A No-Win Conflict

By SONG YINGHUI

A No-Win Conflict

By SONG YINGHUI

Cambodia-Thailand border dispute harms both countries as well as regional peace

Cambodia-Thailand relations have recently become tense again. Their border dispute in February claimed at least 11 lives and injured close to 100.Large numbers of villagers on either side of the border were forced to leave their homes and move to makeshift camps.

Origins

The core of the dispute is the Preah Vihear Temple located on the Cambodia-Thailand border. The dispute can be traced back to ancient times. Originally built by Cambodians in the ninth century, the temple became important during the reign of two Cambodian kings from 1010 to 1150. As devout Buddhists, the kings enlarged the temple and made it a sacred place. Most of the surviving structures at the temple date back to that period.

Invading Thai forces took over the Preah Vihear Temple in the early 15th century.However, Cambodians continued to view the temple as their spiritual home. Since then,seeds of hostility have remained in the hearts of the two nations. Both Cambodia and Thailand claim sovereignty over the temple and its neighboring areas. Disputes have broken out from time to time.

The current Cambodia-Thailand border is based on a map drawn by French colonists. In 1887, Cambodia became a French colony. In 1907, France unilaterally placed the temple under Cambodian administration. In 1953, Cambodia gained independence. After French withdrawal from Cambodia, Thailand assumed control over the temple. Cambodia urged Thailand to return the temple, and took the matter to the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

In 1962, the International Court of Justice ruled the temple belonged to Cambodia, but sovereignty over land near the temple remained controversial. Thailand refused to accept the ruling, claiming the temple’s main entrance is on the Thai side. In addition,the many landmines buried around the temple during previous conflicts hindered the progress of border demarcation. Therefore, the ruling was never enforced.

In 2008, UNESCO approved Cambodia’s application to have the temple listed as a world heritage site. The decision reignited tension between the two countries. Previously, largescale conflicts broke out in October 2008, April 2009 and January 2010.

Clashes

The 2011 clash actually began at the end of last year.On December 29, 2010, seven Thais were arrested by Cambodian soldiers in a disputed border area. Five of them were charged with illegal entry and illegally entering a military base along the border. By February, they had been released on bail. But the other two—Veera Somkwamkid, a leader of Thailand’s People’s Alliance for Democracy (Yellow Shirts) and his secretary—were sentenced to eight and six years in jail, respectively, for illegal entry, illegally entering a military base along the border and espionage.

Hearing the news, Yellow Shirts launched a rally of more than 1,000 people in Bangkok. They surrounded the Government House, requesting the government withdraw from the World Heritage Convention and cancel the memorandum of understanding regarding the Thailand-Cambodia border signed in 2000. They also requested expelling all Cambodian soldiers from disputed areas.

In the meantime, Thailand found Cambodia’s flag at a pagoda in the Preah Vihear Temple and a stone tablet, saying that was the place where Thai troops invaded Cambodian territory. Faced with fi erce Thai protests, Cambodia got rid of the stone tablet, but refused to remove the flag. Instead,it placed another stone tablet at the pagoda,reading: “Here is Cambodia.”

The situation immediately became tense. On January 26-27, Thai troops held a military exercise in its border province Nakhon Ratchasima. Thailand also sent an additional 2,000 soldiers to disputed areas near the Preah Vihear Temple. In response,on January 28, Cambodia deployed tanks,rocket launchers and other heavy weapons.A Cambodian Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Thai military exercise was clearly provocative and warned war was imminent.

Bloody clashes finally broke out. From February 4 to 15, disputed areas near the Preah Vihear Temple were the site of six exchanges of fire between Cambodian and Thai troops. Both sides were fatigued but strained.

Deadlock

Although both Cambodia and Thailand were aware of the costs of confrontation and the benefits of dialogue, neither wanted to be the fi rst to make concessions. As a result of the countries’ differing attitudes toward external intervention as well as domestic pressure, a deadlock ensued.

Cambodia is a strong proponent of the involvement of outside parties to eliminate the possibility of conflict. According to Cambodia’sPhnom Penh Post, since the con fl ict in January 2010, Thai soldiers have altogether killed at least 20 Cambodians and arrested dozens in disputed border areas. But Cambodian soldiers were unable to fight back. Unwilling to return to the situation of endless sporadic clashes,Cambodia longs for a third party to mediate.

In contrast, Thailand does not think thirdparty intervention can solve the problem. It has stressed on many occasions that the two sides should restart bilateral talks as soon as possible.

Faced with its own domestic political crisis, the Thai Government urgently needed to take a tough stance against Cambodia to restore its authority. Thailand also claimed to have a video that showed Cambodian soldiers had opened fi re fi rst. Therefore, when Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen called the recent clashes a “real war,” Thailand still showed no fear.

Mediation

The UN Security Council, ASEAN and rotating ASEAN chair Indonesia are involved in mediating the conflict. On February 14, the UN Security Council had an emergency meeting in New York to address the Cambodia-Thailand border clashes.The foreign ministers of Cambodia, Thailand and Indonesia, as well as representatives of UN Security Council members, attended the meeting.

The UN Security Council urged Cambodia and Thailand to display maximum restraint and to establish a permanent cease fi re. It also called on the two countries to resolve the dispute peacefully through effective dialogue.

STANDING GUARD: A Cambodian soldier guards the Preah Vihear Temple on the Cambodia-Thailand border

In the meantime, the UN Security Council expressed appreciation for the efforts of ASEAN and said it would support ASEAN playing a bigger role in the matter.On February 22, ASEAN foreign ministers held a meeting in Jakarta, Indonesia, trying to urge Cambodia and Thailand to restore negotiations as soon as possible. Indonesia also proposed meetings of Cambodian-Thai defense ministers and border of fi cials in late March.

Continuous tension is not good for either country. Border instability will inevitably take a toll on their political stability and economic development. Thailand will hold a general election this year. Currently,various political parties are trying to use the border dispute to win votes. Although Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has vowed to spare no efforts to protect Thailand’s interests and rights regarding this issue, he is still accused of being too weak. Given this volatile political situation,it is impossible for Thailand to focus on economic development.

Having hardly recovered from the impact of the global fi nancial crisis, the Cambodian economy cannot afford the cost of a war. In addition, Cambodia is highly dependent on foreign aid and investment. Border tension may hinder its efforts to attract investors, and thus adversely affect its economic development.

Cambodia-Thailand tension is also bad news for ASEAN. By 2015, ASEAN plans to create an ASEAN Community, unified economically, politically and socially.Development gaps among its member countries are a big obstacle to creating an ASEAN Community. If the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute continues to hold back Cambodia’s economic development,ASEAN will face even greater dif fi culties in realizing regional integration.

Continuous tension is not good for either country. Border instability will inevitably take a toll on their political stability and economic development

The author is an assistant research fellow with the Institute of South and Southeast Asian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations