Opinion: Siamese/Thai Imperialism — Behind the “Land of Smiles” Facade

By Dr. TITH Pilot (Medical Doctor in Lorient, France)

Siamese/Thai imperialism, often hidden behind the tourist narrative of the “Land of Smiles,” is part of a long history of power struggles, conquests, and rewriting of the past to the detriment of neighbouring countries — especially Cambodia. The following text offers a passionate and engaged interpretation of this historical trajectory, from the birth of Siam at the edges of the Angkor Empire to contemporary border conflicts, highlighting ideological continuities, diplomatic strategies, and territorial myths that still fuel tensions between Bangkok and Phnom Penh today

Dr TITH Pilot

Origins of Siam on the Edges of Angkor

To understand the recent Thai invasion of its smaller Cambodian neighbour, we must first understand the origins of Siam (modern Thailand). According to this narrative, the Siamese were originally a “barbarian” people migrating from southern China (Yunnan) under pressure from Chinese or Mongol forces. They only established themselves at the end of the 13th century on the fringes of the Khmer Empire, after seeking help and refuge from the Khmers.

As the mighty Angkor Empire began to decline, the Siamese supposedly gained independence — which some view as a betrayal — and created a founding myth around their King Ramkhamhaeng and the kingdom of Sukhothai. It is claimed that the old Thai script was copied from old Khmer, with only minor changes to the shape of the characters, and that Siam adopted much of Khmer civilization, including dress, dance, boxing, apsara performance and royal court culture.

The Rise of Ayutthaya and the Fall of Angkor

In the 14th century, another Siamese kingdom — Ayutthaya — rose to power, eventually dominating the region. According to the article, Ayutthaya destroyed Angkor, plundered its wealth, and forcibly relocated its population to Siam. This depopulation allegedly prevented Angkor from surviving or recovering.

During this era of decline, Cambodia still possessed Phnom Penh (referred to here as Chatomukh), which both Siam and Vietnam coveted and fought over. In the 19th century, this region was contested, with Cambodia sometimes recognising both Siamese and Vietnamese suzerainty in order to survive, before French colonial protectorate status was established in 1863.

Diplomatic Maneuvers and the 1907 Treaty

The article describes Siam’s diplomacy as cunning. Trapped between British and French colonial powers, Siam negotiated with France to retain territories including Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap. However, France later recovered these provinces through the 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty. Siam also received Trat and Korat in exchange, which the author frames as part of a diplomatic bargain to avoid colonisation.

Cambodians celebrated the treaty as a minor victory; stone inscriptions at Wat Phnom are mentioned as evidence of delight in regaining lost provinces.

Rewriting History and the Myth of the “Khom”

The article claims that Siamese historiography has systematically distorted history to portray modern Cambodians as uncivilised upstarts who falsely claim the legacy of the Khmer Empire. It argues that the Thai invented the term “Khom” — supposedly an indigenous people distinct from the Khmers — and wrongly assert that the Khoms were the original builders of Angkor, while disparaging the contemporary Khmer population.

According to the author, evidence in temple inscriptions shows that the Siamese were originally refugees within the Khmer empire who sought Khmer military support against northern threats.

Modern Era: Pan-Thai Expansion and World War II

The narrative continues into the modern era, describing Siam’s territorial expansions during World War II under the leadership of Phibun Songkhram, framed here as influenced by fascist or nationalist ideology. It claims Thailand annexed Cambodian provinces (Battambang, Siem Reap and Sisophon) during this period and that this history is still taught in Thailand as a loss of territory to Cambodia. These provinces were eventually returned to Cambodia at the end of World War II under French pressure.

Khmer Issarak, Preah Vihear and the International Court

The Khmer Issarak movement — founded in Bangkok in 1940 to support Cambodian independence from France — is discussed next. After Cambodia gained independence in 1953, Thailand is said to have occupied the Preah Vihear temple in 1954. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favour of Cambodia and Thai forces were ordered to withdraw. The article notes that the withdrawal involved damage to the site.

Cold War, Khmer Rouge, and Thai Support

During the Vietnam War era and the rise of the Khmer Rouge (1975-1979), the piece claims Thailand sided with the United States against communism and even recognised the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime. After the Khmer Rouge collapse, Thailand is said to have continued to interact with remnants of the group as a buffer against Vietnam, trading and exploiting natural resources in border regions, including mining activities.

Cambodian Renaissance and Thai Jealousy

The article asserts that after peace returned to Cambodia in 1993 and the Khmer Rouge dissolved by 1999, Cambodia experienced strong economic growth (claimed here as around 7.5% annually). This “phoenix-like” resurgence is said to have stirred resentment in Thailand. According to the narrative, Thailand launched an attack on the Preah Vihear area again in 2008 but withdrew after the ICJ reaffirmed Cambodian sovereignty.

The 2025 Crisis: A New Expansionist Opportunity?

The final section poses the 2025 border clashes as another attempt by Thai nationalists to reclaim lost provinces, framing it as part of an age-old dream to retake Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap (including Angkor Wat). The author suggests this provides an opportunity for Thailand to manipulate both the international community and its own population with heightened nationalism.

Towards a Peaceful Border?

In conclusion, the author argues Thailand will never be able to eradicate Cambodia or regain lost provinces, and urges building a peaceful border between the two countries. A stronger role for ASEAN is proposed as a path to move beyond destructive nationalism, much like how the European Union eased Franco-German tensions after World War II. Respecting the 1907 Franco-Siamese treaty is suggested as a way to end territorial dreams once and for all.

Par Dr TITH Pilot