Ever country in proximity around Thailand was the victim of European colonization, at the hands of people like the French, British, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. I don't really understand why Thailand was left out of this, to my untrained eye it seems like an attractive target for a European empire, it doesn't seem overwhelmingly militarily powerful, at least not more so than Vietnam or Burma and I'm not aware of dramatic defeats of colonial powers trying to encroach on Thailand as happened in places like Afghanistan and Ethiopia, especially during the height of European imperialism in Southeast Asia during the 19th century. How did they manage to maintain their independence?
u/sterio provided an answer to this question in a post from seven years ago.
This is definitely an interesting answer, and I recommend you read it first, but I believe that it overemphasises the role of the Thai monarchy and its diplomatic / nation building efforts in preserving Thailand from becoming a colony. Here is my take on it :
The premise that "Thailand was never colonised" does not depict the full picture of the situation of the country during the late 19th - early 20th century. While Thailand was not directly colonised, it was not free from Western pressure and influence, and in that era Thailand could be considered as a "semi-colonised country".
What made Thailand, or rather Siam at time, a semi-colony?
In the early 19th century, the British started expanding in South East-Asia, where they conquered what is now Myanmar and Malaysia. In the 1880s, France acquired possession of Tonkin, Annam and Cochin china, or most of modern-day Vietnam. Siam was surrounded by the two colonial powers, who kept expanding their territories in the region, and Siam had to cede large swathes of land that it controlled at least nominally under the mandala system.
https://i.imgur.com/Kn9GU9a.png
Not only did Siam lose territories, but it also had to sign unequal treaties with the Western powers, such as the Bowring Treaty of 1855. This treaty gave the rights to the British to access to trade, a low tax of only 3% on imports and exports, and also granted extraterritorial rights to its citizens, which means that the British in Siam where out of the authority of the Siamese judicial system. The British even controlled the police in Bangkok.
As Thai historian Thongchai Winichakul puts it : “Siam voluntarily or involuntarily entered into the colonial economy without the colonial powers having to make it an official colony.” Rajchagoll Chaiyan, another Thai historian, describes the situation as "a case of neo-colonialism at the time of colonialism".
If Siam was already in a "semi-colonial" state, why did the British or the French not try to go further and turn Siam into a proper colony or at least a protectorate?
In 1893, France decided to annex Laos (the region of the Mekong basin), which was nominally under control of the Siamese king under the Mandala system, where local rulers paid tribute to the Siamese King. This led to a war which was quickly won by the French, and the Siamese had to renounce their claims on Laos.
The French obtained an advantageous position in Eastern Siam, which displeased the British. They now also had a border with the French in the upper Mekong (the modern-day border between Laos and Myanmar). The British saw their interest in Siam and in Burma potentially threatened by French expansionism.
This conflict was resolved in 1896, by the Anglo-French declaration of London regarding Siam, where Great Britain and France agreed "not to advance their armed forces” into most of Thailand as we know it nowadays. The British had stopped French expansion and maintained their economic interests in the region.
We should not forget that this era was rife with colonial rivalries between France and the UK : the two powers almost went to war in 1898 over the Fashoda incident. To avoid further conflicts regarding colonial matters, to counter the rise of the German Empire and to avoid diplomatic isolation, France and the UK concluded the Entente Cordiale in 1904. The two countries settled their rivalry in the region and decided that they would not colonise Siam but divide it into spheres of influence. Note that I have greatly simplified these events and that there was a lot of diplomatic back and forth between the UK, France and Siam, although the latter never negociated on equal footing.
It is only after the first world war that Siam started regaining some of its sovereignty. Siam joined the Entente at the end of the war, and was accepted as a reliable partner at a time when the notion of collective security was embodied in the League of Nations. While it never recovered the territories annexed by the French or the British, the concessions made in previous unequal treaties such as the Bowring Treaty were reversed by new treaties fairer to Siam.
Then why is the idea that Thailand was never colonised so prevalent?
The idea that "Thailand was never colonised" is a powerful tool to legitimise the rule of the monarchy, since its actions are assumed to be partly responsible for allowing Thailand to avoid colonisation. Thai historiography choses to overemphasise the role of the monarchy and its diplomatic skills while it downplays the semi-colonial nature of Siam in that era and the importance of the French/British rivalry. This reading of the history of Thailand became particularly popular during the cold war, as a response to modernisation and threats from communism.
Sources :
• Invisible semicolony: the postcolonial condition and royal national history in Thailand by Hong Lysa
• The Place of Siam in Colonial Asia: A Study in the Light of Franco-Siamese Relations, 1893–1941 by Dominique Guillemin
• The Anglo-French Rivalry in Siam, 1902-1904 by G. Leighton LaFuze
• Pacific Strife by Kees van Dijk
• Franco-British Rivalry over Siam, 1896-1904 by Minton F. Goldman
• Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation by Thongchai Winichakul
