Govt Ready To Fly Thais Out Of Cambodia

[tmark]

the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh was burnt by rioters and several Thai-owned businesses in Cambodia were attacked following a rumour that a Thai actress had claimed the Angkor Wat temple - Cambodia's prized cultural icon - belonged to Thailand. An evacuation of Thai citizens followed the riots.

How amazingly childish. The same childish attitudes prevail here in Thailand too.

The "Pavlova" is an Aussie Icon .. but we don't burn down Kiwi businesses when they claim the contrary.

[Steve2UK]

For those crying overreaction what should th egovernment have done when a convicted criminal ex-politican sought for extradition(technically all of this is fact whether you or I like it) was appointed government adviser by a neighbouring country? Consider too that the Cambodian ambassadort was summoned to explain why and refused to go or sens a deputy which is quite an amazing lack of protocol and also very challenging. The recall of the ambassador was the logical step in diplomatic prootocl after the neighbouring country refused to discuss the issue.

Think for a minute if for example madoof nipped over to Mexico and was appopinted a government adviser and then the mexican ambassador refused to explain why.

Anyway I await expalantion of what the Thai government should have done and an explanation that would logically fit with what other countries would have done under similar circumstances, and just ignored it is a niave answer as no country would have done. That Thailand tried to take a lesser form of escalation but Cambodia amazingly refused an ambassadorial summons remains a fact.

There are many things I dont condone about what both countries have done but arguing that Thailand overreacted by recalling the ambassador is wrong and this now seems to have been accepted by many based on the Cambodian refusal. Everything after this stage was tit-for-tat in diplomatic terms and has been reported so by outside media.

Hammered, twice in one post you refer to the Cambodian ambassador (and deputy) refusing to go to the MFA when summoned as if it were established fact. I myself reported it earlier as "word is emerging from a usually well-informed source that...... " etc and was careful to follow with "If that version is to be believed......." etc.

( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3135326 )

Maybe someone else has posted evidence/proof of it or you at least found some confirmation elsewhere; if so, I missed it. In the absence of that, it's effectively no more than a rumour ("version" as I referred to it) - and certainly not "That Thailand tried to take a lesser form of escalation but Cambodia amazingly refused an ambassadorial summons remains a fact".

I'm used to seeing others routinely and seamlessly blend (consciously or carelessly) rumour, speculation, opinion and confirmed facts as if they're all one and the same - but not you.

[animatic]

One must keep in perspective the underlying forces to this so-called Thai-Cambodia problem.

Historically there are numerous instances of insecure Governments and Dictators creating external enemies and an internal siege mentality in order to bolster their security.

So in effect, it is very much in this Govt's. interest to inflame this stuff as much as possible, but not too much. Just enough to create impressions. Talk of citizen evacuation serves that purpose very well.

So for everyone to "get their shirt in a knot" about this, is excellent from the Govts. perspective. It gives credence to this charade.

Ditto in Hun Sen who regularly uses natiuonalism to keep his ratings high especiually as he always faces criticism for closeness to Vietnam whihc he can hardly deny and who are another traditional enemy of Cambodia. There really is little point seeing this entirely in temrs of the present Thai government there are other issues here too, more than I mention here

Since diplomacy is typically about presenting an chosen appearance of some sort,

then calling this a charade is not off the mark, all countries take a position and

finesse the wordings they use and their actions based on 'diplomatic norms',

which rarely resemble those of people or companies doing business.

It is in the interest of both governments to inflame this, but not too far.

Especially when solidarity is lacking in the nation for any number of reasons.

This tit for tat resembles classic Cold War maneuvering of the super powers very closely.

Or the later economic spying and reciprocity vs diplomats caught doing economic espionage.

Lunar, good post, keep it up.

[hammered]

For those crying overreaction what should th egovernment have done when a convicted criminal ex-politican sought for extradition(technically all of this is fact whether you or I like it) was appointed government adviser by a neighbouring country? Consider too that the Cambodian ambassadort was summoned to explain why and refused to go or sens a deputy which is quite an amazing lack of protocol and also very challenging. The recall of the ambassador was the logical step in diplomatic prootocl after the neighbouring country refused to discuss the issue.

