Op-Ed By Khmerization
7th November, 2009
Prime Minister Hun Sen is playing a dangerous diplomatic game with Thailand by provocatively appointing fugitive ex-Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra as his economic advisor that trigger an angry and a retaliatory chain reaction from the Thai government. Political pundits from both countries are concerned that a diplomatic war of words, shuttling between Bangkok and Phnom Penh, will unavoidably spark armed clashes and cause irreversible damages to years of good relations.
But who is interfering in whose affairs?
Thailand is angrily claiming that Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin as his government economic advisor against the will of the Thai government, was an interference of Thai internal affairs and the Thai justice system in a deliberate provocation attempt aimed at the destabilisation of the Thai government and to tarnish the image of the Thai justice system which convicted Mr. Thaksin of fraud.
The Cambodia government, however, responded that Cambodia is a sovereign nation and has every right to appoint anyone as its advisor as it sees fit, and claimed that the Thai objection over its appointment of Mr. Thaksin is an interference of its internal affairs.
Politically and diplomatically speaking, both sides had interfered of some sort in each other’s internal affairs. By appointing Mr. Thaksin, who is a fugitive after being convicted of fraud, as his economic advisor, Mr. Hun Sen had set out to interfere with the judicial and internal affairs of Thailand in order to set an old score over Preah Vihear issue. On the other hand, by objecting to appointment of Mr. Thaksin by Cambodia, which is a sovereign nation, Thailand is also interfering in the internal affairs and the sovereignty of Cambodia.
But what will Cambodia gain by provoking a diplomatic war with Thailand?
Prime Minister Hun Sen’s troublesome and provocative action has served no purpose in the promotion of peace and good neighbourly co-existence between the two people who shared a very similar historical cultural identity. Beside incurring the ire and the wrath of the Thai government, the appointment of Mr. Thaksin, had set out a chain of retaliatory reactions that only harm Cambodia’s interests and that of the Cambodian people.
Mr. Hun Sen had tactically devised his strategy of appointing Mr. Thaksin to irk the Thai government. First, Mr. Hun Sen wants to get back at Mr. Abhisit over Preah Vihear and the maritime border issues. And secondly, he had set out to destabilise Mr. Abhisit government in order to facilitate and to pave the way for the return of Thaksin, whom Mr. Hun Sen called “eternal friend”, to power as he cannot work with the Abhisit government. Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin was also a deliberate attempt to divert public attention away from Mr. Sam Rainsy’s accusations of border violations by Vietnam on the eastern borders. By creating a diversion from the larger and more serious territorial violations by his other “eternal friend” - Vietnam - Mr. Hun Sen hoped to garner supports by pitting one Thai against another by appointing Mr. Thaksin.
Mr. Hun Sen is wrong to think that he can use the “divide and conquer” rule against the Abhisit government in order to help his eternal Thai friend. His action would only alienate the Thai people from Mr. Thaksin and would serve to cement the rule of Mr. Abhisit as the Thai people will unite behind him because they consider Mr. Thaksin to be a traitor serving the interests of a foreign nation that is presently at odds with their own country. In fact, this theory has been proven correct in recent poll surveys conducted in Thailand which seen Mr. Abhisit’s popularity soared by threefold.
Thaksin, rightly or wrongly is a convicted fraudster, and being unable to set foot on Khmer and Thai soil, will not be able to serve his full capacity as a Cambodian government advisor to promote trades and investments between the two countries. And, unlike Mr. Lee Myung-bak, the current president of South Korea who was once appointed Mr. Hun Sen’s economic advisor, Mr. Thaksin, and again being unable to set foot on Khmer and Thai soil, will not be able to entice billions of dollars of trades and investments to Cambodia.
Furthermore, by triggering a diplomatic spat with Thailand, Mr. Hun Sen must be aware that it is Cambodia who will suffer more than Thailand. Cambodia has received some financial aid and loans from Thailand and many migrant Cambodian workers and students are currently working and studying in Thailand. On top of this, thousands of seasonal Cambodian labourers have been crossing the borders to work in Thailand everyday. Thai government has announced the suspension of aid to Cambodia and threatened to close the borders which will impact greatly on the livelihood of the Cambodian seasonal migrant workers.
