Bangkok Post
Monday October 27, 2008
Re: ''Betrayal at the border'' (Bangkok Post, Oct 25). I defy both Thais and Cambodians to stop cattily pointing the finger and instead get to the root of the ongoing military quagmire and boundary dispute between the two countries.
The question should be: ''How could Cambodia ever plant new mines 'deep inside' Thai territory?'' And, most importantly, ''How could the three Thai ultra-nationalists trespass right under the nose of the Thai authorities on July 15 and why did Bangkok take the needless, unprecedented step of deploying troops in response to the lawful detention of the three intruders in lieu of a diplomatic request for their release?''
There are three plausible scenarios. First, either the trio jumped the barbed wire fence of their own free will or in deference to the PAD _ a long-time thorn in Thaksin Sinawatra and his successors' side. In this case, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has no role in the three-month-long conflict.
Second, Hun Sen may have countenanced his former counterpart Samak Sundaravej and incumbent premier Somchai Wongsawat using armed confrontation for mutual benefit, with Hun Sen gaining the edge ahead of the July parliamentary election and the two Thai embattled PMs diverting the PAD's attention in the midst of alarming political turbulence _ as assumed by some analysts. The assumption, however, has proved illogical. For one thing, the stand-off escalated into a tragic skirmish just two weeks ago _ almost three months after Hun Sen won by a landslide. For another, the self-proclaimed People's Alliance for Democracy has plunged Thailand into chaos through its undemocratic anti-government rallies since 2005 _ long before the Preah Vihear temple officially became a world landmark.
Third, sparks were really flying following the unilateral inscription of the 11th century ruin. Samak, under impeachment pressure and so forth, wasted no time turning the public focus to an all-new issue: a so-called ''border row'' with Cambodia. He could have intentionally sent the three Thai extremists, knowing full well that they would be lawfully detained. And when they were arrested, he short-sightedly responded with soldier deployment, knowing precisely that Cambodia would rather bring the case to the ICJ in The Hague or the UNSC than risking a gun battle in the vicinity of its invaluable temple. Phnom Penh did just that. Realising the situation had got out of hand, Samak moved to trick Hun Sen into withdrawing the complaint and resuming further bilateral negotiations. What did Samak and Thailand have to lose?
In summary, Thailand has not only dragged Cambodia into its political mess but has also held the Preah Vihear temple hostage.
VUTH CHANSEREI PHUON
Phnom Penh
Monday October 27, 2008
Re: ''Betrayal at the border'' (Bangkok Post, Oct 25). I defy both Thais and Cambodians to stop cattily pointing the finger and instead get to the root of the ongoing military quagmire and boundary dispute between the two countries.
The question should be: ''How could Cambodia ever plant new mines 'deep inside' Thai territory?'' And, most importantly, ''How could the three Thai ultra-nationalists trespass right under the nose of the Thai authorities on July 15 and why did Bangkok take the needless, unprecedented step of deploying troops in response to the lawful detention of the three intruders in lieu of a diplomatic request for their release?''
There are three plausible scenarios. First, either the trio jumped the barbed wire fence of their own free will or in deference to the PAD _ a long-time thorn in Thaksin Sinawatra and his successors' side. In this case, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has no role in the three-month-long conflict.
Second, Hun Sen may have countenanced his former counterpart Samak Sundaravej and incumbent premier Somchai Wongsawat using armed confrontation for mutual benefit, with Hun Sen gaining the edge ahead of the July parliamentary election and the two Thai embattled PMs diverting the PAD's attention in the midst of alarming political turbulence _ as assumed by some analysts. The assumption, however, has proved illogical. For one thing, the stand-off escalated into a tragic skirmish just two weeks ago _ almost three months after Hun Sen won by a landslide. For another, the self-proclaimed People's Alliance for Democracy has plunged Thailand into chaos through its undemocratic anti-government rallies since 2005 _ long before the Preah Vihear temple officially became a world landmark.
Third, sparks were really flying following the unilateral inscription of the 11th century ruin. Samak, under impeachment pressure and so forth, wasted no time turning the public focus to an all-new issue: a so-called ''border row'' with Cambodia. He could have intentionally sent the three Thai extremists, knowing full well that they would be lawfully detained. And when they were arrested, he short-sightedly responded with soldier deployment, knowing precisely that Cambodia would rather bring the case to the ICJ in The Hague or the UNSC than risking a gun battle in the vicinity of its invaluable temple. Phnom Penh did just that. Realising the situation had got out of hand, Samak moved to trick Hun Sen into withdrawing the complaint and resuming further bilateral negotiations. What did Samak and Thailand have to lose?
In summary, Thailand has not only dragged Cambodia into its political mess but has also held the Preah Vihear temple hostage.
VUTH CHANSEREI PHUON
Phnom Penh
No comments:
Post a Comment