Think for a minute if for example madoof nipped over to Mexico and was appopinted a government adviser and then the mexican ambassador refused to explain why.

Anyway I await expalantion of what the Thai government should have done and an explanation that would logically fit with what other countries would have done under similar circumstances, and just ignored it is a niave answer as no country would have done. That Thailand tried to take a lesser form of escalation but Cambodia amazingly refused an ambassadorial summons remains a fact.

There are many things I dont condone about what both countries have done but arguing that Thailand overreacted by recalling the ambassador is wrong and this now seems to have been accepted by many based on the Cambodian refusal. Everything after this stage was tit-for-tat in diplomatic terms and has been reported so by outside media.

Hammered, twice in one post you refer to the Cambodian ambassador (and deputy) refusing to go to the MFA when summoned as if it were established fact. I myself reported it earlier as "word is emerging from a usually well-informed source that...... " etc and was careful to follow with "If that version is to be believed......." etc.

( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3135326 )

Maybe someone else has posted evidence/proof of it or you at least found some confirmation elsewhere; if so, I missed it. In the absence of that, it's effectively no more than a rumour ("version" as I referred to it) - and certainly not "That Thailand tried to take a lesser form of escalation but Cambodia amazingly refused an ambassadorial summons remains a fact".

I'm used to seeing others routinely and seamlessly blend (consciously or carelessly) rumour, speculation, opinion and confirmed facts as if they're all one and the same - but not you.

Take the point. However,...... As I was basically using the arguement that has quite closely been used by Bangkok Pundit whose site detailed content analysis will reveal as tilted away from the government side I take it as as factual as anything in a belief based world or at least belief based in the red and yellow rainbow war. I would think pundit also has better sources than me on most stuff and in this case cites multiple sources who have passed on reliable information before, and he defends the Thai government on this one. I guess I assign greater value to what people argue is the case when it goes against their poltical leanings rather then when it goes with them. The Cambodians have also not denied the claim to the best of my knowledge so it remians one of the few non-contentious or at least unchallenged claims issues in this saga which would lead us to possibly conclude true. On other things the Cambodians have hardly missed an opportunity so you wouldnt expect them to miss a soft ball. Little else has not been contested by one side or the other. Sometimes you have to make a call on these things. There really is little that is provable fact in politics.

Edited to add; There is also an argument, not without merit consdiering cases around the worlkd and ratiuonales for, that recalling the ambassador was perfectly reasonable. It is not the point I am trying to make however. Overreaction is an argument that one side is making. Not is the arguement the other side are making and internationally it is seen as tit for tat with both sides going a tad too far. I would genuinely like to see the arguement for it being overeaction rather than just see it being stated as a party line. Interestingly the red side (not talking posters here) state it is overreaction but dont argue why. The government states they have not overreacted and try to explain why. I know that gets into the realm of what status people believe Thaksin has and technically he is a convict and fugitive and sought for extradition and as most of the worlkd has diplomatic relations with Thailand they will accept this technical position whatever private thoughts they may have. To get into why it is or not provication gets into this technical stuff which the reds want to avoid. They say Thaksin is a polticial refugee and free private citizen which technically isnt true under Thai or international law. Thaksin is highly unlikely to go to a country whihc has due process and an extradition treaty not necessarily becuase he will be extraditied but becuse they will accpet the request and it will go before a court which poltically would at least initially be damaging but would also tie himj up in one countyr and with legal headaches. Another issue of course is would such a country grant him a visa? Highly unlikely as they wouldnt want the headache and they also have an easy get out criminals find it hard to get visas and technically Thaksin is a convicted criminal.

Edited November 15, 2009 by hammered

[mccw]

Whichever side that would be mostly to blame if the situation escalates, it is STILL prudent to prepare for citizen evacuation. I don't understand why that move can objectively be criticized. Again, ANY prudent government would do exactly the same.

