillover effects. The upcoming elections in Thailand, scheduled for the first half of 2026, will undoubtedly shape the nation’s foreign policy agenda. A change in government could lead to a significant shift in Thailand’s approach to the region, potentially towards a more assertive or, conversely, a more conciliatory stance. Longer-term, over the next 5-10 years, Thailand’s ability to navigate the geopolitical currents of the Mekong region will be inextricably linked to its ability to resolve internal political divisions and demonstrate a commitment to democratic principles. Failure to do so will not only undermine Thailand’s regional influence but also exacerbate instability throughout Southeast Asia. The “synergy” element of the 5S plan is proving particularly difficult to realize given the current internal political climate, and achieving this will be pivotal to long-term regional stability.