Downplayed, but a ceasefire thanks to army [-So there was a ceasefire agreement after all?]

22/02/2011
Pichai Chuensuksawadi
Bangkok Post

Over the weekend Thai and Cambodian military commanders reached agreement on several key points aimed at keeping the guns quiet along the disputed border area around Phra Viharn temple.

The government has been quick to say that this is not an official ceasefire. Confusing? Well, yes, and one might ask when is a ceasefire not a ceasefire?

For us ordinary civilians, and especially for the Thai and Cambodian peoples on either side of the border, it does not really matter. Call it what you want - a ceasefire or cessation of hostilities - as long as bullets, mortar and artillery shells do not rain down on their homes and schools, forcing thousands to flee in fear for their lives.

The substance of the agreement reached by the two military delegations is considerable. Both sides agree that no more troops are to be deployed in the conflict zones and the existing troops stationed there must not move. Likewise for heavy armaments and artillery in the conflict area; and neither side may attack the other using heavy weaponry.

They also agreed that no building or structure of any kind may be constructed inside the disputed 4.6 square kilometre border zone; no more military bunkers are to be built; no more road construction is allowed. Senior military officers of both countries are to communicate via a dedicated mobile phone hotline in discussing border issues.

For the government - portraying the meeting by the two military delegations as merely a "discussion or talks" - and saying that formal negotiations must take place at a higher level under the framework of the General Border Committee, bears significance.

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya's statement is consistent with Thailand's position that the border dispute with Cambodia must be resolved bilaterally. Cambodia, on the other hand, has said bilateral talks don't work and has managed to regionalise the issue after the United Nations Security Council basically told both parties to go back and sort the dispute out with Asean's help.

For Thailand, the key challenge is balancing its stated position and responding to the diplomatic offensive initiated by Cambodia while reacting positively to resolve this issue without being viewed regionally and internationally as recalcitrant. This also involves listening to what our military has to say about the situation on the ground and maintaining sovereignty.

If Thailand recognises the agreement reached by the commanders in the field as a ceasefire, then this is tantamount to Thailand agreeing with the claim by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen that the situation along the border is a war. But by just agreeing to stop fighting between the two sides reaffirms Thailand's position that this is a bilateral issue.

Also, agreeing to anything at this stage that resembles an official ceasefire could open the door to suggestions and efforts for a monitoring team from Asean - a diplomatic offensive proposed by Hun Sen last week.

When Premier Hun Sen said he was prepared to accept Asean observers at the border, he took the position to the maximum. The question was, how would Thailand respond? What is its minimum position and how much of an "Asean" footprint can it tolerate given the fact that it will not agree to a formal ceasefire or sign anything today when the Asean foreign ministers meet in Jakarta to discuss this issue?

But Thailand did respond, saying that it would ask Indonesia, as chair of Asean, to send its representatives to observe the operations of Thai soldiers in the disputed areas where clashes between soldiers of the two countries erupted earlier this month.

Minister Kasit said the observers will stay with Thai soldiers on the Thai side of the border.

This is a key and crucial shift. Diplomacy is often about nuances and this move allows Thailand to respond to Hun Sen's move and at the same time gives Asean the necessary forward movement in its supporting role in helping to resolve this dispute. Thailand's decision to invite observers from Indonesia (the Asean chair) opens the door to a third party role in a border dispute between two countries.

So now the border is quiet and both sides have agreed, although to differing degrees, to the presence of an Asean member at the border. Asean can at least say that progress and positive steps have been made in response to the UNSC call for its role in this dispute.

Unlike trade disputes, border disputes are extremely sensitive and without doubt more difficult because they involve the issue of national sovereignty.

When the Asean foreign ministers meet today in Jakarta, they will certainly welcome the military's talks and the fact that concrete details are now on the table on how to avoid further clashes. They are also expected to welcome the Thai offer regarding observers. But it is also likely that the ministers will discuss what more can the association do to help make the peace "permanent" and sustainable.

In his letter inviting the Asean foreign ministers to the "urgent" meeting today, the Asean chair, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, referred to the need for a higher commitment to the ceasefire and the possibility to "enhance communications" between Thailand and Cambodia to "prevent the outbreak of fresh incidents possibly involving Asean as part of the 'hotline'."

This is certainly one issue Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa plans to pursue as he chairs the informal meeting of ministers, which needs to keep track of the key objective of ensuring that negotiations between Thailand and Cambodia continue.

No ceasefire agreement will be inked today, but suffice to say that there will be smiles all around if Thailand and Cambodia can at least declare among their friends as they sit and chat during their informal meeting, of their firm intention to continue talking and to reach a formal ceasefire in the not-too-distant future.

This is the very best that can be achieved. As one senior Asean diplomat put it: "This is the minimum and the maximum that can be achieved in Jakarta tomorrow [today] with Asean having the lightest footprint possible." But apart from the immediate dispute at hand, there will be some members who will be thinking further down the road. In the back of their minds, these ministers will be thinking what all this means and where will it lead for the future.

At present there is no concrete mechanism for dispute settlement, especially one involving two member countries. Members can only call on the good offices of the Asean chair or the Asean secretary-general, to assist when disputes emerge. But for now there is no real process which kicks in automatically. There is no doubt that member countries are still very much reluctant to pursue such discussions, or push for such a mechanism because it would mean having to come to grips with the struggle between State Sovereignty (self-interest and nationalism) and Collective Responsibility (common interest).

Can Asean ever reach that stage? Asean will take it one step at a time. But those steps need to be quicker, as the Asean goal of One Vision, One Identity, One Community in 2015 is just four years away.

--------

Pichai Chuensuksawadi is Editor-in-Chief of Post Publishing Plc. He can be reached at: pichai@bangkokpost.co.th