I think the poster "Thailand" is right,

There were better ways of dealing with this. Cambodia has ruffled some feathers and the Thais can't deal with it. Reacting in a gun-boat diplomacy way was stupid. I think Cambodia knew how the Thai side would over react.

Not over reaction at all. If anything it has been the least reaction rationably feaseble.

[splodger]

visa runs to campers?

[h90]

Strange to me that they not allowed the plane of a convicted fugitive to pass through thai airspace.In other country's they would just hope on an opportunity like this so they could send some jets into the sky and make the plane land.Am I missing something?

I think if you were to do that, and you were to threaten to fire at his plane were it not to land, you would have to be prepared to act on that threat. No use making threats that you can't keep, just makes you look weak.

Shooting down and killing not just Thaksin, but all the crew and passengers on that plane, would be disastrous, and not only from a humanitarian point of view. It's the sort of an idea that were Thaksin is power though, just might fly (pun not intended).

specially: shooting down the airplane and DON'T kill Thaksin, because he wasn't in the airplane would be the worst possible disaster.

[Steve2UK]

<snipped> (savagely - but only for brevity)

Take the point. However,......

<snipped>

I think we're pretty much of like mind on all this. For the record, as 'twere , the description on BP of the Cambodian ambassador's (should I be saying "alleged"?) response was from a regular comment contributor of good standing, previously known for good connections and reliable accuracy etc. Bangkok Pundit published it without response which, busy though he often is, with this kind of factual comment one can usually take to mean he has reason to accept the contents at face value. As I've pointed out elsewhere to those who sneer at and love to dismiss blogs when something inconvenient is cited from them, context is all. Not the press, not blogs, nor this forum are courts of law - so it's crazy to look for "burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt" in them before accepting the "verdict"........ but I do want to see some kind of track record of dependable accuracy if not balance. Some blogs (Pundit particularly) consistently show more of that than this forum's bedfellow.

Conversely, I see repeated examples (in much of the press, some of the blogs and on here) of wild distortions of known facts (with obvious exaggeration of some and deliberate disregard of others certainly known to the writer) and blatant blending of those cherry-picked "enhanced" facts with speculation masquerading as fact - all to cobble together a quasi-case that falls apart with even cursory scrutiny. Plainly, propositions can be built on hypothesis (well into that myself) - but it better be clear which parts are evidence-based fact and which are "if that's the case, then......" theorising. While I don't (and won't) put anyone here on "ignore", the needle of my attention/credibility meter soon moves closer to zero when I see the same people churning out their familiar concoction of half-truths - and more often than not doing a flit or at best obfuscating when asked to back up their statements with something approaching evidence let alone confirmation.

But I digress - and it won't change anyway.......

[hammered]

<snipped> (savagely - but only for brevity)

Take the point. However,......

<snipped>

I think we're pretty much of like mind on all this. For the record, as 'twere , the description on BP of the Cambodian ambassador's (should I be saying "alleged"?) response was from a regular comment contributor of good standing, previously known for good connections and reliable accuracy etc. Bangkok Pundit published it without response which, busy though he often is, with this kind of factual comment one can usually take to mean he has reason to accept the contents at face value. As I've pointed out elsewhere to those who sneer at and love to dismiss blogs when something inconvenient is cited from them, context is all. Not the press, not blogs, nor this forum are courts of law - so it's crazy to look for "burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt" in them before accepting the "verdict"........ but I do want to see some kind of track record of dependable accuracy if not balance. Some blogs (Pundit particularly) consistently show more of that than this forum's bedfellow.

