The initial response to the Myanmar crisis revealed a cautious approach, largely consistent with Thailand’s traditional emphasis on non-interference in internal affairs. However, the scale of the humanitarian crisis – the mass displacement of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh and the subsequent influx of Myanmar migrants into Thailand – forced a pragmatic shift. The government, under pressure from international organizations like the UNHCR and neighboring countries, implemented measures to provide humanitarian aid and manage border security. This operational response, however, was immediately overshadowed by the more profound strategic implications. The junta’s continued aggression, including the targeting of civilian areas and the recruitment of foreign fighters, created a powerful incentive for Thailand to strengthen its ties with countries offering alternative security guarantees.
India has emerged as a key strategic partner. Following several high-level meetings, including the recent exchange of views with academia as detailed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release, Bangkok significantly increased engagement with New Delhi. The rationale is multifaceted. Firstly, India has demonstrated a more vocal and assertive stance against the Myanmar junta, including imposing sanctions and calling for a return to democracy. Secondly, Thailand recognizes India’s growing strategic influence in Southeast Asia and views closer collaboration as a means of mitigating its own vulnerability. The focus on connectivity – particularly the potential for enhanced trade routes and infrastructure projects linking South Asia and Southeast Asia – reflects a long-standing Thai ambition. Data from the Asian Development Bank indicates a sustained increase in infrastructure investment in Thailand, partially driven by this collaboration. The crisis has amplified existing discussions within the Thai government regarding the strategic importance of the Andaman Sea and the potential for leveraging Thailand’s maritime position.
Conversely, Thailand’s relationship with China has remained complex. While Beijing has offered rhetorical support for ASEAN’s efforts to mediate the crisis, its actual actions have been far more restrained. China’s economic ties with Myanmar – particularly its investments in resource extraction – remain significant, creating a diplomatic tension. The situation in Myanmar represents a potential economic risk for Thailand, given its own dependence on trade with the country. Recent reports from the International Monetary Fund show a slight contraction in Thai exports to Myanmar, a trend likely to continue.
The ASEAN response, traditionally characterized by consensus-based decision-making, has been deeply fractured. The junta’s rejection of ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus has severely undermined the bloc’s credibility and effectiveness. Thailand, as the current ASEAN chair, has been tasked with navigating this impasse, but its influence has been limited by the divisions among member states. The principle of “non-interference,” a cornerstone of ASEAN diplomacy, has been repeatedly challenged, exposing the inherent limitations of the organization’s approach to conflict resolution. Analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggests that the ASEAN chair’s role has been largely symbolic, highlighting the challenges of enforcing collective action within a framework predicated on mutual respect for sovereignty.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next six months) is likely to be dominated by continued efforts to manage the humanitarian crisis and prevent further regional instability. Thailand will likely continue to strengthen its security cooperation with India, potentially expanding military exercises and intelligence sharing. However, the long-term (5–10 years) outlook is significantly more uncertain. The Myanmar crisis represents a fundamental test of Thailand’s ability to shape its regional role. Maintaining a balance between its strategic interests—particularly its burgeoning relationship with India—and its commitment to ASEAN unity will be crucial. The potential for protracted conflict in Myanmar, coupled with the ongoing humanitarian crisis, will continue to exert pressure on Thailand’s foreign policy. A critical factor will be the trajectory of the democratic movement within Myanmar and the eventual outcome of the military junta’s control. Ultimately, Thailand’s strategic success will hinge on its ability to navigate the complexities of the crisis while simultaneously promoting regional stability and security. The interplay of these factors indicates a potential era of increased regional competition and a reshaping of Southeast Asian alliances.