Journals / OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 41

The Status of Thailand in The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO)

Güneydoğu Asya Antlaşması Teşkilatı’nda (SEATO) Tayland’ın Statüsü

Pages
3794–3824
Publication Date
2021-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, Thailand’s expectations from SEATO and how SEATO policies affect on Thailand, as well as the transformation of Thai foreign policy during the existing of the pact have been examined.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:After World War II, when Thailand began to feel communist pressure on it, Thailand started to be interested in political and military global blocs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:From its establishment in 1954 to its abolition in 1977, Thailand opened its own lands to SEATO member countries and especially to the United States.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, Thailand’s expectations from SEATO and how SEATO policies affect on Thailand, as well as the transformation of Thai foreign policy during the existing of the pact have been examined.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tayland · ABD · SEATO

Abstract

After World War II, when Thailand began to feel communist pressure on it, Thailand started to be interested in political and military global blocs. In this way, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization also gained the status of a lifesaver for Thailand. From its establishment in 1954 to its abolition in 1977, Thailand opened its own lands to SEATO member countries and especially to the United States. This has reduced Thailand to the level of an American satellite for the states in the region. Thailand has been the most important country under SEATO’s protection. The reason is that Thailand is the most open and vulnerable country against communist invasion. Thanat Khoman, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand at that time, appears as the most important figure in this process. Thanks to Thanat, Thailand followed a western-oriented policy to save itself from communism. SEATO was the most visible organization of this policy. During its time as a member, Thailand has always had a hesitation to trust SEATO. This crisis of confidence negatively affected to Thailand’s domestic and foreign policy. In this study, Thailand’s expectations from SEATO and how SEATO policies affect on Thailand, as well as the transformation of Thai foreign policy during the existing of the pact have been examined.

Özet

Tayland, komünist baskıyı üzerinde hissetmeye başladığı II. Dünya Savaşı’ndan sonra, küresel anlamda siyasi ve askeri bloklara karşı ilgi duymaya başlamıştır. Bu sayede Güneydoğu Asya Antlaşması Teşkilatı (SEATO) da Tayland için bir nevi can simidi statüsü kazanmıştır. 1954 yılında kuruluşundan 1977 yılında lağvedilmesine kadarki süreçte Tayland, kendi topraklarını SEATO üyesi ülkelere ve özellikle de Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ne açmıştır. Bu durum ise bölgede yer alan devletler için Tayland’ı bir Amerikan uydusu seviyesine düşürmüştür. SEATO’nun koruması altında olan en önemli ülke Tayland olmuştur. Bunun nedeni ise komünist istilaya karşı en açık ve korumasız ülke oluşundan kaynaklanmaktadır. Tayland Dışişleri Bakanı olan Thanat Khoman, bu süreçte en önemli figür olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Thanat sayesinde Tayland, komünizmden kendisini kurtarmak için batı eksenli bir politika izlemiştir. Bu politikanın en önemli görünür teşkilatını ise SEATO oluşturmaktadır. Üye olduğu süre zarfında Tayland, SEATO’ya güven konusunda her zaman bir tereddüt yaşamıştır. Bu güven bunalımı ise Tayland iç ve dış siyasetini olumsuz etkilemiştir. Bu çalışmada Tayland’ın SEATO’dan beklentileri ve SEATO politikalarının Tayland’ı nasıl etkilediği ile birlikte, paktın devamı süre-since Tayland dış politikasının dönüşümü incelenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEMİZ, S. (2021). The Status of Thailand in The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 41, 3794–3824. https://ajindex.com/articles/419931

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Ball, W. M. (1954). Political Re-examination of Seato. International Organization, 12, 17-25.
  2. Brodkin, E. I. (1967). United States and to India and Pakistan: The attitudes of the fifties. International Affairs, 43(4), 664-677.
  3. Buszynski, L. (1981). SEATO: Why it survived until 1977 and why it was abolished. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 12(2), 287-296.
  4. Chopra, P. (1975). The American connection: Still in demand. Economic and Political Weekly, 10(37), 1459-1460.
  5. CM. (1969). Vague Asian commitments give nixon many options. Columbia Missourian, s.13. (10.03.2019) tarihinde http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm/ref/collection/colmo3/id/126830 adresinden erişildi. Daily Illini. (1969). SEATO Council meets amid more criticism. Daily Illini, s.10. (11.06.2019) tarihinde https://idnc.library.illinois.edu/cgi-bin/illinois?a=d&d=DIL19690530.2.42&txq=seato adresinden erişildi. Dingman, R. (1989). John Foster Dulles and the creation of the South-East Asia treaty organization in 1954. The International History Review, 11(3), 457-477.
  6. DOS. (1962). Paper prepared in the bureau of far eastern affairs. (23.09.2020) tarihinde Foreign Relations of the United States. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d471 adresinden erişildi. Frankel, P. (1973). Avustralia and Seato. The Canberra Times, s.2. (11.05.2019) tarihinde https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110740123 adresinden erişildi. FRUS. (1952-1954). 12, s.58-761, 776-778. (13.03.2019) tarihinde https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v12p1/pg_761 adresinden erişildi. FRUS. (1954). President Eisenhower to Prime Minister Churchill. Foreign Relations of the United States, VI, s.693-1138. (30.06.2019) tarihinde http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1952-54v06p1/reference/frus. frus1952 54v06 p1. i0010.pdf adresinden erişildi. FRUS. (1954). The ambassador in India (Allen) to the Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, s.1633-1817. (11.06.2019) tarihinde http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs2/1952-54v11p2/reference /frus.frus195 254v 11p2.i0006.pdf adresinden erişildi. FRUS. (1954). US Policy Towards Europe-Post EDC. Foreign Relations of the United States, s.1114-1542. (12.05.2019) tarihinde http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs2/1952-54v05p2/reference/frus.frus195254v05p2.i0011.pdf adresinden erişildi. Kochavi, N. (2002). Limited accommodation, perpetuated conflict: Kennedy, China, and the laos crisis, 1961–1963. Diplomatic History, 26(1), 95-135. Leifer,