Conversely, I see repeated examples (in much of the press, some of the blogs and on here) of wild distortions of known facts (with obvious exaggeration of some and deliberate disregard of others certainly known to the writer) and blatant blending of those cherry-picked "enhanced" facts with speculation masquerading as fact - all to cobble together a quasi-case that falls apart with even cursory scrutiny. Plainly, propositions can be built on hypothesis (well into that myself) - but it better be clear which parts are evidence-based fact and which are "if that's the case, then......" theorising. While I don't (and won't) put anyone here on "ignore", the needle of my attention/credibility meter soon moves closer to zero when I see the same people churning out their familiar concoction of half-truths - and more often than not doing a flit or at best obfuscating when asked to back up their statements with something approaching evidence let alone confirmation.

But I digress - and it won't change anyway.......

I read an interesting opinion in the Phnom Penh Post (hope that doesnt mean I am collaborating with the enemy from a Thai perspective or spying from a Cambodian one) by a guy called Tonkin. I no longer have the link to hand. However, after going through the history and from a Cambodian standpoint he made an interesting comment that by withdrawing ambassador and taking the other actions he had Abhisit may have done enough to keep support with him and stymie the more extreme demands of unelected power brokers. I thought it was an interesting take although of course it could always be a Cambodian talking point, or even a (unfounded?) fear of those in Cambodia that some in Thailand may really want to bite

[rabcbroon]

Whichever side that would be mostly to blame if the situation escalates, it is STILL prudent to prepare for citizen evacuation. I don't understand why that move can objectively be criticized. Again, ANY prudent government would do exactly the same.

So the Thai government is concerned about ordinary Thai citizens

[Steve2UK]

I read an interesting opinion in the Phnom Penh Post (hope that doesnt mean I am collaborating with the enemy from a Thai perspective or spying from a Cambodian one) by a guy called Tonkin. I no longer have the link to hand. However, after going through the history and from a Cambodian standpoint he made an interesting comment that by withdrawing ambassador and taking the other actions he had Abhisit may have done enough to keep support with him and stymie the more extreme demands of unelected power brokers. I thought it was an interesting take although of course it could always be a Cambodian talking point, or even a (unfounded?) fear of those in Cambodia that some in Thailand may really want to bite

Thanks for the tip - good (brief but balanced) piece. I hope the same as you - the more so because here comes the link :

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/200...in-dispute.html

Looking around I see it's Derek Tonkin - British Ambassador to Vietnam 1980-82 and to Thailand 1986-89. So, I guess he knows his stuff?

[lopburi3]

One post removed for language.

[Siripon]

[[Hammered, twice in one post you refer to the Cambodian ambassador (and deputy) refusing to go to the MFA when summoned as if it were established fact. I myself reported it earlier as "word is emerging from a usually well-informed source that...... " etc and was careful to follow with "If that version is to be believed......." etc.

I was told last Monday evening by a senior policeman that the Cambodian ambassador was summoned but she refused to go.

It was reported in the papers as well.

Regarding Thaksin's lies, the story circulating for a week now that Mai Charoernbura had come back from Dubai with a brand name bag as a gift from Pojaman( in Dubai with Thaksin), is in the Bangkok Post today I see.

So much for Thaksin's claim he hadn't seen her since the divorce.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Siripon

[nitecm]

Fly them out. .. A bunch of Phuea Thai and Red Shirts just took a bus to visit, and took a bus back. But yes, let's do a story on preparing air transport in this desperate, desperate situation for our Thai brothers and sisters who find themselves in in that horrid place.

They just need put on the red shirt

[RegularReader]

I read an interesting opinion in the Phnom Penh Post (hope that doesnt mean I am collaborating with the enemy from a Thai perspective or spying from a Cambodian one) by a guy called Tonkin. I no longer have the link to hand. However, after going through the history and from a Cambodian standpoint he made an interesting comment that by withdrawing ambassador and taking the other actions he had Abhisit may have done enough to keep support with him and stymie the more extreme demands of unelected power brokers. I thought it was an interesting take although of course it could always be a Cambodian talking point, or even a (unfounded?) fear of those in Cambodia that some in Thailand may really want to bite

Thanks for the tip - good (brief but balanced) piece. I hope the same as you - the more so because here comes the link :

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/200...in-dispute.html

Looking around I see it's Derek Tonkin - British Ambassador to Vietnam 1980-82 and to Thailand 1986-89. So, I guess he knows his stuff?

