Thailand was the centre of international attention in 1997. No longer was it confused with Taiwan, or completely unrecognized, by journalists at international fora. Unfortunately this was not a triumph of foreign policy, but a tragedy of financial mismanagement. Economic problems that led to the floating of the baht in July triggered attacks on currencies and stock markets throughout much of Southeast Asia, then spread to East Asia and impacted on much of the world.

This was not the type of recognition Thai leaders had sought. Early in his rule, Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh lamented that Thailand no longer played a leadership role in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and pledged to correct this. After Chuan Leekpai became prime minister, the Nation newspaper declared that Thailand was “resuming its long-lost leading role in ASEAN affairs”. New Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan asserted confidently that Thailand had become the architect preparing ASEAN to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

These views all reflect a deep conviction among Thai leaders and foreign policy analysts that in the 1980s Thailand enjoyed a golden age of foreign policy when the rest of ASEAN followed its lead. In the 1990s others have taken the initiative.

The following account argues that in a broad sense this characterization is correct. However, claims of foreign policy leadership in the 1980s need some qualification. And the 1990s has not been the foreign policy disaster many perceive it to be. Chavalit helped strengthen ties with regional neighbours. Chuan, forced to look to the United States for assistance in addressing the country's financial problems, has returned Thailand to a more traditional balancing of regional and great power interests.

1980s — A Mixed Record

Thailand's pre-eminence within ASEAN during the 1980s derived from its being the “front-line” state to Cambodia.