(Phnom Penh): To view Thailand's foreign policy as merely a clever act of survival is to miss the true nature of its regional role. While the narrative of the "buffer state" has been a powerful tool for maintaining national identity, it often serves as a historical smokescreen for a foreign policy that is, at its core, aggressive, expansionist, and rooted in a deep-seated nationalism. Rather than being a passive victim of colonial expansion, Thailand has a long history of being an aggressor, seizing opportunities to expand its territory and using its strength to dominate its less-developed neighbors.
This mindset is not a new development. During the 1930s and 40s, the military government under Plaek Phibunsongkhram actively cultivated an extreme form of nationalism known as Pan-Thaiism. This was a top-down strategy to create a national identity steeped in a "national humiliation" discourse over supposed "territorial losses," which provided the justification for military adventurism. The most blatant example of this was the country's 1940 invasion of French Indochina to reclaim these "lost" territories. While the conflict was brief, it showcased a willingness to abandon diplomacy for military force to achieve nationalistic ambitions. This was a clear act of aggression, not a peaceful balancing act.
The legacy of this aggressive nationalism continues to define Thailand's behavior on its borders. The country’s frontiers with Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia are not simply lines on a map; they are dynamic fault lines where historical grievances, fueled by a narrative of irredentism, continue to converge with modern military actions. The 1987-1988 Ban Rom Klao conflict with Laos, for instance, saw Thailand claim to have "regained control of more than 70 percent of the disputed area" , a clear indication of a more assertive and dominant posture over its weaker neighbor. More recently, the 2025 conflict with Cambodia, which involved armed clashes, rockets, and drones, further demonstrates this pattern of aggression and a disregard for international law in favor of territorial claims.
Beyond military force, Thailand has weaponized its economic power to exert influence over its neighbors. The country, the second-largest economy in ASEAN, has become a net outward investor in the region, giving it significant leverage over countries like Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos . The closure of seven border crossings during the 2025 conflict, including the crucial Sa Kaeo corridor, was a deliberate act of economic warfare. By disrupting a $1.2 billion annual trade flow, Thailand applied significant pressure on Cambodia's already vulnerable economy, threatening its tourism and labor sectors and jeopardizing the $1 billion in remittances sent home by Cambodian workers in Thailand . This is not a double-edged sword; it is a powerful instrument of coercion that harms a weaker nation for political gain.
This pattern of aggression is not a new one. Historical accounts of the Siamese-Burmese wars confirm that while Burma was often the aggressor, it was Siam that consistently absorbed most of the neighboring Thai kingdoms, demonstrating a long-term strategy of consolidating power and expanding influence.
Ultimately, Thailand's history is not one of a clever, peaceful survivor. It is a history of a nation that used its strategic position to not only avoid colonization but to become a regional power. By embracing an aggressive form of nationalism and wielding its economic and military might, Thailand has acted as an aggressor, actively shaping the region to its own advantage. As it navigates the complexities of a multipolar world, this history of dominance and expansion, not passive neutrality, will continue to be its defining foreign policy trait.
Sar Vichana is a researcher at Royal Academy of Cambodia.
=FRESH NEWS
Photo from AFP
