After the end of World War II in 1945, while Britain regained Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Trengganu, Thailand switched camps again - now to the United States of America, on which it had declared war three years earlier. The US had emerged from the devastating global conflicts as one of the two superpowers in the soon-emerged Cold War.

The war of national liberation in Vietnam against French colonialism resumed with full vigour under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh. On May 7, 1954, the French surrendered to the Vietnamese communists after its defeat in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. (see Daniel Moran., Wars of National Liberation , London, Cassell, 2002; pp. 97-107, or Lawrence Freedman, The Cold War - A Military History , London, Cassell, 2001; pp. 89-118)

Fear and anxiety reigned not only in Thailand but throughout Southeast Asia and the Western world. Thailand, together with the US-backed Saigon regime suddenly found itself to be in the position of a buffer zone between communist North Vietnam and China. Earlier in 1950-1953, the China-backed communist North Korea fought the US-led United Nations troops to a standstill.

Domino Theory

The fear and anxiety about a southward spread of northern communist forces and ideas then gave rise to the so-called Domino Theory which hypothesised that once South Vietnam fell, Thailand would ensue and so would Penisular Malaysia and Singapore. According to Chin Peng, secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) whose guerilla forces operated in the Malaya/Malaysian-Thai border between 1950s and 1989, even Mao Zedong and Deng Xiao Peng believed in the early 1960s that the Domino Theory would happen. (see Chin Peng: My Side of History , Singapore, Media Masters, 2003; pp. 428-429 and 439-440)

Conceptually, the Domino Theory had its roots in the collective memory in Southeast Asia and Australia of the Japnease southward drive in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The Domino Theory seemed to have only substituted Russia-China-North Korea-North Vietnam for the prewar Japan which had again become a Western ally after World War II.

According to Chin Peng (photo right), in Feb 1953, the British in Malaya had already deviced a pre-emptive strike plan codenamed Operation Warrior to forcibly enter into southern Thailand and occupy the Songkhla Position - without Thai permission and without American foreknowledge - in order to prepare for a defensive position against " the threat of invasion by Chinese forces through Siam " (ibid: p.331). A more scholarly and detailed reserach into the now declassified documents of defence planning of Britain, Australia and the United States in that period can be found in Karl Hack's Defence and Decolonisation in Southeast Asia - Britain, Malaya and Singapore , 1941-1948, Surrey, Curzon, 2001).

It was against that backdrop that Thailand co-signed the Southeast Asia Collective Defence Treaty with the United States, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan and the Philippines on Sept 8 1954. The treaty, which is popularly known as the 1954 Manila Pact later established the controversial Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in Feb 1955 with its heaquarters in Bangkok.

Contrary to what some observers and analysts have recently opined, the Thai-US military alliance is not new but can be traced to elements of the 1954 Manila Pact and 1955 Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation. In its essence, it has almost been uninterrupted since then.

Meanwhile, throughout the period from 1950s to mid-1970s, the British and later the independent government of Malaya/Malaysia co-operated with the Thai authorities to suppress the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) and its splinter groups and Communist Party of Thailand (CPT). However, there were reported incidents of bickering between the authorities on both sides of the border.

With the communist were coming into power in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the fear for the Domino Theory on the part of Thailand and its allies and friends, including Malaysia, certainly intensified. However, it was soon discovered that the communist regimes in Indochina were also split along ethno-nationalist as well as ideological lines. There were, for example, border clashes between the China-backed Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the Soviet-backed communist Vietnam.

Also, as the result of the 1972 normalisation of relations between China and the US, the bipolar situation had somehow changed into a tripolar one with China and US courting each other to check and balance against the Soviet Union. The 1979-1989 Soviet-backed Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia further cemented an anti-Soviet alliance among US and its allies, China and Asean, including Thailand.

Frontline state

As a matter of fact, Thailand became the frontline state in the US-China-Asean anti-Vietnam alliance, as well as the logistical base to supply and support the various guerilla factions inside the Vietnam-occupied Cambodia, including Pol Pot's group.

It seems that in those periods of the Cold War, Muslim separatism in southern Thailand did not feature very much in the public mind because of the global preoccupation with communism and anti-communism.

Moreover, as compared to the divide between communism and anti-communism, the public consciousness of "non-Muslims versus Muslims" was minimal. The paradigms of global politics are simply and fundamentally different.

As a matter of historical fact, throughout the world, including in Southeast Asia and Malaysia, Muslims were often indoctrinated to be anti-communists because the latter was said to be atheists. The US support for Muslim resistance to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979-1989 was a case in point.

Similarly, some communist parties, particularly the Soviet Union in the Middle East, also responded by pitting Muslims against Western and American interests on the grounds that the latter's colonialism, imperialism as well as alleged neo-imperialism and racism are the root causes of humiliation, subjugation, poverty and suffering of Muslims and Muslim states.

Indeed, Muslim sentiments, legitimate or otherwise, have always been exploited in contemporary global competitions among major powers. In World War I (1914-1918), for example, German war propaganda had already exploited Muslim sympathy for Turkey (which was then an ally of Germany) to instigate Muslim unrest against the British worldwide, particularly in Afghanistan, Middle East and North Africa.

Outside instigation

As for the so-called Muslim separatists in southern Thailand, there seems to be no signs, however vague, to indicate they are instigated by any major extra-regional powers, although some Thai authorities claimed that they found individual Indonesians involved.

Moreover, over many years, both Malaya/Malaysia and Thailand apparently cooperated reasonably well to ensure the security and safety of the border areas. As Thailand is the official ally of the US, Malaysia-US security and other relations have also improved relatively after Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took office last November.

However, it must also be pointed out that there have always been speculations and allegations that the Malayan/Malaysian government or some elements of it 'harbour' them as the results of religio-ethnic affinity, political populism or opportunism and the genuine pressure of domestic public opinion inside Malaya/Malaysia.

These speculations and allegations have repeatedly been rebutted by Kuala Lumpur.

As an Asian diplomat in Kuala Lumpur opined, Malaya/Malaysia may be perceived by Muslim separatists not only in southern Thailand but also southern Philippines and Indonesia, particularly Aceh, as "the Muslim core state" in Southeast Asia and parts of South Asia.

Indeed, if the apparent rise of political Islam in its more militant form in southern Thailand is seen in the larger or overall geostrategic context defined by southern Thailand, Aceh, and the southern Philippines, there may then be a basis for the concern of what the Singaporean defence and security community calls Maritime Terrorism that is capable of violently disrupting the sea lanes of communication linking the Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, Andaman Sea, Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea.

From this perspective, the security of southern Thailand and Aceh is particularly critical to the safety of navigation in the Straits of Malacca because these two areas, facing each other almost directly, guard the northern entrance of the Straitss of Malacca.

However, even given the complexities of the problems and issues in southern Thailand, it is highly unlikely that the bilateral relations between Malaysia and Thailand would go out of control because the many political, economic and security ties between the two nations as well as within Asean would serve as moderating forces.

The preservation of good Malaysia-Thai bilateral relations is also critical to the stability of the region and the safety of navigation in this interdependent world.

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM). Wong is a former DAP member of parliament for Kampar (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily (now Sin Chew Daily ). He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.