Thailand finds itself in a pivotal yet precarious position, acting as a potential facilitator for dialogue concerning Myanmar’s protracted internal conflict. While direct meetings between Myanmar’s National Peace and Reconstruction Committee (NSPNC) and Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) did not occur, Thailand has offered to bridge the gap for future discussions. Experts are closely observing this delicate balancing act, questioning the depth of Myanmar’s trust in Thailand and analyzing the broader implications for regional stability.
The Foundation of ‘Necessary Trust’
Independent security and foreign affairs analyst Panitan Wattanayagorn explains that Thailand’s capacity to facilitate stems from a relationship with Myanmar built on mutual necessity rather than traditional friendship. This interdependence is driven by Thailand’s reliance on Myanmar for essential labor and energy, particularly natural gas, which underpins its power sector. Furthermore, critical border security issues, including transnational crime, drug trafficking, and the management of ethnic armed groups, necessitate ongoing engagement.
“It is a deeply and mutually interdependent relationship,” Wattanayagorn stated, characterizing the dynamic as one of “frenemies” – a blend of ally and adversary. Historically, military-to-military ties have been robust, notably strengthened after the 2014 coup. However, this closeness has waned under the current Thai administration, with Myanmar’s junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, reportedly wary of Thai political factions and dissatisfied with the lack of formal recognition for his government.
Despite these complexities, the recent meeting facilitated by diplomat Sihasak Phuangketkeow in Pattaya is seen as a strategic move by Thailand to foster dialogue among key stakeholders. It signals Thailand’s commitment to remaining engaged, even as it navigates the intricate demands of managing humanitarian corridors and addressing the presence of armed groups like the Wa and Karen, whom Myanmar authorities wish suppressed.
Thailand’s Inclusive Diplomacy as a Trust-Builder
Anekchai Rueangrattanakorn, an adjunct lecturer in political science, concurs that Thailand’s facilitator role is rooted in Myanmar’s trust, attributing this to Bangkok’s adoption of inclusive and soft diplomacy. Unlike some ASEAN members that have adopted a firmer stance amidst Myanmar’s humanitarian crisis, Thailand has often employed back-channel engagement, which has helped cultivate trust with the ruling junta.
The extensive shared border, exceeding 2,400 kilometers, presents Thailand with direct challenges from refugee flows and intensified transnational crime post-2021. This geographical reality leaves Bangkok with little choice but to engage with Myanmar to mitigate these spillover effects. Rueangrattanakorn noted that with the ASEAN-brokered Five-Point Consensus yielding little progress over five years, Thailand cannot afford to solely rely on regional mechanisms and must utilize informal channels.
“To put it simply, the junta engages with Thailand based on pragmatic trust and mutual interests. EAOs engage with Thailand because of geopolitical necessity. Thus, Thailand is an indispensable actor in the equation,” Rueangrattanakorn explained.
Navigating the ‘Track 1.5 Diplomacy’ Criticism
Thailand’s efforts to mediate and maintain balance have drawn criticism, with some concerned that engagement with Myanmar’s current military government could inadvertently legitimize the junta. Bangkok has initiated what is termed “Track 1.5 diplomacy,” an informal engagement channel designed to connect Myanmar with ASEAN and other international actors. This approach has faced pushback from certain ASEAN states fearing it could legitimize the military regime and potentially undermine the bloc’s unified stance.
However, Thailand maintains that the official ASEAN approach has stagnated, necessitating informal engagement to advance the peace process. Notably, countries like China and India, also impacted by the Myanmar crisis, have participated in similar informal meetings hosted by Thailand, underscoring the shared regional concerns.
Rueangrattanakorn views Thailand’s strategy as creating a vital bridge between Myanmar’s government and ASEAN, positioning itself as a conciliator rather than a divider. He emphasizes that geography compels Thailand to confront the crisis directly, and its diplomatic strategy effectively transforms this necessity into a prominent international role.
Recommendations for Maintaining Neutrality and Effectiveness
To mitigate accusations of legitimizing the junta and to foster broader trust, Thailand is advised to:
- Expand dialogue to include Myanmar’s government-in-exile, the National Unity Government (NUG), and EAOs.
- Increase cooperation with civil society organizations on humanitarian assistance.
- Carefully balance engagement with all parties, employing multiple diplomatic channels to maintain the perception of neutrality.
- Utilize formal diplomatic channels solely for issues directly impacting Thai national interests, such as cross-border crime, haze, and labor management, when engaging with the State Administration Council (SAC).
- Empower parliamentarians, academics, and private organizations to act as intermediaries for dialogue with the NUG and EAOs, fostering a deeper understanding of their perspectives.
- Limit the military’s role in facilitating dialogue, granting greater responsibility to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and civil society.
- Establish “safe zones” for civilians in coordination with both the SAC and EAOs.
- Acknowledge the de facto authority of EAOs in specific regions and engage them on local administrative matters like border trade and infrastructure.
- Discuss human rights and Myanmar’s future political transition with the NUG.
Acknowledging Shifting Political Realities
Wattanayagorn suggests that Thailand must also adapt to evolving political dynamics within Myanmar. He observes a potential waning of political momentum for the NUG and notes that while Aung San Suu Kyi remains a revered figure, her direct political influence has shifted. Concurrently, the People’s Defence Force, despite its initial momentum, is reportedly facing containment, while the SAC proceeds with its electoral plans.
“If Thailand recognises these shifts, we can bring everyone to the table,” Wattanayagorn concluded, highlighting the importance of pragmatic assessment in facilitating meaningful dialogue and contributing to a potential resolution of Myanmar’s complex and enduring conflict.
