Three months after his election, a month after inauguration, Donald
Trump has not publicly mentioned Thailand. Yet in a looming foreign
policy crisis over the South China Sea, the seeds of which the president partly
inherited and has partly sowed, the kingdom is poised to play an outsized and
oppositional role.
China has
territorial disputes over the South China Sea with five Southeast Asian nations
and a sixth with Taiwan. In July 2016, a UN maritime tribunal
ruled China’s means of demarcating territory unlawful. Beijing’s
defiance notwithstanding, this ruling put most of China’s claims on shaky legal
ground, to say nothing of its 3,000 acres of artificial islands constructed
since 2013.
As
candidate, Trump used the presidential debates to deliver an economic
indictment against China—manufacturing threat, currency manipulator, climate
change propagandist—and announced plans to increase the US Navy’s fleet
from 272 to 350 ships. If the China claims were aimed at viewers and
votes, the naval announcement was likely the more clearly heard in Beijing.
Following
the election, Trump raised the stakes by taking a congratulatory phone call
from Taiwan’s president, and his nominee for secretary of state said the US
should block Chinese naval access to the South China Sea’s disputed
islands. Four days into the administration, Trump’s press secretary vowed
to defend such islands in “international waters and not part of China proper,”
words his defense secretary later walked back.
The phone
call not only seemed to upend four decades of US policy, but was publicly
“justified” by Trump with reference to equally sensitive weapons sales to
Taiwan. Blocking Chinese access, likewise contradicting longstanding US
adherence to freedom of navigation, would discredit the main justification for
American ships in the South China Sea as well. It would also be unlawful.
Often seen as separate issues, Taiwan in fact marks the northernmost
point of the South China Sea, thereby linking Beijing’s “One China” policy with
its new littoral irredentism. And while Trump’s affirmation of One China
on a call with China’s president was welcomed by Beijing, he also assigned
to his National Security Council an advisor who last year
predicted, “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10
years.”
The
Chinese, having described both Taiwan and the sea as “core national interests”
against which the US would indeed have to “wage war,” are stirred.
To be
fair, Trump is being forced to play catch-up. The Obama administration
did not so much “pivot” to Asia as manage a shuffle. Introduced in 2009
and detailed by Hillary Clinton two years later, the pivot—already a
decade past due—was virtually dead on arrival. The underwhelming transfer
of 2,500 marines to Western Australia, begun five years ago, remains
incomplete. In that sense, a recent pledge by the US ambassador to
Thailand of “continuity” in bilateral relations, presumably intended to
reassure his hosts, was more cause for resignation.
Trump’s
attention to Southeast Asia is thus timely, and he cannot be expected to simply
embrace the policy of his chief opponent. But his moves thus far,
replacing the noncommittal with the cavalier, both advance a regional crisis
and place the US at further geopolitical disadvantage if it comes.
Despite
being both a bilateral and multilateral US treaty ally, as well as holding
major non-NATO status, Thailand has hardly factored into Washington’s regional
strategy. Clinton devoted a single sentence to Thailand in her lengthy
articulation of the “pivot,” while Obama’s visit to the kingdom in 2012 was
long on pledges and short on follow-up. Thailand’s 2014 coup d’etat
was both a result of declining US influence in the country and the cause
of historical lows since. A self-defeating law compelled the Americans to
suspend their main program for training and educating the Thai military,
alongside a paltry cut of $3.5 million in military aid.
In contrast, the People’s Republic of China has been slowly
supplanting the US in Thailand since the Asian financial crisis 20 years ago.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra welcomed and accelerated China’s regional
rise for six years starting in 2001. His flagship Asia Cooperation
Dialogue gave pride of place to Beijing and pointedly excluded
Washington. More importantly, since his overthrow, Thaksin’s opponents
and nominees alike have maintained his pro-China orientation.
In
just the three years under his sister Yingluck’s government ending in 2014,
Thailand saw China become its leading trading partner and its second
largest source of foreign investment. The latter had sat at a mere 1 percent in
2006. China’s premier became the first foreign national to ever address
Thailand’s parliament, while joint naval and marine exercises were added to
Sino-Thai army drills begun under Thaksin. China also built a submarine
dock and training facility on Thailand’s eastern shore, and increased shipments
of “dual use” oil and rubber up the Mekong River.
Critically,
these efforts were pursuant to a bilateral strategic partnership, originally
signed by Thaksin but repeatedly expanded through 2016. Indeed, under the
current military government, the first joint air force exercises between the
two countries took place in 2015. This year’s defense budget includes the
purchase of three Chinese submarines and the first of 10 tanks to be purchased
from China by 2020. In January, Thailand announced intentions to develop
a joint weapons and defense industry to facilitate increased procurement of
Chinese arms.
If Thai
objectives are political and financial, China’s are coldly geopolitical.
Thailand separates the narrow Straits of Malacca from the contentious South
China Sea. Through the straits passes one-third of global trade and
two-thirds of all oil and liquefied natural gas, and even higher percentages of
what China exports and consumes. The South China Sea is also believed to
be resource-rich. That the US secretary of state is a former ExxonMobil
executive has no doubt caught Beijing’s attention.
The
problem for China is that the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet effectively controls the
Straits of Malacca, compromising China’s primary maritime access to the Andaman
Sea, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. In a crisis, China’s
ability to move ships and supplies could be stymied. Thailand’s narrow
Isthmus of Kra, however, also separating the Gulf of Thailand and the South
China Sea on the east from the waters on the west, holds the key to bypassing
the straits.
In May
2015, China and Thailand reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding on the
construction of a long-discussed canal across the isthmus, a project in which
the US has shown no interest since the 1970s. While both sides issued
denials, the report followed a sharp rise in canal-related activity under both
Thaksin and Yingluck. In January 2016, a member of Thailand’s royal Privy
Council wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Prayuth, advocating new
feasibility studies. Last month, Prayuth remarked that a canal should be
debated by future governments.
Since
2006, Thailand has strictly adhered to the One China policy: Taiwan, Tibet, the
Falungong, Uyghur “separatists.” And as the only nation in Southeast Asia
that can claim membership of both its mainland and maritime regions, Thailand
is a non-claimant in the South China Sea. In a crisis over either issue
and thus involving the United States, Thailand is ripe to tip China’s
way.
Treaty
obligations might prevail in actual armed conflict, but in any matter leading
up to violence, these would make little difference and may be too late.
The Philippines, the only other US treaty ally in Southeast Asia, took the
claims case against China to the international maritime tribunal. By the
time of the decision, however, a new president had come to power—who promptly
shelved the victory, announced a “breakup” with the United States, and pledged
cooperation with an emboldened China.
Thailand
can no longer be counted on, and won’t remain off Trump’s radar for long.
Benjamin Zawacki is author of the
forthcoming book, Thailand: Shifting Ground Between the US and a Rising
China (Zed Books / University of Chicago Press, August 2017) This is
reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal, the webside of the Yale University
Center for the Study of Globalization.
No comments:
Post a Comment