Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

China is a big winner from Thailand’s coup

Reading Time: 5 mins

In Brief

While the recent military coup in Thailand has drawn much of the world’s attention to the military junta’s suppression of democracy and human rights, it also has far-reaching geopolitical implications for the whole of Southeast Asia.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

At the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore two weeks ago, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was uncharacteristically blunt when speaking about the situation in Thailand, calling on the junta to release detainees, end the censorship of the media and to ‘immediately hold general elections’. His comments came a day after coup leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha had laid out his roadmap for political reform, with elections ‘within fifteen months’.

Earlier, a spokesperson for the US State Department had declared that it would use ‘every political lever, economic lever where applicable’ to pressure the military regime to return Thailand to democratic rule.

Thailand has long enjoyed close relations with the United States. During the Cold War it was one of the staunchest US allies in Southeast Asia. But many Thai royalists now feel that the US has abandoned them.

After Kristie Kenney, the US Ambassador to Thailand, criticised the coup, a social media campaign among Thai royalists began — calling for the ambassador to be recalled to Washington.

Khunying Songsuda Yodmani, daughter of former pro-US military dictator Thanom Kittikachorn, also blasted the United States for ‘meddling’ in Thailand’s affairs and called on the US State Department to ‘respect its allies and treat them as equals rather than its colonies’.

The souring of relations between Thailand’s royalist establishment and the United States dates back to 2012, when President Obama visited Thailand and expressed strong support for the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra, sister of exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It appeared that the United States had shifted its support away from the Palace–military alliance, which has long dominated the country’s politics, to the Thaksin camp.

Last month’s coup therefore represents a slap in the face for the US.

A rocky period in Thai–US relations might seem of little consequence were it not for the escalating tensions between the US, China and other Southeast Asian nations over China’s increasingly assertive actions in the South China Sea.

At precisely the moment that the US wants ASEAN to present a united front, Thailand’s royalist establishment now appears to be looking to play the ‘China card’ as a rebuff to the United States. Were Thailand, under its new military regime, to shift its strategic allegiance this would have region-wide implications. But would the monarchy–military alliance abandon its US patrons after 60 years? And would it abandon them for China?

While it is true that Thailand has longstanding military, diplomatic, educational and cultural ties with the US, historically the Thais have been willing to radically switch foreign policy allegiances in times of crisis.

In the second half of the 19th century, Thailand ended its centuries-old tributary relationship with imperial China and accepted the hegemony of the rising British Empire. Under the republican-minded prime minister Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram, following Japan’s invasion of Thailand in December 1941, the government switched Thailand’s allegiance to the Japanese — an ill-fated decision, as it turned out.

Thailand’s Princesses Sirindhorn and Chulabhorn — both of whom are believed to have supported the royalist protesters wanting to oust the Yingluck government — have long been cultivating close relations with China. Both visit China regularly.

As Geoff Wade points out, since the 2006 coup, links between the Thai and Chinese have ‘burgeoned’, including military links.

Thailand’s military leadership visited Beijing between 11-13 June to consult with their Chinese counterparts on ‘closer cooperation in military affairs, training, and weaponry development’. According to the conservative Thai newspaper Naew Na, sources in the Ministry of Defence noted that, ‘China regarded Thailand’s political problems as an internal issue, and that China would not interfere’. And, at a meeting with Chinese businesses and investors on 6 June, coup leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha announced that Thailand was now a ‘partner of China at every level’.

For China’s part, given its deteriorating relations with Vietnam, and the warming of US relations with Myanmar, a closer military relationship with Thailand would seem an attractive option. The official Chinese Communist Party newspaper, the People’s Daily, recently appeared to obliquely express support for the new regime, claiming that ‘Western-style democracy’ had led Thailand astray.

Does China have enough confidence in Thailand’s ultra-royalist regime to bet that it will survive in the medium-to-long term? China would be conscious of the uncertainty surrounding the imminent royal succession. Ironically, a democratic, pro-Thaksin government might offer the Chinese a safer bet. Thaksin has also spoken in the past of his close relations with the Chinese leadership. Presumably the US and Europe will continue to ratchet up the pressure on the junta, including perhaps even sanctions. One could imagine how much stronger this pressure would be if the junta looked to be ‘going over’ to China, given the stakes involved in East Asia’s regional security.

