When signing a vision statement with the US last month, Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha quietly sat as US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper touted the commitment of an old ally at a time of “external coercion and intimidation” in Asia — a clear reference to China.
Less than an hour later, Prayuth — a former army chief — signed a similarly vague defense cooperation agreement with Chinese Minister of National Defense Wei Fenghe (魏鳳和), while also pledging to support key Beijing policies like the Belt and Road Initiative to finance infrastructure investment around the globe.
While neither statement committed Thailand to anything concrete, Prayuth’s balancing act showed the extent to which China has made inroads in a nation with deep US military connections going back decades.
Designated by then-US president George W. Bush as a “major non-NATO ally” in 2003, Thailand served as a key staging ground during the Vietnam War when both countries teamed up to stop the spread of communism.
US-Thai relations soured after Prayuth led a military coup in 2014, triggering US laws that restrict defense ties until democracy is restored.
China quickly filled the void, stepping up military exercises and signing 10 major arms deals including Thailand’s largest defense purchase ever: US$1.03 billion for three diesel-electric submarines and 48 battle tanks, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
“Ultimately the reset in Thai-US relations means that Thailand finds itself at the center of a geo-strategic tug-of-war between the US and China in Southeast Asia,” said Paul Chambers, director of research at the Institute of South East Asian Affairs in Chiang Mai, who has written extensively on security sector reform and democracy.
After Thai elections in March that rights groups said were neither free nor fair, US President Donald Trump’s administration has moved quickly to make up lost ground.
US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo hailed Thailand for “returning to the democratic fold” during a visit to Bangkok in August, as the Department of State pushes its “Buy American” weapons export strategy.
“Unlike the determination made in Beijing or Moscow, our major defense sales are managed by a process of policies that are clear and transparent and with approvals that are public,” said Jillian Bonnardeaux, a spokeswoman for the US embassy in Bangkok.
She added that weapons and assistance programs from competitors “rarely deliver at advertised capability and instead leave the buyer in debt with systems that are not operational.”
Thailand said in August that it will receive 70 Stryker armored vehicles by year-end under the US Foreign Military Sales program, and that it plans to purchase 50 more. The following month, the Thai army said it is buying eight AH-6i light attack reconnaissance helicopters in a US$138 million deal.
Competition between the US and China also has extended to military exercises in recent years. Thailand continues to host the US-backed “Cobra Gold” exercise, the largest military drill in Asia, which this year featured 29 participating countries, including 4,500 US personnel and several dozen from China.
At the same time, Thailand has participated in more combined military exercises with China than any other Southeast Asian country, said Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.
What began as landmine clearance and humanitarian assistance drills back in 2005 have more recently expanded to air and maritime exercises, he wrote in May.
“It’s about creating balance — we can’t choose sides, we have to be friendly to everyone,” said Raksak Rojphimphun, the director-general of policy and planning at the Thai Ministry of Defense, on the sidelines of a regional gathering of defense ministers in Bangkok last month.
“We’re a small country. We can’t choose our friends,” he said.
According to SIPRI data, China’s conventional arms sales surged from US$644 million in 2008 to US$1.04 billion last year. Still, the overall value of its trade pales in comparison to the US, whose exports averaged over US$9 billion annually during the last 10 years.
Last year alone, the US exported US$10.5 billion worth of weapons to foreign militaries.
For Thailand, where annual defense spending is budgeted at about US$7.7 billion, China might provide a cheaper alternative than the US for certain weapons.
Now the world’s fifth-largest arms supplier, China has largely sold to its neighbors, with Asia accounting for 75 percent of all sales, with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar among their biggest customers.
Southeast Asia is a growing market for defense where countries have more money to spend and feel a need to react to their neighbors, said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher in SIPRI’s arms and military expenditure program.
Reduced US engagement in Asia “helped push other players more toward China. The US just became a visibly less and less reliable partner,” he added.
I think it is fair to say there is a widespread sigh of relief among many Americans — particularly those of us focused on foreign policy — that the chaotic and unpredictable Trump years will soon be over. Mr. Trump brought little real knowledge or experience to his foreign policy, and it showed. He also — in my humble opinion — did not err on the side of expertise in his choice of top foreign policy officials. Nor was he particularly open to listening to advice. All in all a poor set of traits for overseeing the complex foreign policy
After more than eight years of talks, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed on Nov. 15, combining the individual free-trade agreements signed between ASEAN member states on the one hand, and China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand on the other. Under the leadership of ASEAN and China, most observers did not expect the RCEP to provide a high degree of openness, and the announced agreement lives up to these expectations, containing few surprises. All products covered by the RCEP tariff reductions are agricultural and industrial products, but reductions of agricultural product tariffs are very limited, for example covering
While the nation grapples with its falling birthrate, it is also imperative to address how parents are raising their children. The phenomenon of “dinosaur parents” — who lash out at teachers, store staff or people on the street when confronted about their children misbehaving — has been an issue for a while, but there seems to be an uncomfortably high number of incidents making the news lately. On Saturday, a preschool teacher on an online forum wrote about a mother who often visited the school and screamed at the staff for various reasons — including her child being late to school
On Nov. 14, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) commented on the nation’s low birthrate, claiming that young people would surely have children if only they married first, and that the low marriage rate among young people is the cause of the rapid aging of Taiwan’s society. The Taipei City Government therefore proposed to offer subsidies to couples willing to marry. Ko’s comment stirred up a great deal of protest. As a sociology student, I would like to remind the mayor that his remarks not only decontextualized the population aging issue, but also oversimplified the low birthrate problem. First, a look at systemic