Cambodia Disappointed With Thailand In Border Row

[webfact]

Cambodia disappointed with Thailand in border row

JAKARTA, April 9, 2011 (AFP) - Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong on Saturday expressed disappointment over Thailand's refusal to send Indonesian military observers to the disputed Thai-Cambodia border.

"If Thailand wishes really to have a ceasefire at the border, why should they hesitate to receive Indonesian observers," he told reporters in Jakarta ahead of an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting on the relief response to tsunami-ravaged Japan.

"Every time there's an armed clash, they always accuse Cambodia of starting the fighting. In such a case, why don't they accept (the) role of Indonesia as mediator?" he added.

At an ASEAN meeting in February, Thailand and Cambodia agreed to accept Indonesian observers to a flashpoint section of the border where heavy fighting erupted the same month.

But Thailand's military in March said the observers were not wanted in the disputed area near an 11th-century temple because it was too dangerous and they would only complicate matters.

Hor Namhong said Thailand ought to respect Indonesia's role in the border negotiations as Jakarta had received the UN Security Council's support.

"We have to respect the ASEAN chair's role in the negotiation. Indonesia as a chair has received the mandate from the UN Security Council," he said.

"I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia," he added.

A two-day border meeting of senior officials from the two countries held in Bogor, West Java province, this week ended without resolution.

"The border issue is very complex. The discussion process cannot possibly be solved in just one meeting," Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa told reporters Friday.

Thailand and Cambodia have each accused the other of starting the border clashes, which erupted around the ancient Hindu temple of Preah Vihear.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-04-09

[geovalin]

"If Thailand wishes really to have a ceasefire at the border, why should they hesitate to receive Indonesian observers,"

Stupid question! Thailand officially refuses any idea of ceasefire (check previous news). They NEED this possible war to allow the [snip] Dems / army to win the elections.

[Pi Sek]

"If Thailand wishes really to have a ceasefire at the border, why should they hesitate to receive Indonesian observers,"

Stupid question! Thailand officially refuses any idea of ceasefire (check previous news). They NEED this possible war to allow the [snip] / Dems / army to win the elections.

Just because there is no differentiation between the UDD, PTP and Thaksin, that doesn't mean there is in all cases. That's why the royalists and the army have both been very critical of the Dems for the last year or so. But, you already know this yet decide to spread your divisive lies. A real shame. "Thailand officially refuses any idea of ceasefire" - another lie.

Of course, "If Thailand wishes really to have a ceasefire at the border, why should they hesitate to receive Indonesian observers" is a valid question, although the question has been answered many times before. The answer - there is no good reason whatsoever that the two parties shouldn't be able to resolve this bilaterally (although there is a bad one - either Thailand, Cambodia or both, as I conclude, are just too stubborn), and Thailand doesn't want third parties "resolving" this dispute when third parties are responsible for it in the first place (France). I'm not saying this is a good or a bad answer, but it is a valid one.

I'd also pick up on the part brown-nosing and part aggravating one liner from the Cambodian Foreign Minister, "I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia". With attitudes like this, do you really think that bilateral talks have failed solely because of Thailand?

[Oberkommando]

I'd also pick up on the part brown-nosing and part aggravating one liner from the Cambodian Foreign Minister, "I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia". With attitudes like this, do you really think that bilateral talks have failed solely because of Thailand?

With Thailand's record over the last 100 years in regards to the Preah Vihear temple who can blame the Cambodians for being pessimistic?

Think: Preah Vihear Massacre, Thai military occupation of the temple in 1956, etc, etc.

[SanitreeNapikin]

They all need to put down the guns and have monthly full moon foam parties there. Oh my, why so seriet?

[Pi Sek]

I'd also pick up on the part brown-nosing and part aggravating one liner from the Cambodian Foreign Minister, "I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia". With attitudes like this, do you really think that bilateral talks have failed solely because of Thailand?

With Thailand's record over the last 100 years in regards to the Preah Vihear temple who can blame the Cambodians for being pessimistic?

Think: Preah Vihear Massacre, Thai military occupation of the temple in 1956, etc, etc.

I agree that Thailand's record is questionable... and not only with regards to this dispute. One only needs to say the words "Rohingya" or "Tak Bai" and certain horror stories immediately spring to mind.

But how constructive is it when Cambodia foreign minister tells an Indonesian ASEAN panel "I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia"? I would say it is destructive and a Minister of Foreign Affairs (a position in which diplomacy is a very important trait - which is why I thought Kasit Piromya was a bad choice) should maybe have chosen his words differently.

Having said that, Cambodia's record is also questionable... as is the record of "third parties" as I explained above.

I think this is a strong case of noone being wrong but noone being right either.

[WhySoSerious]

I'd also pick up on the part brown-nosing and part aggravating one liner from the Cambodian Foreign Minister, "I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia". With attitudes like this, do you really think that bilateral talks have failed solely because of Thailand?

With Thailand's record over the last 100 years in regards to the Preah Vihear temple who can blame the Cambodians for being pessimistic?

Think: Preah Vihear Massacre, Thai military occupation of the temple in 1956, etc, etc.

I agree that Thailand's record is questionable... and not only with regards to this dispute. One only needs to say the words "Rohingya" or "Tak Bai" and certain horror stories immediately spring to mind.

But how constructive is it when Cambodia foreign minister tells an Indonesian ASEAN panel "I never can be optimistic with Thailand, it's very difficult to deal with them... I always trust Indonesia"? I would say it is destructive and a Minister of Foreign Affairs (a position in which diplomacy is a very important trait - which is why I thought Kasit Piromya was a bad choice) should maybe have chosen his words differently.

Having said that, Cambodia's record is also questionable... as is the record of "third parties" as I explained above.

I think this is a strong case of noone being wrong but noone being right either.

The Cambodian Foreign Ministers statement may not be very diplomatic, but it's true.

Comparing former colonial power France's involvement in the past, to neutral Indonesia's involvement , with UN backing, in the present, is simply absurd.

Edited April 10, 2011 by WhySoSerious

[geovalin]

"If Thailand wishes really to have a ceasefire at the border, why should they hesitate to receive Indonesian observers,"

Stupid question! Thailand officially refuses any idea of ceasefire (check previous news). They NEED this possible war to allow the [snip] / Dems / army to win the elections.

"Thailand officially refuses any idea of ceasefire" - another lie.

Kasit said the Thai side deemed it unnecessary to formalise and sign the ceasefire agreement since the dispute could be settled through bilateral talks.

The Nation 21 Feb

Phnom Penh has called for third-party mediation to help achieve a permanent ceasefire but Bangkok insists the dispute should be resolved bilaterally, and has urged Cambodia to return to the negotiating table.

AFP 22 Feb

Signing a permanent ceasefire = the war is over, end of the story.

Army, royalists and Dems (I know that 99% of the Thai population is peaceful) do not want any formal ceasefire, they want to still have the opportunity to launch hostilities at any time. Possibly two weeks before the polls.