If, having been censured by the US and other Western countries, the military regime does try to cultivate China’s support, Thailand may also find itself isolated within Southeast Asia — which is increasingly alarmed by China’s actions in the South China Sea.

Thailand’s military regime faces a tough choice and the stakes are now higher than ever for Thailand’s royalist establishment.

Patrick Jory is Senior Lecturer in Southeast Asian History at the University of Queensland.

6 responses to “China is a big winner from Thailand’s coup”

  1. “It appeared that the United States had shifted its support away from the Palace–military alliance, which has long dominated the country’s politics, to the Thaksin camp.”

    I don’t think the US purposely shifted its support to Thaksin camp. If the Democrats won the election fairly, the US would probably support them too. I think it’s important to point this out as there are many Thais believe in this conspiracy that many US companies lobbied the US government to side with Thaksin for their benefit.

    • Yes. It’s democratic elections which count for the US – but that logically means Thaksin, since the Democrats can’t win elections.

      But I do think this represents an important shift on the part of the US.

      After the 2006 coup the US was quite supportive of the new military-royalist regime. In fact, in a Wikileaks cable on 28 September (one week after the coup) the then US Ambassador to Thailand, Ralph Boyce, said of the rumour that privy councillor Gen. Surayud Chulanont was to be appointed PM that, “his appointment would be a very positive development for Thailand internally, as well as for Thai-U.S. relations, and we should welcome it if and when it is announced.” In some of the other Wikileaks cables Boyce was very critical of Thaksin.

      So in 2006 the US was happy with an appointed PM, a military man, with very close links to the Palace.

      Now the US is insisting on elections which the royalists can never win – without a gross rigging of the electoral system.

      So, a significant shift I think.

  2. Surely the writer isn’t very in tune with regional politics. Why would being closer to China risk being isolated in SE Asia? Only the Philippines and Vietnam are having issues with China; many other countries continue to forge strong relationships with the mainland.

  3. From my reading of the situation (having spent most of the last decade splitting my time between China, Thailand and Vietnam) the Chinese (and Vietnamese) governments want democracy in Thailand to fail and military rule to succeed.

    This would help to justify the continuation of their non-democratic rule.

    While looking across the world, it seems pretty obvious that democracies outperform dictatorships in almost every possible category, the situation in Thailand increases the support for the concept that while democracy is fine for Western countries, Asian countries cannot handle democracy and need authoritarian rule.

    I don’t subscribe to this view, and functioning (although imperfect) democracies in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and even Singapore support the idea that not only can Asians handle democracy, but can thrive in democratic environments when given the chance.

    Both the Chinese and Vietnamese government led media really played up the violence and chaotic nature of the protests in Bangkok, as a way warn their own citizens of what might happen if more political freedoms were allowed in their own countries.

    The coup in Thailand not only set back democracy here in Thailand, but probably also in other countries of the world.

    The real winner of the coup might have been the Chinese Communist government, but for those of us who cherish freedom we cannot say the winners will be the Chinese people.

  4. Thailand has always had to balance its stance concerning China. The US concerns are always expedient.

    Today,however,Thailand has internal issues because there is a growing class of people in the provinces and the Bangkok area who pay taxes, have disposable income, and are linked via social media. These people are tired of corruption – petty and gross. For the last 15 years, elections have been bought, not won. Small sums of taxes have been spent on needed populist policies, but large sums have gone to make the super-rich even richer.

    Thus, the coup is accepted by across the board by shopkeepers and even by Chiangmai farmers who were victims of a rice pledging scheme – a big policy that nearly ruined the country. And, the bloodshed has stopped.

    The military are seen cleaning up “the way things are”. Petty mafias are put out of business and even the Thai Police have seen some reform, as they must now enforce traffic rules. (That’s a miracle.)

    People generally like these changes and are willingly accept a few curbs on “rights”, some of which they have never enjoyed, in the hopes that Thailand will not be country where, for example, human trafficking, drug dealing and money laundering are ignored as they had been even under a so-called democratically elected government.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.