The Thai losses
Many Thai academics and former diplomats viewed the recall of Thai ambassador to Cambodia as an over-reaction that had incurred the retaliatory reaction from the Cambodian government to the detriments of Thai national interests. Notwithstanding the loss of Cambodia’s interests, Thailand retaliatory actions of annulling the land border and maritime border agreements had not been at the interests of Thailand either. By annulling the agreements, Thailand has given Cambodia ammunitions to bring the case to the UN and the International Court of Justice, if Cambodia chooses to do so. And if Thailand had carried out its threats of border closures, Thailand will sure lose more economic benefits than Cambodia. Thai businesses had invested heavily in Cambodia. The two-way trades between Cambodia and Thailand, mostly through border checkpoints, amounted to over $2 billion dollars annually. Thai exports to Cambodia accounted to 80% of the two-way trades. By closing the borders, Thailand’s trades and businesses in Cambodia will be at the losing end.
Cambodia’s villain status
Mr. Hun Sen’s action had also damaged Cambodia’s status as a victim of the current Khmer-Thai border dispute. The world now sees Cambodia as being the villain and not the victim any more because they see Mr. Hun Sen’s action as a deliberate attempt to demonise, destabilise and to interfere in the internal affairs of Thailand.
Mr. Hun Sen’s action is wrong in trying to set an old score in this way. If Mr. Hun Sen wants to act tough against Thailand over Preah Vihear and the maritime border issues, he should have acted tough since the beginning by bringing the matter to the UN or International Court. To irk Thailand in this way will not achieve anything, but only create further problems that is perilous to Cambodia’s national interests.
Mr Hun Sen must also be mindful that a policy of supporting an individual leader against a foreign state has not been beneficial to Cambodia’s national interests, as has been shown in the past, because individual leaders come and go, but the state remain intact. He must have known that Sihanouk’s policy of a personality cult politics has brought irreparable damages to Cambodia’s national interests in the 1950s and 1960s. Sihanouk was a very good friend of Mao Tse-tung and Chou Enlai of China, Nehru of India, Pham Van Dong of Vietnam, Sukarno of Indonesia, Tito of Yugoslavia, Kim Il Sung of North Korea etc, etc. When these leaders died, Cambodia and Sihanouk lost their patrons and therefore the benefits.
By supporting Thaksin against the legitimate Thai government, even though it came to power through a constitutional coup d’etat, Mr. Hun Sen had angered the majority of the Thai people and had caused Mr. Thaksin to alienate many of his supporters because they consider his acceptance of the appointment by a foreign government as unpatriotic.
Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin is wrong. In the long term, his political gamesmanship is dangerous and will not benefit anyone, not even himself, as Thailand will retaliate and set out to find ways to destabilise his rule and eventually bring down his government one day as Thailand had done in the past by using the Issarak Movement and the Khmer Serei Movement against Sihanouk in the 1940s and 1950s.
Instead of creating rifts in the region, Mr. Hun Sen should be working towards creating a favourable condition to reaching a border resolution and regional peace, not working toward creating more troubles and instability in the region. Thanks to the maturity of the military leaders on the ground, unlike their political mentors, the border situations remain calm due to their restraint. As Thai prominent historian Charnvit Kasetsiri puts it "The only positive factor was that the military on both sides had so far stayed clear of the political gamesmanship". And one would have hoped that the situation will remain that way until the political waters had calmed down.
7th November, 2009
“Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin is wrong. In the long term, his political gamesmanship is dangerous and will not benefit anyone, not even himself, as Thailand will retaliate and set out to find ways to destabilise his rule and eventually bring down his government one day as Thailand had done in the past by using the Issarak Movement and the Khmer Serei Movement against Sihanouk in the 1940s and 1950s.”
Prime Minister Hun Sen is playing a dangerous diplomatic game with Thailand by provocatively appointing fugitive ex-Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra as his economic advisor that trigger an angry and a retaliatory chain reaction from the Thai government. Political pundits from both countries are concerned that a diplomatic war of words, shuttling between Bangkok and Phnom Penh, will unavoidably spark armed clashes and cause irreversible damages to years of good relations.
But who is interfering in whose affairs?
Thailand is angrily claiming that Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin as his government economic advisor against the will of the Thai government, was an interference of Thai internal affairs and the Thai justice system in a deliberate provocation attempt aimed at the destabilisation of the Thai government and to tarnish the image of the Thai justice system which convicted Mr. Thaksin of fraud.
The Cambodia government, however, responded that Cambodia is a sovereign nation and has every right to appoint anyone as its advisor as it sees fit, and claimed that the Thai objection over its appointment of Mr. Thaksin is an interference of its internal affairs.
Politically and diplomatically speaking, both sides had interfered of some sort in each other’s internal affairs. By appointing Mr. Thaksin, who is a fugitive after being convicted of fraud, as his economic advisor, Mr. Hun Sen had set out to interfere with the judicial and internal affairs of Thailand in order to set an old score over Preah Vihear issue. On the other hand, by objecting to appointment of Mr. Thaksin by Cambodia, which is a sovereign nation, Thailand is also interfering in the internal affairs and the sovereignty of Cambodia.
