The historical context of Thailand’s relationship with Myanmar dates back centuries, interwoven with trade, cultural exchange, and, unfortunately, periods of conflict. The establishment of the Shan States, historically contested between Siam and Burma (as Myanmar was then known), highlighted territorial disputes and established a pattern of engagement punctuated by periods of tension. The 1948 Panglong Agreement, establishing a unified Burma, remains a symbolic point of reference in Thai-Burmese relations, though its relevance has significantly diminished in the post-coup era. Treaties like the 1961 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation further cemented economic ties, primarily focused on trade and investment, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing. The legacy of these relationships, alongside shared Buddhist traditions, shapes Thailand’s current stance, deeply rooted in a desire for stability and cooperation.
Key stakeholders in this volatile situation are numerous. Myanmar’s military junta, led by General Min Aung Hlaing, remains the central actor, prioritizing regime survival and resisting external pressure. ASEAN, spearheaded by Indonesia and the Philippines, seeks a unified approach, hampered by internal divisions over the level of engagement with Myanmar. The United Nations, particularly the Special Envoy, Julie Bishop, continues to advocate for humanitarian access and a negotiated settlement, though its influence is significantly constrained by the junta’s intransigence. Crucially, neighboring countries – particularly China and India – are increasingly vying for influence in a power vacuum, presenting both opportunities and potential complications for Thailand. Data from the International Crisis Group highlights a significant increase in Chinese investment and military support to Myanmar, while India is emphasizing a ‘humanitarian’ approach, reflecting differing strategic calculations. “The fundamental challenge for Thailand is balancing its historical commitment to stability with the undeniable human rights abuses occurring within Myanmar,” states Dr. Pongsak Rukkamas, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Policy Analysis, “The current approach, prioritizing engagement while condemning the violence, is a delicate balancing act – one that risks being perceived as tacit approval.”
Recent developments over the past six months paint a grim picture. Continued clashes between the military and resistance groups, particularly in Sagaing and Kachin states, have led to a dramatic surge in internal displacement, creating a massive humanitarian crisis. The junta’s attempts to consolidate control, including the implementation of increasingly draconian laws and restrictions on freedom of movement, have further isolated Myanmar. In November 2023, ASEAN failed to reach a consensus on a formal statement condemning the violence, a significant setback for regional diplomacy. Furthermore, the continued flow of arms into Myanmar, allegedly facilitated by China, underscores the deep fissures within the international community. According to reports from the Bangkok Post, Thailand has been quietly working to prevent any overt support for the armed resistance, seeking to maintain a degree of neutrality, though its influence is demonstrably limited. The recent arrest of several Thai nationals allegedly involved in illegal trade routes further complicates the situation, raising concerns about Thailand’s own vulnerability to illicit activities.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) likely will see a continuation of the current stalemate, with sporadic violence, mounting humanitarian needs, and continued divisions within ASEAN. Thailand will likely maintain its “bridge-building” role, attempting to facilitate discreet communication between the junta and various actors, including the UN, but without fundamentally altering the regime’s trajectory. Longer-term (5-10 years), the most plausible scenario remains a protracted civil conflict, potentially escalating into a regional security challenge, dependent on internal dynamics within Myanmar and the external response. The risk of a full-scale conflict spilling over into neighboring countries – particularly India and Bangladesh – is a significant concern. Dr. Arun Rai, Senior Analyst at the Southeast Asia Foundation, predicts, “Without a genuine political transition, Thailand’s strategy of incremental engagement will ultimately prove ineffective. The underlying drivers of instability – ethnic grievances, economic inequality, and the junta’s authoritarianism – remain unaddressed, and the Mandala of stability within ASEAN is increasingly at risk.” The continued volatility presents a significant impediment to Thailand’s own economic development, particularly its ambitions for attracting foreign investment and diversifying its export markets.
Thailand’s strategy—a cautious, pragmatic approach prioritizing stability—faces a critical juncture. The ongoing crisis in Myanmar demonstrates the limitations of diplomatic engagement in the face of authoritarianism. Maintaining a credible commitment to human rights and supporting genuine efforts towards a peaceful resolution requires a recalibration of Thailand’s approach. A truly effective strategy will demand a renewed commitment to supporting ASEAN’s collective voice, while simultaneously addressing the root causes of instability within Myanmar. Ultimately, the future of Thailand’s relationship with Myanmar, and indeed the stability of Southeast Asia, hinges on a fundamental shift in the balance of power within the country itself. The question remains: can Thailand—and the broader international community—find a way to compel a meaningful dialogue, or will the fractured mandala continue to unravel?