Hence, as the regional balance of power shifted with the fallout between the Union of So Socialist Republics and China and the departure of the United States at the end of the Vietnam War, the ruling elite needed to find a new guarantor of national security. They breathed new life into the famous bamboo diplomacy, with the establishment of diplomatic relations with communist China in 1975, despite the latter previously being perceived as a threat to national security communist Together with China, Thailand, as a frontline state, fully engaged in the Cambodian conflict, providing arms and ammunition to the Khmer Rouge to battle against the advancing Vietnamese menace. At the time, Thailand sought support from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967, of which it was a founding member, to regionalise its anticommunist policy. The Thai strategy reiterates a survival technique of a developing power on a mission to define and redefine its own national interests whenever the regional order was reorganized, to overcome certain limitations in the conduct of diplomacy, and to strike a balance in its dealings with outside Powers to ensure a degree of autonomy and create room for policy maneuvering. The post-Cold War world has witnessed a similar pattern of traditional Thai diplomacy at work, albeit under rather different and more complex circumstances that that have been shaped by both the current political crisis in Thailand and the region's new geopolitical landscape
Most studies of Thailand's diplomacy and state craft seem to agree on one finding the flexibility of Thai foreign policy and the ability to adjust to the altering balance of power." Anne Kislenko noted that an ancient Siamese proverb likens foreign policy to the bamboo in the wind, always solidly rooted but flexible enough to bend whichever way the wind blows in order to survive. More than mere pragmatism, this adage reflects a long-cherished, philosophical approach to international relations, the precepts of which are very much enshrined in Thai cultural and religion," The Thai traditional perception of national interests is explicit Thai leaders have sought to maintain as far as possible national sovereignty and territorial integrity and to minimise external interference with the domestic system. Without failure, the sentiment of having to safeguard national sovereignty was fortified by successive regimes. However, as a mid-range Power con- strained by certain vulnerabilities, Thailand possessed a few alternatives in the determination of foreign-policy strategy
Adopting pragmatism was one option, and it had so far proved effective. The uncertainty of international politics obliged Thailand to bend with the wind so as to retain its influence whilst managing its foreign affairs vis-a-vis foreign Powers and neighboring countries. For example, Siam's relations with China in ancient times, through the despatch of envoys and royal gifts (a symbol of political submission) in exchange for economic benefits reflected a high degree of pragmatism in the kingdom's foreign-policy thinking/Sam was traditionally sensitive to shifts in the distribution of power. The arrival of the first Portuguese trade envoy in the kingdom of Ayutthaya in 1511 and the subsequent appearance of European merchants were an indication of a change of regional order and political landscape to the Siamese kings. China was no longer the region's supreme Power in Siamese eyes. The European colonialists represented both a real and present danger as well as an opportunity for Siamese kings. Understanding the limits and constraints of foreign policy, Sam took the stance of accommodation to appease the hegemons of the day so that it could preserve its autonomy and gain other benefits, both in its relations with foreign Powers and in its own internal power arrangement.
The key understanding of Thai foreign-policy pragmatism is that Thai leaders came to terms with their country's capabilities and acted eagerly in response to the reality, rather than to idealist goals or uninhibited ambitions. They made foreign policy based on practicality, seeing the country in terms of its history, form of government, and relationship with foreign Powers Meanwhile they pursued a conventional strategy of adjusting to whatever stance best maintained friendly