Does Thailand want to have peace and security along the Cambodia-Thailand borders?

By KIN Phea

As a member of the United Nations and a signatory to various international treaties as well as a good neighbor with Thailand, Cambodia always makes good cooperation and takes a peaceful approach to all problems including the border problem with Thailand based on international laws and bilateral negotiations with the ultimate aim to achieve friendly and stable borders with Thailand. This has been proved by the fact that though Thailand had sent armed soldiers to many points along the border, Cambodia has been patient and opted for flexible measures in order to prevent gunfire.

The difficulties in conducting negotiations with Thailand and Thailand’s unwillingness to negotiate prompted Cambodia to seek intervention from the international community while the international community insisted that both sides continue bilateral talks on the current conflict. On one hand, the Thai side keeps on using very kind and open diplomatic words in order to convince the international community that it is willing to negotiate with Cambodia. But despite many rounds of talks, Cambodia has not achieved any progress on the ground, and Thailand did not pull back their troops to bring the situation back to normal as it was before 15 July 2008.

Thailand has used negotiations as a screen behind which it can send more troops into Cambodian territory at different places such as Ta Moan and Takrabey temples…etc., while Thailand said these places belong to Thailand and where its troops have stationed for years. In fact the visit of Thailand’s Foreign Minister to Cambodia on 13 October 2008 was only a ploy to show good behavior and good will at the very time when it was sending more troops to Veal Intry (Eagle Field), which is situated approximately 1,120 meters inside Cambodian territory from the international border line.

Following a warning from the Cambodian Prime Minister, Thailand withdrew its troops from Eagle Field before the end of the moratorium; however Thailand told the international community it had never sent troops into Cambodian territory and so had no troops to withdraw. On the next day, 15 October 2008, Thailand sent in combat troops to reinforce its Saranaree Special Forces. Thailand did not only make use of the Prime Minister’s speech as a pretext to open fire at the Cambodian troops, but also briefed the national and international circles that Cambodia was attacking them inside the Thai territory. Thailand also used its media to deceive the international community by saying that Cambodia was invading its territory, particularly at some points in Sisaket province. On the contrary the gunfire happened inside the Cambodian territory.

Thailand has so far tried to limit discussion of this issue to bilateral talks exclusively because it understands that when there is involvement from the international community then duplicity would be revealed as they would understand that the area in conflict was under the sovereignty of Cambodia and this territory was invaded by Thailand. Furthermore Thailand has confused the international circles concerning the reality along the borders of the two countries. This is shown by the fact that 10 Thai soldiers were captured as a result of the gunfire on 15 October 2008. Thailand is still misleading the public idea and international community by saying no soldiers were captured and showing no pity on these soldiers and their families.

Generally Thailand always says that it wants to solve the problem bilaterally while it sends more troops into Cambodian territory, especially at a number of points along the border where ancient temples are situated. At times where the problem seems to be being solved diplomatically and technically, the Thai military continues crossing into Cambodian territory. In addition Thailand always uses its domestic crisis to justify delays in bilateral negotiation thereby taking Cambodia hostage by Thailand’s domestic politics and slandering by Thailand on international arena. If Thailand changes its aggressive behavior and follows international laws, the border problem ignited by Thailand can be settled bilaterally. So the solution of multilateral involvement stands out as the best option for a small country like Cambodia, which respects the legal framework for international justice

Thailand’s rhetorical Arrogance and Condescendence

by Pancha Seila
“Furthermore, it appears to reflect a blatant disregard for Thailand’s constitutional democratic processes, which may be different from Cambodia’s but equally deserving of respect.”

H.E Frutakul Virasakdi

When Thailand’s constitutional democratic process allows a Thai administrative court to annul an agreement signed between Thai government and Cambodia, in this case June 18 Joint Communique signed by Thai Foreign Minister, H.E. Noppadon Patterman and H.E. Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Council Ministers of Cambodia, and when H.E Frutakul Virasakdi permanent secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Thailand implied that Cambodia must respect Thai administrative court decision as well, H.E. Frutakul Virasakdi shows Thailand true color of arrogance and condescendence with regard to Cambodia, which is absolutely unacceptable. Isn’t it an imperialistic arrogance and condescendence to impose its own constitutional processes on a neighbouring country? – Yes it is! Isn’t it Thailand’s sickness or Thailand’s craziness caused by its own unending domestic political squabble that forces H.E. Frutakul Virasakdi to become not only uncivilized but indecent? – Yes it is!

Thailand’s constitutional democratic processes of which H.E. Frutakul Virasakdi spoke highly in his statement posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand on October 14, 2008 provides Thailand the advantages of walking away from Thailand’s international commitment, from scheduled meeting for bilateral negotiations, and from pro-active commitment to resolve the demarcation of the boundary line between Thailand and Cambodia. Whatever schemes and tricks and rhetoric prowess H.E. Futrakul Virasakdi may have excelled in the name of Thailand’s constitutional democratic processes, it would be powerless when he tried to cause trouble to Cambodia. That is Thailand’s Karma!

Thailand’s inability to claw the Temple of Preah Vihear because of the Washington Treaty of 1946 and the 1962 ICJ’s judgment must be taken by Thailand as an unavoidable Karma and not a failure of anyone in particular.