Thanks for the link guys.

I never thought such well considered reason, would be coming from "the enemy" side...

[ballzafire]

Much ado about nothing...

[Splatter]

"Government Ready to Jet Ski Thais Out of Cambodia"

Now that would be an appropriate scarey response to the daftness of this situation.

'You you. You you you. Mister Hun Sen You. You cause 7 billion trillion zillion baht

big loss face damage jet ski me.'

[hansnl]

This is typical Thai again, overreacting and blowing things out of proportion, I be quite happy to go to Cambodia and have a nice holiday, the Cambodians must be laughing theyr heads of, I am sure Cambodian Newspapers will run comic strips on this issue.

Next the going to tell us, they have started to shoot Thais in the streets. As far as I know Cambodians are not as hotheaded as Thais that do things first and then think.

I am afraid you are wrong, on most points.

Cambodians have been, can be and are or will be very hotheaded.

And can be rather, shall we say, violent?

Killing fileds, ever hear about that?

Might be handy to read some history, maybe?

[ballzafire]

"Government Ready to Jet Ski Thais Out of Cambodia" Now that would be an appropriate scarey response to the daftness of this situation. 'You you. You you you. Mister Hun Sen You. You cause 7 billion trillion zillion baht big loss face damage jet ski me.'

Hey, now there's an idea -- normal Thais get sent home in exchange for Thailand dumping their crooked jet-ski operators on Cambo !

Brilliant!

[ballzafire]

This is typical Thai again, overreacting and blowing things out of proportion, I be quite happy to go to Cambodia and have a nice holiday, the Cambodians must be laughing their heads of, I am sure Cambodian Newspapers will run comic strips on this issue. Next the going to tell us, they have started to shoot Thais in the streets. As far as I know Cambodians are not as hotheaded as Thais that do things first and then think.

I am afraid you are wrong, on most points. Cambodians have been, can be and are or will be very hotheaded. And can be rather, shall we say, violent? Killing fields, ever hear about that? Might be handy to read some history, maybe?

On the contrary, I have found them to be quite friendly and hospitable. And, like the Thai girls, their women can be quite warm and accommodating, too...

It is a country I intend to visit again (unlike Vietnam, for example)...

[dumball]

Surely it is reasonable to presume , that any Thai living in Cambodia could cross the border of their own volition if they felt the need to do so , does the Thai government think all of its citizens are that stupid and cannot think or do things for themselves ?

Well , let me put that in a different way , has the government finaly realised , that the way they educate their students is so antiquated , the end results cannot make a conciouse decision of their own or even on theit own behalf .

Um well , what do you think Somchai "Think , I do not need a headache right now thank you "

[LaoPo]

A problem with the gov't (and notjust this one) is that they advertise their every move as if that will, in fact, somehow be a deterrent. The anger and the hard feelings are on the part of Thailand. I doubt that the average Cambodian cares much about whether Thaksin is there or not. A reasonable, behind the scenese approach by the Thai gov't would have prevented much of this broo-haha.

I couldn't agree more.

The Thai government is behaving childish and not mature according to international diplomacy behavior.

Instead of silencing Thaksin's visit to Cambodia they were roaring about it. In fact they roar about every move he makes.

He should be ignored and the Thai government should pay more attention to the enormous economic burdens.

"Government ready to fly Thais out of Cambodia..."

...give me a break; never read such nonsense before when a certain country withdraws it's diplomats with a counter reaction from the other country.

Utter childish nonsense.

LaoPo

[featography]

Strange to me that they not allowed the plane of a convicted fugitive to pass through thai airspace.In other country's they would just hope on an opportunity like this so they could send some jets into the sky and make the plane land.Am I missing something?

you didnt miss it. I guess 1% of the members thought of it, but you get to be first to mention it. Gold star to you.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

WHOT! I must object!!! That star is mine sir!

See my post, here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaland-Knew...ht-t314248.html

[ Thaland Knew About Thaksin's Flight, but did not take action ]

Yesterday, 2009-11-14 08:56:38

[peecee]

Whichever side that would be mostly to blame if the situation escalates, it is STILL prudent to prepare for citizen evacuation. I don't understand why that move can objectively be criticized. Again, ANY prudent government would do exactly the same.

Come on; this is sabre rattling pure & simple. The Thai's should advise there citizen's to leave through normal tranport routes. If the Cambodian's want to deny these repatriation flight's into their airspace then it just krank's up the situation & before long bullet's are flying!

[caf]

Whichever side that would be mostly to blame if the situation escalates, it is STILL prudent to prepare for citizen evacuation. I don't understand why that move can objectively be criticized. Again, ANY prudent government would do exactly the same.

Come on; this is sabre rattling pure & simple. The Thai's should advise there citizen's to leave through normal tranport routes. If the Cambodian's want to deny these repatriation flight's into their airspace then it just krank's up the situation & before long bullet's are flying!

I agree it's sabre rattling, as I said before.

And I personally think it will come to nothing, but if the Thais wanted to leave the Cambodians would not stop them

The Thais should realise the world is looking on in disbelief

Someone should do a poll on which nation is best at shooting itself in the foot so often

[Sheryl]

Well, I'm in Phnom Penh now and have been since the 8th. Couldn't be calmer or quieter, and that includes among the Thai residents of the city. Not the faintest hint of any need for anyone to evacuate.

The Thai embassy is open for business as usual, even issuing tourist visas to Cambodian citizens.

I'm sure the Thai government already had standing contingency plans for emergency evacuation, it is pretty much standard procedure for any Embassy anywhere in the world to have this and of course in the case of Thais in Cambodia such an evacuation has been twice carried out..once after the anti-Thai riots circa 2002-3 and once after the 1997 coup (the latter did not create a Thai-specific threat but as there was fighting in the city many countries evacuated their nationals).

The press announcement indeed looks like grand-standing/propaganda.

The local response to the Taksin-Hun Sen whole business has been one of general bemusement and not tremendous interest one way or the other -- speaking with reference to Phnom Penh. Cambodians living along the border are, of course, worried as I imagine Thais living near the border or doing cross-border business likewise would be, mainly in terms of whether this will adversely effect cross-border trade and travel (hasn't thus far).

And for the benefit of those who asked, Cambodia does indeed have newspapers, many of them, including 2 large English-language ones, one of which has IMO a higher standard of journalism than either of the 2 in Thailand and certainly more journalistic freedom. Coverage of this matter in the local English language press has been intelligent and balanced.

Camboda has seen double digit economic growth in the past decade and is far from a "sh*thole", especially the capital. Phnom Penh is a city with a burgeoning middle class, sky-scrapers going up, new shopping centers opening, many fine restaurants etc. Reminds me quite a bit of how Bangkok was in the 1980's. I travel here monthly and the change from month to month is noticeable. Anyone last here a few years back would have trouble recognizing the place.

[Dpolenz]

Good post Sheryl and i agree with what you say about the noticeable change month by month,I love going to Phnom penh and normally spend a month there evey year.

[robint]

quote

the Cambodians must be laughing theyr heads of,

unquote

Ive never noticed ordinary cambodians laughing about anything - their miserable lives are nothing to laugh about

and btw, there's no such thing as the cambo smile - perhaps they are temperamentally rather more sincere?

[Sheryl]

quote

Ive never noticed ordinary cambodians laughing about anything - their miserable lives are nothing to laugh about

Speaking as someone who speaks the language fluently and spends about 50% time i n the country -- and has done so for decades -- Cambodians love to laugh, their sense of humor is one of the most endearing qualities IMO.

Socioeconomic and health conditions have improved dramatically in the past decade, and I think most Cambodians would sharply disagree with the idea that they lead "miserable lives".

And even those whose lives are indisputably miserable, i.e. the "poorest of the poor", still enjoy laughing and have a great sense of humor.