BURNING ISSUE
Published on April 27, 2011

The latest border skirmish between Thailand and Cambodia at Ta Mouan Thom temple is solid proof that Abhisit Vejjajiva's foreign policy and diplomatic skill towards Cambodia are absolutely wrong and have failed to help bring peace with its neighbour.
Many soldiers and civilians have lost their lives in recent years since Thailand opposed Cambodia's plan to get World Heritage listing for the Preah Vihear temple in 2008.The latest clash at Ta Mouan and Ta Kwai (known in Cambodia as Ta Krabei), some 150km west of Preah Vihear, is just an extension of the conflict in February, which was caused by Cambodian disappointment at Abhisit's policy.

The issue became complicated and very difficult to resolve as the current Thai government mixed everything up. Thailand and Cambodia's conflict these days are a combination of boundary issues, military arrangements at the border, management of the World Heritage plan, as well as local and international politics.

The root cause of the problem began when Abhisit's government linked the World Heritage management plan with boundary demarcation of areas near to the temple. This government would use all means to block the management plan for Preah Vihear if demarcation of the boundary is not completed.

But even a schoolboy knows that boundary demarcation is time-consuming work and it could be separated from the management of World Heritage property. Legal experts agree that World Heritage listing should not cause Thailand to lose rights of sovereignty over territory adjacent to the temple - if that land really belongs to this country.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen also knows that Abhisit wants to use this issue to delay his plan for Preah Vihear.

Abhisit has felt compelled to do this, as he has been pressured by conservative and nationalist groups, which have camped near his office for months now.

A plan to make permanent peace at the border was also deferred because the Thai military hesitated to receive Indonesian observers at the border. The government has stalled on this since it agreed to the proposal in February. No observer from Indonesia has set a foot on the ground since the last clash at Preah Vihear in February.

Perhaps it's too shallow to think that Cambodia attacked Thailand simply because it wants to 'internationalise' the conflict. Would anybody think twice on why Phnom Penh might want to do this? And why Thailand was so scared of a multilateral forum wanting to resolve the problem?

Abhisit insists from time to time that existing bilateral mechanisms should be used to strike a deal with Cambodia over the conflict - as though he never knew that such a method would be ineffective at settling a contemporary dispute.

It sounds very na�ve to call local commanders on both sides for a ceasefire when everybody knows that only Prime Minister Hun Sen can make such a decision. So the question is why doesn't Abhisit, as head of government, call his Cambodian counterpart to get a ceasefire?

If the government has no diplomatic capacity to convince Cambodian leaders to settle the conflict, the only option is for an acceptable third party. So, if Thailand has nothing to hide, having foreign observers at the border to monitor a cease-fire should not be a worry.

In this context, Asean, which is now chaired by Indonesia, is available and ready to enhance its role in solving the problem for its two member states.

Phnom Penh is also ready to comply with Asean's line, as it called for observers. But the problem has been on our side.

Time is running out and the situation is escalating. Perhaps the original plan to dispatch only 15 Indonesian observers on each side is not enough now. If Thailand wants to limit the size of the problem and find a solution, it needs to adjust its position and make a decision now.

APRIL 26, 2011
Fighting over the disputed territory surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple along the Thai-Cambodia border resumed last Friday, with both sides trading artillery fire and accusations of targeting civilian villages throughout the weekend. The Associated Press reports 12 soldiers confirmed dead.

The world may never know which side started the latest clash, since Thailand continues to resist allowing international observers to monitor the area. And both countries deserve some blame for stirring the pot at various times. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that the Thai military is doing nothing to ease the tension.

That much we know from the way that the military, and then Bangkok, vetoed initiatives to get the two sides talking. After the last major bout of fighting in February, Cambodia succeeded in bringing the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which promptly kicked it back to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Indonesia, the chair of Asean this year, has played shuttle diplomacy trying to bring the two sides together, but Bangkok continues to balk. That has allowed Cambodia to play the aggrieved and more reasonable party.

Associated Press Thailand's unwillingness to even contemplate compromise may be due to the broader impasse in its domestic politics. In 2008, the royalist People's Alliance for Democracy, more commonly known as the yellow shirts, took up the temple issue as a cudgel against the government of Samak Sundaravej. The same group has now turned on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and is castigating him for not taking more aggressive action to recover the temple.

Meanwhile, the military is positioning itself as the main defender of the monarchy and Thai sovereignty. Tension between the military and the civilian government has been mounting since Mr. Abhisit announced elections would be held within the next few months. Bangkok is rife with rumors that a coup is imminent.

The military, palace and business elite all fear that supporters of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will win their fourth straight general election. The last three results were annulled by a coup and court rulings, and the red shirt supporters of Mr. Thaksin have become increasingly restive as a result of their disenfranchisement. Even if their Puea Thai Party wins, there is a strong chance they will not be allowed to form a government. So further unrest later this year seems likely.

In this context, a fight with Cambodia might seem an appealing way out of the deadlock. A limited war with a much smaller neighbor could unify Thais, as the red shirts would feel pressure to get behind the military in a time of national crisis. Mr. Abhisit, who has never won an election and is widely regarded as a figurehead within Thailand, could be dispensed with, and elections pushed off until the glow of victory and massive public spending restore the Bangkok elite's popularity.

Perhaps the Thai military understands how much could go wrong with such a scenario and is only engaging in brinksmanship. But even this runs the risk of accidental escalation. And once a conflict starts, Asean nations would be put in the impossible position of having to choose sides, which might tear the organization apart.

Thailand's friends have a responsibility to dissuade the military from military adventures. It's also time they addressed the root cause of the problem. This conflict is a sign that the nation's internal political crisis is beginning to generate external costs, showing once again that Asean's credo of noninterference in domestic politics needs to be tempered with an awareness that promotion of democracy is part and parcel of regional stability.

As long as the military is allowed to play its pivotal role in national politics, Thailand will fail to play its rightful role as a stabilizing force in Southeast Asia.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 11 Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704677404576284680471555442.html