By Pornpimol Kanchanalak
Special to The Nation
Before the border clashes, the Cambodian people, who historically are more apprehensive about Vietnam, as many can still recall the five-skull torture, were beginning to vociferously question their leadership about the tens of thousands of square kilometres that it gave [to Vietnam].
The Wall Street Journal's editorial on "Thailand Going Rogue" published on April 26 needs a response. It is filled with "rigorous" hypothetical speculation and those conjectures were never verified. It also based on a loaded conspiracy theory whose foundation is at best unsound.
The article put the condemnation squarely on Thailand for being recalcitrant in hearing out peace initiatives. Without the normally required journalistic consideration for fair and equitable treatment of the subjects and subject matter, the article starts positing one huge hypothesis after another, and leaped to a conclusion about Thailand's motives and factual circumstances.
The first point of the article cites Thailand's refusal to accept the initiative to allow the Indonesian Observer Team (IOT) in the affected areas along the Thai-Cambodian border as evidence of Thailand's unwillingness to work towards peace.
Fact 1. It was the Thai foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, not the Cambodian, who proposed to the Asean meeting in Jakarta in February the deployment of an Asean observer team to the area of conflict. Unwittingly, his proposal was not attached with any conditions for implementation. Indonesia, which holds the rotating chair of Asean, in good faith, then drafted the terms of reference (TOR) for this IOT using the same guidelines as those governing the Aceh peace-monitoring activities by the European Union after the peace agreement was reached between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement - GAM.
Unfortunately, Aceh and the disputed 4.6 square kilometres on the Thai-Cambodian border are of a very different nature. Aceh is part of Indonesia and GAM was called the rebels, and all the monitoring bodies were under the jurisdiction of one government - that of Indonesia.
The Thai-Cambodian border row involves the conflicting claims of two sovereign nations. For this reason, the ToR that was applicable to Aceh is not germane to the Thai-Cambodian situation.
The key issue that makes the proposed TOR unacceptable to Thailand is the question of sovereign authority over the two observer teams. One will be deployed in undisputed Thai territory and, according to the TOR, will be under the supervision of Thai authorities.
The other observer team will be dispatched to the disputed area that the ToR considers to be under the jurisdiction of the Cambodian government. That would tip the scale of the delicate balance necessary for a negotiated peace. This issue, if left unaddressed, will become knottier, particularly when the Asean chair next year changes from Indonesia to Cambodia. The sweeping claim of the article that Thailand is unwilling to seek peace is erroneous because it ignores these important facts.
The second point of the article hypothesises that the Thai military has a hidden agenda to perpetuate the conflict. Worse, it makes the unsubstantiated claim that the military, the palace and business elite intentionally instigate and exacerbate the border clashes for their own self-serving interest, and that is to foil the general election that would make possible the return of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
If one does not have enough respect for the long-standing integrity and journalistic standard of this US newspaper, one may have thought that it was probably the hand of some directly interested party in Thai politics that penned this piece.
Fact 2. As much as Thais would like it to be, the Thai military does not have a unified stance and cannot be treated as a cohesive body. The Thai military may have pledged its loyalty to the monarchy as one of the three national pillars to defend, but the reality is quite different for some pledgers.
Fact 3. The article makes a cavernous connection between the yellow shirts and the palace. This is a continuing and blatant misconception. It is not only the yellow-shirt leaders who have been trying to legitimise the movement by dragging the monarchy into the fray for its own interest - many parties shamelessly have. The connection made between the yellow shirts, or the shirts of any colour, and the palace is as factually invalid as the argument that a man does not get pregnant because he is taking birth control pills.
Fact 4. Everybody seems to be fond of talking about the Thai "elite", who are the ultimate, omnipresent, omniscient conspirators/culprits who are equipped with a grand design for Thailand's political future. The truth is they are sheer theoretical phantoms or even a figment of the imagination. It was a catchphrase started by the supporters of Thaksin that has assumed a life of its own. No one, when pressed for an answer of who these "elite" are, can give a clear answer. It's always easier to deal with a complicated and senseless world if we believe in a creator who knows what he/she is doing. It is also quite romantic to have some "privileged" ones to blame with full vagaries of bias.
The third point of the article only talks about Thailand and its domestic politics as driving the Thai-Cambodian conflict. Never once does it ask the question if the same assertion can be applied to the Cambodian leadership.
Fact 5. Before the border clashes, the Cambodian people, who historically are more apprehensive about Vietnam, as many can still recall the five-skull torture, were beginning to vociferously question their leadership about the tens of thousands of square kilometres that it gave [to Vietnam].
