Moral guilt and small states’ status redemption: Thailand’s humanitarian treatment of prisoners of war during the Second World War

Research on status-seeking strategies recognises that moral authority and pro-social foreign policies can enhance small states’ their international standing. Yet, little attention has been given to why small states behave pro-socially after transgressing socio-normative rules in international affairs. Drawing on social psychology, this article introduces the concept of ‘moral guilt’ to explain why small countries adopt pro-social foreign policies even in precarious conditions. It argues that when small-state leaders experience guilt over perceived wrongdoing, they tend to engage in reparative behaviours, prioritising moral atonement over strategic cost-benefit calculations. In other words, they pursue a status redemption policy. To demonstrate this, I examine Thailand’s humanitarian treatment of enemy civilians and prisoners of war during the Second World War. Despite aligning with Japan in 1941 and declaring war on Britain and the United States in 1942, Thailand deviated from Japan’s harsh treatment of captives. Archival evidence shows that Thai leaders not only complied with the Geneva Conventions but also extended humanitarian treatment to those not covered by them. I contend that the Thai leadership experienced moral guilt for bandwagoning with Japan and enacted humanitarian measures as a form of moral reparation to redeem the country’s status in international society.