Thailand And Cambodia: Time For Asean To Act

[sabaijai]

Thailand and Cambodia: Time for ASEAN to Act

Michael Vatikiotis. January 25, 2010, Asia Security Initiative

It doesn’t take long for a visitor to the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh to hear about the country’s problems with Thailand. Almost anyone you speak to has a view, mainly centered on Thailand’s alleged provocative actions over a disputed boundary that intersects a 12th century Buddhist temple.

The dispute was formally resolved more than forty years ago when the International Court of Justice awarded sovereignty of the Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia. The dispute erupted again two years ago when Cambodia applied to UNESCO to have the temple declared a world heritage site. Thailand initially supported the bid. But opposition politicians in Bangkok’s highly polarized political climate protested that the temple’s world heritage status would mean encroaching on Thai territory, forcing the Thai government to withdraw support for Cambodia’s UNESCO bid. This led in 2008 to an escalation of military tensions along the border and the outbreak of some fighting, quickly quelled by local commanders.

What has happened since is an example of how bilateral disputes can easily escalate into conflict and a wake-up call for ASEAN in terms of the need for a more formal conflict management mechanism. Another armed clash between Thai and Cambodian forces along the border in the third week of January underscored the fragile security situation in the area.

As is commonly the case in the region, both countries agreed at first to keep the dispute strictly a bilateral affair. Boundary disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia and Singapore and Malaysia have followed the same route – although in the case of the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute in Borneo waters between Indonesia and Malaysia and the more recent Pedra Branca island dispute between Singapore and Malaysia, the parties sought international arbitration.

In the case of Preah Vihear, international arbitration has already settled the question of sovereignty, and the issue was only resurrected on the Thai side as part of a bitter political quarrel between forces for and against ousted Thai Premier Thaksin Shinawatra. In the process, whatever goodwill there was between Thailand and Cambodia, which have a long history of mutual dislike and suspicion, evaporated towards the end of 2009 after Cambodia accused Thailand of betraying a promise and raising the Preah Vihear issue in multilateral fora.

Thailand, for its part, felt stabbed in the back after Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen appointed the fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra as one of his economic advisors, which led to an escalated level of diplomatic tension and the recalling of each country’s ambassador. A deep sense of recrimination and bitterness now prevails; Cambodia has accused Thailand of espionage amid leaked Thai official documents that talk of preparations for war. Thailand accuses Cambodia of harbouring fugitives from Thai law and acting as a sanctuary for those who plot violent demonstrations aimed at bringing down the government.

Thaksin has in fact made frequent visits to Phnom Penh, where he has met with supporters unhindered. Now, some officials in the Cambodian capital provocatively say that only a general election in Thailand will help restore relations. Meanwhile, both sides of the border have been reinforced with heavily armed troops. Cambodia has acquired new equipment, including ground to air missiles, built new roads, sowed fresh mine fields and deployed thousands of troops in newly built villages.

None of this sits very well with the image of ASEAN as an effective bulwark against intra-regional conflict. Here are two neighbouring countries that have taken their animosity to levels of political and military brinkmanship never seen in the region.

The question is whether ASEAN can and should intervene, and then how? The first obstacle to doing so is that ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan is himself a Thai, and Cambodian officials openly express their suspicion of his role advising the Thai government on the matter of Preah Vihear and the subsequent fallout. Surin himself strongly denies any role in influencing or shaping current Thai foreign policy. But even with Surin’s natural reluctance to get involved, no one else has come forward to assume a quiet diplomatic role in defusing tensions, which is a pity.

This seems all the more astonishing since the dispute has had a somewhat disrupting impact on high-level ASEAN meetings in the past few months, with Cambodia accusing Thailand as the ASEAN Chair of not properly following diplomatic protocol at summit meetings. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono did meet separately with the Thai and Cambodian Prime Ministers on the fringes of the APEC meeting in Singapore last November, but this rather public attempt at mediation appears to have had no effect on levels of acrimony in the two capitals.

A more effective approach would be for a credible neutral envoy, given a mandate by ASEAN Foreign Ministers, to embark on some quiet diplomacy. This might involve shuttling between meetings in Bangkok and Phnom Penh aimed at finding areas where confidence and trust building can begin the long process of repairing relations.

In this respect, it would be beneficial if Cambodia stopped commenting on internal Thai political affairs, and Thailand in turn stopped raising the Preah Vihear issue in international fora. Neither of these measures would result in a loss of dignity for either party, and would set the stage for a resumption of bilateral dialogue through designated official channels.

Source: http://asiasecurity.macfound.org/blog/entr...r_asean_to_act/

[BSJ]

Last November was the right time for action but, as we know, nothing happened. Then there was last October....nothing there either! Maybe everyone is hoping the whole thing will blow over.

[geovalin]

2 comments.

M Vatikiotis wrote : As is commonly the case in the region, both countries agreed at first to keep the dispute strictly a bilateral affair.

This not accurate.

At the very beginning, in June 2008, when Thailand (indeed Yellow shirts) claimed the disputed land, Cambodia immediately suggested the intervention of the third part (ASEAN, France, US, UN). This should have killed the fuss in the egg but Thais refused the help from outside maybe because they know that they would have lose the case again.

M Vaikiotis wrote : In this respect, it would be beneficial if Cambodia stopped commenting on internal Thai political affairs, and Thailand in turn stopped raising the Preah Vihear issue in international fora.

We could understand that Cambodia made 1 mistake then Thailand made 1 mistake. The story is different. Thailand provoked Cambodia from June 2008 to October 2009 without any real repercussion. Hun Sen began the Thaksin joke when Thais export their internal dispute at this time.

In Thailand, people don't know all the stories which occur at the border. When a poor Khmer peasant crosses the border to get wood (intentionally or not), instead of catch him, they just shot in the goal to kill. Recently Thai soldiers grabbed a 16 year old boy and burnt him alive.

[Hardback]

I wish they could clear up this issue..I've seen pictures of this place and I'd love to go and see it.

[Briggsy]

I thought ASEAN had a policy of not interfering in other countries' affairs. That seems to be their standard line.

[RickBradford]

I thought ASEAN had a policy of not interfering in other countries' affairs. That seems to be their standard line.

It's more than their standard line -- it's pretty much the reason ASEAN was set up.

Out of 10 ASEAN countries, how many are not doing a whole bunch of things they'd very much like outsiders to ignore?

Vietnam beats up Buddhist nuns; Burma squelches the Mons, the Shans, and anybody else it feels like; Laos treats Hmongs appallingly, with Thailand's assistance; the Philippines is regarded as the most corrupt nation in Asia; Cambodia is the personal fiefdom of one man (plus his new special adviser); and you wouldn't want to be an opposition politician or activist in either Malaysia or Singapore. I don't know much about Brunei or Indonesia, but I don't believe either are regarded as bastions of civic excellence.

So, ASEAN.

Now they can all say: "It's their internal affair, we must not interfere."

[moskito]

all this stupidity about a piece of land its like the two fleas sitting on a dog and have an argument about who own it

Is it really necessary for Thailand to fight for it? Have they done not enough harm to the cambodians over the past 50 years?