10 comments:
Regarding Fact 1. What is the point of this if indeed it is a fact. Additionally If it was the Thais that proposed ASEAN observers, they have since rolled back on this request. They have not said that the ToR is inadequate but stating that they want a bilateral solution.
Fact 2 Thai military is not unified. What utter nonsense. If this was actually the case the country would have seen the military split and take sides in the last 4/5 incidences where the governments of the time collapsed. This has not happened
Fact 3.The King of Thailand is revered by all in Thailand, and in cases where various groups are in dispute he is usually appealed to as their supreme leader. However it is well noted that the Yellow Shirts picked their colour as being loyal to the King and supporters of the monarchy and the Reds as they have a slightly republican standpoint. The analogy used also is absolute nonsense.
Fact 4 This is unbelievable. Every country has an elite, Thailand is no exception. Ask any person on the street in Bangkok, and they could name dozens or more of powerful people in Thailand. These elite have vested interests in the country, and to say that it was supporters of Thaksin who coined the phrase is laughable considering he is part of this elite.
In response to the paragraph after that, it is stating the obvious, and many khmers and others would have their on views already expressed on this forum on how beneficial this conflict is to the CPP/Hun Sen Dynasty in terms of building nationalist sentiment, winning the next election, and prolonging their control over the country.
This article is more about dimissing the Wall Streets Journal opinions, in order to discredit it. As usual the westerners "don't understand"
This piece while it is eloquently written, is drivel.
Sorry one additional point. Can someone explain to me what is this five-skull torture?
Again this "fact" has nothing to do with the Wall Street Journal article
I just want to point out to this Siem that try to response to the Wall Street Journal writer. The Wall Street Journal is the most revered and repected newspaper in the United States for its impartial and balance news. To discredit the paper this way is a total lack of self respect.
I understand it's very hard to take one in the chin. Truth hurts.The writer provided subtantial evidence to back up all the points. BTW, Cambodian had been asking for 3rd party intervention since the first conflict. The Siem is trying to take credit for asking the Indonesian observers is just a total lie.
The Great Khmer Empire
Thank you Wall Street for the facts and justice!
Wall Street is one of the wellknow newspaper in the world!
What are they trying to justify??? There is no logic to stop Cambodia from steaming ahead to this issue behind us once and for all. We just want to rebuild Cambodia without Thailand hand in our business.
It's called sophistry; it's what the Thais exel at, from generals and politicians to reporters!
With the microphones pressed in their faces, they sound as though they are the most peace-loving souls in the world!
Just listen to Abphisit's recent demand that "Cambodia must stop firing at Thai troops first" before any cease fire could be negotiated.
Listen also to Piromya's insistence on using "existing bilateral mechanisms for resolving the conflict" . . . that there is "no need to go crying to the UN or other third parties".
I realise there is a problem in the East as well that demands Cambodia's attention, but the Thais' belligerence and aggression in the West does not help Cambodia at all. And it's hard to see a small country with a shaky military capability picking a fight with another country with a vastly superior one.
Remember how long those Thai soldiers had been allowed to remain at Wat Keo Sekha Kiri Svara to appease the PAD and the Thai military?
This is a gesture partly of patient diplomacy on Phnom Penh's part, but also one born of powerlessness. And this reality of Cambodia's disadvantage is precisely what the Thais are preying upon.
The only thing they are concerned about is the manner in which they choose to bully Cambodia, hence their persistent refusal to engage her on any open, level playing field, notwithstanding their rhetoric to the contrary, something this article conveniently and indeed 'diplomatically' overlooks.
The "five-skull torture" might be a reference to "the Master's Tea" incident in the 19th century recalled by Cambodians to remind themselves of Vietnamese cruelty against the Khmer nation.
Anyway, thanks for giving a good, reasoned point-by-point response to the article's misleading assertions above.
Ko-Prey
Nicely done Ko-Prey. I throughly enjoyed that short and succinct analysis.
Note to Ki-Media moderators.
A suggestion to your blog site would be if possible to have like & dislike voting buttons on both the stories published and the comments made by posters to the articles.
There are many comments made above that I would like to comment back on (all positive!) but could spend all day typing on, and not get any work done!
Thanks and keep up the good work
The Wall Street Journal is not the only one that is saying that. Every Thai experts and the Thais themselves are saying what the WSJ is saying. So everybody got it all wrong?
One thing is clear all these papers are nothing but mouthpiece for the Thai gov't. They are blatantly bias and can't be trusted. And they are accusing the WSJ of being bias. Hahaha... I just have to laugh.
cha ching
at the bottom, the Thai appears to be saying that if the Cambodian gave so much land to Vietnam, why not just give the Thai what they quietly stole so far. this article is a fart and, for publishing it, makes the nation newspaper is big poop. STINK.
Post a Comment