Half a century after the iconic image of helicopters ferrying the last Americans from Saigon, Asia is once again witnessing tremors from a major shift in U.S. engagement. As the United States gradually pulls back from its long-held position of influence in the region, China is moving decisively to fill the gap, triggering both hope and uncertainty among Asian nations. This changing dynamic raises critical questions about the future of regional stability, the role of global powers, and the enduring resonance of American ideals—issues that hold particular poignancy for Thai policymakers, civil society, and the public.
The world watched in 1975 as the United States’ withdrawal from Vietnam symbolised not only the end of a brutal war but the unraveling of American credibility in Southeast Asia (nytimes.com). For decades, the U.S. presence—military, diplomatic, economic, and cultural—was seen as a bulwark against Communist expansion and, in many ways, as an architect shaping Asia’s modern contours. Today, as the geopolitical ground shifts once again, the echoes of that era fill political corridors and public discourse alike.
What’s prompting comparison to the Vietnam era isn’t just the withdrawal of boots on the ground, but also Washington’s hesitancy and slowness in responding to contemporary crises. When a devastating earthquake struck Myanmar this March, killing over 3,700, American humanitarian aid lagged far behind China’s. While Chinese teams arrived quickly, the U.S. was criticised for both its slow response and its abrupt dismissal of local American aid workers operating in dangerous conditions in the quake’s aftermath. “America used to stand for hope and democracy, but now they are missing when we needed them most,” remarked a resident of Sagaing, the disaster’s epicentre (nytimes.com).
Expert observers in Thailand and the wider region note that this is a symptom of broader American disengagement under recent U.S. administrations. Cuts to diplomatic and developmental agencies, fluctuating trade policies, and inward focus on domestic issues have collectively diminished the U.S.’s capacity to project influence. For Thai policymakers, this carries immediate and practical implications: Thailand’s own disaster preparedness networks, investment ties, and security cooperation arrangements have long benefited from U.S. backing, even as Bangkok has carefully cultivated its relationship with Beijing (bangkokpost.com).
Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand, are left to juggle the strategic calculus. China’s rise is evident not only in humanitarian aid but also in infrastructure, defence, and political partnerships. Nearby Cambodia, for example, recently turned to China for the complete modernisation of a key military base, replacing U.S.-funded renovations. In April, that facility was unveiled flanked by senior Chinese military officials, with American-built structures razed to clear the way (nytimes.com). As the Cambodian deputy defence minister voiced during a candid interview, “We are developing our democracy, like America, but first we need peace and stability.” The official’s remarks reflect a growing realist sentiment in regional capitals: ideals are secondary to pragmatic considerations of peace and growth.
Yet doubts persist, even as many nations pivot closer to Beijing for practical reasons. In Myanmar, for instance, locals expressed wariness over China’s intentions. Concerns over “plundering” of natural resources by Chinese companies, as well as the conditionality that often comes with state-driven investments, colour the popular view (bbc.com). This ambivalence is mirrored in Thai attitudes, where surveys consistently show the public is open to economic partnership with China but wary of overdependence or erosion of sovereignty (asiafoundation.org).
The history of American involvement in the region remains complex and contested. Many Cambodians, for example, recall the U.S. bombing campaign during the Vietnam War as a prelude to the Khmer Rouge’s rise—a reminder that great-power interventions can have catastrophic unintended consequences (history.com). In Thailand, Cold War-era alliances with the U.S. were the basis for the formation of key military, education, and trade frameworks, forging decades of relativity stability and prosperity (thaiembdc.org).
Despite retreating physically, the United States’ soft power remains potent—manifested through cultural exports, higher education, and the persistent appeal of democratic values. Thai students continue to seek American degrees, civil society leaders draw inspiration from U.S. constitutional traditions, and references to Hollywood and American consumer brands pepper popular culture. This contrasts sharply with perceptions of Chinese influence, which is often seen as more transactional and less attuned to civil rights or environmental norms (csis.org).
The current moment, then, marks neither a resumption of the Cold War nor a simple handover of regional “ownership” from Washington to Beijing. Instead, Southeast Asia is entering a new phase, where small and middle powers—including Thailand—are assertively diversifying their partnerships, investing in self-reliance, and recalibrating expectations. The lesson from Vietnam, as one Vietnamese expert reflected, is “true independence”—the ambition to determine one’s own destiny in the shadow of global giants.
Thailand’s approach in this changing landscape is increasingly pragmatic. Experts from leading Thai think tanks stress the importance of “hedging” strategies—maintaining productive ties with both the U.S. and China while investing in regional cohesion through ASEAN and flexible multilateral mechanisms (worldpoliticsreview.com). As an official with Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained, “Bangkok’s ideal outcome is a peaceful, rules-based order, where no major power dominates at our expense.”
Looking ahead, the uncertainty wrought by U.S. retrenchment may yield opportunities for homegrown innovation and leadership in the region. Thailand’s investment in pandemic preparedness, disaster response mechanisms, and digital economy infrastructure can serve as templates for self-sufficiency while engaging both America and China on mutually beneficial terms. At the same time, civil society and media are called to vigilance—protecting sovereignty, upholding accountability, and fostering informed debate about the costs and benefits of various alignments.
For everyday Thais, the underlying message is clear: The age of great-power patrons shaping the future for others is ending. Citizens, educators, and business leaders alike must cultivate international literacy, demand accountability from both local and foreign partners, and champion resilience in the face of inevitable shocks. Whether the lesson comes from the shadow of Vietnam or the realities of today’s shifting alliances, Thailand’s path remains its own to navigate.
For Thai readers, practical steps include monitoring regional developments through reputable news sources, advocating for transparent government policy on foreign investment, and supporting education in international relations and civic literacy within schools. Bolstering Thailand’s voice in ASEAN and international fora will be critical to ensuring that the kingdom’s unique culture, values, and interests are not sidelined in a new era of major-power competition.
Sources:
- “50 Years After the U.S. Left Vietnam, Another Retreat Is Shaking Asia,” The New York Times, May 1, 2025
- Bangkok Post: Thailand in the middle as US-China tensions heat up
- Asia Foundation: Thai Public Opinion 2023
- CSIS: Thailand’s Balancing Act: China and the US
- World Politics Review: ASEAN, Thailand, China, US Diplomacy
- Thai Embassy DC: Thai-U.S. Relations
- BBC: China’s Influence in Myanmar
- History.com: Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War