Thai-Cambodian row does neither any good

In May, Abishit's government ordered a military crackdown against the red shirt demonstrators (Photo: AP)

10/08/2010
Pavin Chachavalpongpun
Opinion
Bangkok Post

When Kasit Piromya was with the Democrat Party in opposition, he violated all diplomatic regulations with Cambodia. He made a number of unflattering remarks about Prime Minister Hun Sen by calling him a kui (a derogatory term meaning a tramp), a khikha (slave) of Thaksin, and a nakleng (gangster).

Just when one thought that diplomacy was a fundamental ingredient behind amicable relations among nations, the current diplomatic spat between Thailand and Cambodia simply deconstructs this illusory definition of diplomacy.

In the world of diplomatic protocol, extravagant titles, fussy dress codes and flowery language seem to be of equal importance to substance in any bilateral relationship. Former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai once said that diplomatic protocol was so vital that it could make or break a relationship with a foreign counterpart.

Yet the present episode in Thai-Cambodian relations should remind the Thai government that overlooking the basic rules of diplomatic behaviour can be extremely detrimental to the national interest.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva declared during a televised discussion with the Thai Patriots Network, that the use of military force would be the last option. Although Mr Abhisit emphasised that his government had done its best to avoid armed confrontation with Cambodia, he stated that the armed forces and security agencies were ready to defend the country if a border conflict appeared inevitable.

This apparently allows Cambodia to reconstruct Thailand as an aggressive nation - a perception that could further damage the image of the government which, in May, ordered a military crackdown against the red shirt demonstrators.

In retaliation, Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen immediately sent a letter to the United Nations, complaining about Thailand's threat to use force against his country. He stated: "By seriously threatening to use military force against Cambodia to settle the problem of border, Thailand flagrantly violates Article 2.3 and 2.4 of the United Nations Charter... In the face of this serious threat of use of armed force against Cambodia to settle the border demarcation, I earnestly request [the UN Security Council] to circulate this letter to all of its members."

The conflict should first have been managed within a bilateral context. Yet that seems impossible as both sides are unwilling to talk to each other. The fact that Cambodia has turned to the UN means it hopes to internationalise the situation and indeed embarrass Thailand in front of the world community. After all, Cambodia is the rightful owner of the Preah Vihear temple. The conflict has been going on for a few years now and Cambodia has portrayed itself as a victim of Thailand's domestic conflict which, again, is partly true.

It can be argued that the latest flare-up is because Mr Abhisit is seen to have endorsed the "use of force" in order to satisfy his nationalist supporters. Despite the context, he should have known that the "use of force" is a taboo term in the diplomatic community.

Jonathan Eyal, a London-based journalist, argued that diplomatic protocol has evolved over centuries into a code of behaviour governing relations between sovereign nations. The basic rule of diplomatic protocol is reciprocity: a country should not do anything it does not wish to see done to itself. So, if Mr Abhisit wants to threaten his Cambodian neighbour, he must be ready to be threatened in return.

This is what Mr Eyal called the art of "diplomatic insult". In a recent article he referred to some of the most famous snubs in the history of diplomacy. In 1077, for example, Pope Gregory VII kept the German Emperor waiting in the snow for three days before granting him an audience. In 1958, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was denied a meeting with Nikita Khruschev because the Soviet leader was at the dentist's. Mr Eyal pointed out how the phrase "diplomatic toothache" thus entered the vocabulary.

In recent times, a diplomatic insult is carefully calibrated to express great anger without openly antagonising an opponent. In 1997, Indian leaders boycotted a state dinner for the visiting British Queen following injudicious remarks made by her Foreign Secretary. In 2005, Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi abruptly terminated her trip to Tokyo because the Japanese premier visited the controversial Yasukuni shrine.

Cambodia's reaction to the Thai premier's statement is the latest reflection of how bilateral relations could be held hostage by the work of diplomatic insult.

When Kasit Piromya was with the Democrat Party in opposition, he violated all diplomatic regulations with Cambodia. He made a number of unflattering remarks about Prime Minister Hun Sen by calling him a kui (a derogatory term meaning a tramp), a khikha (slave) of Thaksin, and a nakleng (gangster).

When Mr Abhisit appointed Mr Kasit as foreign minister, Hun Sen felt that the diplomatic insult had been made official. Hun Sen was then willing to breach every rule in the diplomatic book to discredit the Abhisit government. His diplomatic retribution was swift and brutal.

In the past year, Hun Sen launched a no-holds-barred attack against Mr Abhisit. The exchange of harsh words became a powerful diplomatic tool and has already driven Thailand and Cambodia into a series of armed conflicts along their common border.

Leaders have exercised their diplomacy, not to inculcate a sense of good neighbourliness, but to humiliate each other. Today, PM Abhisit is seen to have humiliated Hun Sen to please the Thai audience. Hun Sen is doing the same to Mr Abhisit, but through the United Nations.

At the height of the bilateral conflict, Thailand recalled its ambassador to Phnom Penh to protest against Hun Sen's appointment of Thaksin Shinawatra as his country's economic adviser.

Usually - as Mr Eyal observes - the downgrading of diplomatic relations, depending on the circumstances, may last anything from a few days to a few years. If the row escalates, a complete breaking off of diplomatic ties is possible.

Cambodia has broken off its diplomatic relations with Thailand many times, especially from the 1950s to 1962, the year Thailand lost its Preah Vihear case to Cambodia.The continued diplomatic insult could indeed lead to an interruption of Thai-Cambodian diplomatic relations. Without open channels of communication, things could turn even more unpredictable - and violent.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a fellow at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.