Follow us on social

Chinese funded port reawakens Thailand's colonial ghosts

Chinese funded port reawakens Thailand's colonial ghosts

Many believe Beijing is building a Naval base off Cambodia, which carries with it echoes of empire for neighboring countries

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

In 1907, the then Siamese government signed over the provinces of Battambang, Siem-reap, and Sisophon to French Cambodia. The treaty outlined the new land and sea borders between French Cambodia and Siam — now Cambodia and Thailand, respectively — whose interpretation became a point of contention between the two countries in 1972. Since then, relations between the Thai and Cambodian governments over the disputed maritime territories have been amicable, but Thai nationalist group pressure has stymied recent attempts to resolve the issue.

With the establishment of the Chinese-funded Ream port in Cambodia, there is increasing concern that the port could be converted to military use to strengthen Chinese naval power projection or be a competitor to Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor. The port and secrecy around its actual use are reigniting concerns first established in the 1907 treaty, and inflaming Thai worries about what the port means for its maritime territories, the stability of the Gulf of Thailand, and relations with China and the United States.

Sovereignty and anti-colonialism in Thailand

Thailand was the only Southeast Asian country to retain its independence in the face of Franco-English great power competition in the 19th and 20th centuries. Until the late 1800s, Siam had expanded its control over Laos, Cambodia, and the Malayan states as tributaries, with parts of those regions being under varying legal and administrative control of Siam.

Siamese territorial borders were unclear to the French and English, and the extent to which each tributary could exercise its own autonomy varied widely. When the French and English began colonizing areas over which Siam had suzerainty, this increased pressure on Siam to define its borders and adopt the Western concept of sovereignty, eventually conceding territories and enacting unfair trade policies to maintain independence.

A major sore point of colonization was the 1855 Bowring Treaty with Great Britain, which granted significant, and arguably inequitable, trade privileges to the British in Siam. This was followed by the 1856 Franco-Siamese trade agreement, which closely mirrored the terms of the Bowring Treaty. Such trade agreements and other conciliatory policies were seen as necessary by then King Mongkut to maintain Siamese independence from great powers.

These factors contributed to the 1893 Franco-Siam Crisis, which ended Siam’s empire-building attempts and laid the groundwork for the loss of Laos, Cambodia, and the Malayan states. The last of these treaties was the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1907, which established land and sea boundaries between Cambodia and Siam that have yet to be firmly determined by either country.

Once the absolute monarchy was abolished in 1932, a new national identity was formed on the basis of Thailand’s ability to maintain sovereignty and adherence to anti-colonialist concepts. Great power competition led to nearly a century of national humiliation for Thailand and has entrenched deep mistrust against overbearing foreign powers. With the secrecy around the Ream port and the potential for Chinese interference, Thailand is becoming apprehensive about the project and its potential to bring great power competition back into the Gulf of Thailand.

The implications of the Ream naval base on Thai sovereignty

Cambodia interpreted the maritime borders between Thailand and Cambodia in 1972 to include a greater chunk of territory for the Cambodians, creating an overlapping claims area of roughly 26,000 square kilometers that contains billions of dollars worth of untapped natural resources. If extracted, they would provide greater energy independence to either nation. Many experts consider these claims unique, even radical, in the field of international law. The Thai government rebutted the claims a year later, citing the original 1907 treaty.

In 2001, following regime changes and political upheaval in both Thailand and Cambodia, the two nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding that created a commitment to resolving the maritime disputes while creating a Joint Development Area in some parts of the disputed territory. Yet, political roadblocks within both nations prevented a lasting agreement. In 2024, the governments of both nations continue to discuss the best path forward, although they have been recently affected by Thai nationalist backlash.

The historically friendly and compromising relationship between Thailand and Cambodia makes the Ream port a troublesome wedge between the two countries. China and Cambodia vehemently deny that the Chinese-funded port is operating covertly as an overseas base for the Chinese navy. Yet, satellite imagery shows the continued presence of Chinese warships while Cambodia continues to boost its military cooperation with China. Experts in the West and in Thailand have expressed concern over the potential for China to use this base to project its naval power in the crucial trade routes through Southeast Asia, possibly connecting it to the militarized Chinese ports scattered across the South China Sea.

For Thailand, the move is an unwelcome reminder of the country’s history with Franco-British great power competition over a century ago. With Cambodia modernizing its navy and receiving the backing of China, the overlapping claims area in the Gulf of Thailand could become a flashpoint between the two historically friendly countries. The Thai government is further concerned about the port because the areas immediately surrounding Ream have historically been strategically important. The French first constructed the nearby Port of Kampong Saom in 1955, choosing the location for primarily strategic means, including the solidification of French control over strategic waters between Thailand and Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese communists leveraged the port to stockpile and transport military supplies along the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Furthermore, the region around the port does not lie on major traditional maritime trading routes, making Thailand even more dubious about its purpose given the secrecy around its construction. Thailand’s economy has already been negatively affected by the U.S.-China trade war, as approximately 25% of all Thai imports come from China, while around 15% of all Thai exports go to the U.S. Thailand has started to see China as a more reliable partner than the U.S., being geographically closer and more embroiled in the Thai economy, but still seeks to strengthen trade and military relations with the U.S. as a counterbalance. This is despite skepticism that the U.S. has an interest in Thailand beyond maintaining U.S. hegemony in East Asia. The construction of the Ream port, regardless if it were to serve as a military base or trading hub, may tip the scales further in favor of the Chinese regardless of Thailand’s desire to remain neutral.

***

Thai government officials have expressed that the increasing influence of U.S.-China competition in the Indo-Pacific could pose a serious security threat if ignored. Many Thais, feeling the growing pressure of the rivalry, believe the best chance of maintaining true independence is through stronger relations with the middle powers, including Japan, Australia, and India.

As in the past, countries with superior military and economic might, countries with which Thailand has long sought to maintain good relations, are putting pressure on the nation to make a choice. Unfortunately, the echoes of Thailand’s past dealings with great power competition are becoming louder, originating with the 1907 Franco-Siam treaty and reverberating through to the Ream port. Thailand understands that it takes little time for great power competition to ignite greater conflicts, and the Ream port has the potential to be the spark that sets it off.


Massimo Todaro / Shutterstock.com

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Diplomacy Watch
Top Photo Credit: Khody Akhavi

Diplomacy Watch: Euro leaders  reeling after Trump-Putin call

QiOSK

Europeans are surprised and frustrated by President Trump’s decision to call Russian President Putin without consulting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy or other European leadership.

The president made good on his promise to begin negotiations with Russia by having a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, which he described as “lengthy and highly productive” and indicated that further negotiations would begin “immediately.”

keep readingShow less
Donald Trump Marc Fogel
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump greets Marc Fogel at the White House after his release from a Russian prison, Tuesday, February 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's peace efforts should be a wake-up call for Dems

QiOSK

In less than 3 weeks, President Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza, spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, and kickstarted diplomacy to end the Ukraine war. At the same time, he has also put forward some idiotic ideas, such as pushing Palestinians out of Gaza and making Canada the 51st state.

But it raises important questions: Why didn't the Biden administration choose to push for an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine? Why didn't the majority of the Democrats demand it? Instead, they went down the path of putting Liz Cheney on a pedestal and having Kamala Harris brag about having the most lethal military in the world while Trump positioned himself as a peace candidate — justifiably or not.

keep readingShow less
Pete Hegseth NATO
Top photo credit: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks next to German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group on the eve of a NATO defence ministers' meeting at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium February 12, 2025. REUTERS/Johanna Geron

Hegseth finally pops bubble of illusion: 'No NATO for Ukraine'

QiOSK

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth showed unusual candor in his remarks today to the NATO membership about the terms of peace for Ukraine. Although they are unlikely to see things this way, he deserves special gratitude from the Ukrainian and European establishments, for his statement dispels the illusions in which they have been indulging themselves — illusions that if continued could hold up the peace process and increase the dangers to Ukraine.

In remarks before a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Group of NATO defense ministers and in advance of the Munich Security Conference next week, Hegseth said the following:

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.