ABSTRACT
Despite being a medium-sized country with an unstable political system, Thailand has long been recognised for its practice of shrewd diplomacy, which successfully served to maintain its independence throughout difficult periods in the country’s history.1 Thai leaders demonstrated that the art of diplomacy was carefully crafted not only to defend their nation from all kinds of threat, but also to raise the global Thai profile as one of the predominant players in mainland Southeast Asia. In retrospect, there are at least two major international events that put the art of Thai diplomacy to the test: the colonial period and the Second World War. These historical episodes allowed Thai leaders to sharpen their diplomatic skills as they dealt with the outside world. Siam, the former name of Thailand, was the only country in Southeast Asia never to have been officially colonised by foreign Powers.2 It was able to escape colonialism, according to the majority of Thai historians, because of the resilience and flexibility of Thai diplomacy, buttressed by two factors: its geographical position as a buffer state between Britain and France and the farsightedness and ingenuity of King Chulalongkorn (1868–1910).3 The King apparently attempted to create a balance of power between two European nations by blurring the line of allegiance to make the kingdom somewhat independent. Equally sharp-witted diplomacy was continually practiced during the Second World War, when Thailand succeeded in being on both sides, the Axis and the Allies. Whereas the Phibun Songkhram Government (1936–44) formed an alliance with Japan and declared war on the United States, the Thai ambassador in Washington, Seni Pramoj, lent his support to the pro-Allied ‘Free Thai’ movement. At the war’s end, the Free Thai movement claimed to represent the real stance of wartime Thailand, an argument broadly accepted by the Americans. This reflected a rare feat of foreign-policy flexibility. Through centuries, Thai leaders have prided themselves on a mastery of ‘bamboo diplomacy’.4
