By Pavin Chachavalpongpun
The Nation
The Thai-Cambodian disputes will not be resolved and Thailand will continue to play second fiddle to Cambodia as long as the Thai state agencies fail to work as a team and to formulate a coherent policy.
Unfortunately there is no indication that these state agencies really acknowledge such a problem. The Foreign Ministry's response ("Thailand is striving for border settlement", March 10) to my article ("Military interference hinders a settlement of border issue", March 2) clearly shows that Thai diplomats, specifically those in the News Division, completely miss the point when it comes to understanding what went wrong in the Thai-Cambodian relationship.
First, for the Foreign Ministry to say that there has been no collision between state agencies regarding Thailand's policy towards Cambodia is an unconvincing denial. Historically, Thailand often struggled to produce a unified stance vis-a-vis Cambodia. British scholar Duncan McCargo argues that, at the end of the Cold War, while the Chatichai Choonhavan government wanted to transform the battlefield in Cambodia into a marketplace, the Foreign Ministry remained wedded to the American influenced Asean orthodoxy of punishing Vietnam for invading Cambodia. The military took matters a stage further by actively supporting residual elements of the Khmer Rouge. McCargo summed up: "Three Thai government agencies, three Cambodia policies."
Today, little has changed in the foreign policy-making process. The Foreign Ministry has endorsed a "dialogue" approach and thus supported the upcoming Thai-Cambodian General Border Committee meeting, to be held from March 24-25 in Bogor, Indonesia and co-chaired by the two defence ministers. But the Thai Army let it be known that it was unhappy with Indonesia's "interference". The meeting will fail if the military keeps backtracking on its own effort to re-establish peace along the border.
Second, the conduct of Thai foreign policy toward Cambodia seriously lacks consistency. The Abhisit Vejjajiva government has insisted on dealing with the conflicts on a bilateral basis, even when it was pressured to involve Asean. The initial reluctance to consult with Asean has eroded the Thai leadership in the organisation.
While the Foreign Ministry has enthusiastically embraced the community-building process of Asean, the government bluntly rejected the regional approach. This has unveiled the hypocritical nature of Thailand's foreign policy, particularly towards Asean.
Third, the Foreign Ministry's measurement of its diplomatic success is shockingly outdated. It said that "last year, the Thai and Cambodian prime ministers met four times, and that this year Foreign Minister Kasit Priomya was still in Phnom Penh when the armed clashes took place on February 4, just having concluded a successful and cordial meeting of the Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation in Siem Reap. Even after the clashes, Deputy Prime Minister Trirong Suwankiri visited Cambodia on February 17 and called on Prime Minister Hun Sen."
Have numerous exchanges of visits between the two sides helped minimise the bilateral conflicts? Obviously not. If anything, they demonstrate that the two countries continue to speak "different languages" to each other, and that the numerous visits have produced nothing substantial. The fact that Kasit was in Siem Reap when the armed clashes occurred simply confirms a lack of communication between the Thai Foreign Ministry and the military. And if the Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation was so successful, as claimed by the Foreign Ministry, then why did the two armies fire artillery into each other's territories on that day?
It is therefore naive to believe that exchanges of visits are symbols of healthy relations. Indeed, it would have been perfectly all right for Thailand to admit that its ties with Cambodia have worsened. At least, the Foreign Ministry should have the guts to tell the truth.
Fourth, the operational mode inside the Foreign Ministry is still largely top-down, and this has restricted creativity. As a result, it has helped to maintain the parochial worldview of some of its members. It is known that Thai diplomats are protective of their "foreign policy turf" and more than willing to discredit those who possess different views on foreign policy issues.
The report on some Thai soldiers wanting to express their frustration with the government by shooting into the Preah Vihear Temple was not based on "hearsay" but an account of those who actually fought in the "war zone". Some of these soldiers accused the Foreign Ministry of knowing nothing on the ground, yet continuing to formulate unrealistic foreign policy from its comfortable office in Bangkok.
Lastly, the practice of using an obsolete "template" in explaining the Thai position in any crisis must be abolished, plainly because it delivers false and even conflicting messages to the public. This template normally includes dream-like statements such as: the forever amicable relations between Thailand and country A; the absence of any conflict between Thailand and country A; Thailand and country A working tirelessly to solve the existing problem; Thailand having a successful working relationship with country A, and so on.
The advice here is that the Foreign Ministry must leave its fantasy land and come back to the world of reality as part of rebuilding its reputation as one of Thailand's most respected state agencies. The world has changed and the Thais are no longer stupid. They have learned more about global politics and become well-versed in foreign affairs. Making untrue and overly simplified statements will only reveal snobbishness on the part of the Foreign Ministry.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a former diplomat, is a visiting lecturer at the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore.
1 comment:
it's siem's fault for mistreating cambodia and not wanting cambodia to become a free market economy in the past. so, now siem see the result. i told you, treat my country cambodia right and we all will get the benefit as a result. how can they keep on ignoring cambodia when we are their next door neighbors, etc, really! siem is so stupid, to say the least! now that they realize this, it's kind of too late for them, i think! cambodia don't need siem in all of this really. we know how they work in the past!
Post a Comment