But what will Cambodia gain by provoking a diplomatic war with Thailand?
Prime Minister Hun Sen’s troublesome and provocative action has served no purpose in the promotion of peace and good neighbourly co-existence between the two people who shared a very similar historical cultural identity. Beside incurring the ire and the wrath of the Thai government, the appointment of Mr. Thaksin, had set out a chain of retaliatory reactions that only harm Cambodia’s interests and that of the Cambodian people.
Mr. Hun Sen had tactically devised his strategy of appointing Mr. Thaksin to irk the Thai government. First, Mr. Hun Sen wants to get back at Mr. Abhisit over Preah Vihear and the maritime border issues. And secondly, he had set out to destabilise Mr. Abhisit government in order to facilitate and to pave the way for the return of Thaksin, whom Mr. Hun Sen called “eternal friend”, to power as he cannot work with the Abhisit government. Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin was also a deliberate attempt to divert public attention away from Mr. Sam Rainsy’s accusations of border violations by Vietnam on the eastern borders. By creating a diversion from the larger and more serious territorial violations by his other “eternal friend” - Vietnam - Mr. Hun Sen hoped to garner supports by pitting one Thai against another by appointing Mr. Thaksin.
Mr. Hun Sen is wrong to think that he can use the “divide and conquer” rule against the Abhisit government in order to help his eternal Thai friend. His action would only alienate the Thai people from Mr. Thaksin and would serve to cement the rule of Mr. Abhisit as the Thai people will unite behind him because they consider Mr. Thaksin to be a traitor serving the interests of a foreign nation that is presently at odds with their own country. In fact, this theory has been proven correct in recent poll surveys conducted in Thailand which seen Mr. Abhisit’s popularity soared by threefold.
Thaksin, rightly or wrongly is a convicted fraudster, and being unable to set foot on Khmer and Thai soil, will not be able to serve his full capacity as a Cambodian government advisor to promote trades and investments between the two countries. And, unlike Mr. Lee Myung-bak, the current president of South Korea who was once appointed Mr. Hun Sen’s economic advisor, Mr. Thaksin, and again being unable to set foot on Khmer and Thai soil, will not be able to entice billions of dollars of trades and investments to Cambodia.
Furthermore, by triggering a diplomatic spat with Thailand, Mr. Hun Sen must be aware that it is Cambodia who will suffer more than Thailand. Cambodia has received some financial aid and loans from Thailand and many migrant Cambodian workers and students are currently working and studying in Thailand. On top of this, thousands of seasonal Cambodian labourers have been crossing the borders to work in Thailand everyday. Thai government has announced the suspension of aid to Cambodia and threatened to close the borders which will impact greatly on the livelihood of the Cambodian seasonal migrant workers.
The Thai losses
Many Thai academics and former diplomats viewed the recall of Thai ambassador to Cambodia as an over-reaction that had incurred the retaliatory reaction from the Cambodian government to the detriments of Thai national interests. Notwithstanding the loss of Cambodia’s interests, Thailand retaliatory actions of annulling the land border and maritime border agreements had not been at the interests of Thailand either. By annulling the agreements, Thailand has given Cambodia ammunitions to bring the case to the UN and the International Court of Justice, if Cambodia chooses to do so. And if Thailand had carried out its threats of border closures, Thailand will sure lose more economic benefits than Cambodia. Thai businesses had invested heavily in Cambodia. The two-way trades between Cambodia and Thailand, mostly through border checkpoints, amounted to over $2 billion dollars annually. Thai exports to Cambodia accounted to 80% of the two-way trades. By closing the borders, Thailand’s trades and businesses in Cambodia will be at the losing end.
Cambodia’s villain status
Mr. Hun Sen’s action had also damaged Cambodia’s status as a victim of the current Khmer-Thai border dispute. The world now sees Cambodia as being the villain and not the victim any more because they see Mr. Hun Sen’s action as a deliberate attempt to demonise, destabilise and to interfere in the internal affairs of Thailand.
Mr. Hun Sen’s action is wrong in trying to set an old score in this way. If Mr. Hun Sen wants to act tough against Thailand over Preah Vihear and the maritime border issues, he should have acted tough since the beginning by bringing the matter to the UN or International Court. To irk Thailand in this way will not achieve anything, but only create further problems that is perilous to Cambodia’s national interests.
Mr Hun Sen must also be mindful that a policy of supporting an individual leader against a foreign state has not been beneficial to Cambodia’s national interests, as has been shown in the past, because individual leaders come and go, but the state remain intact. He must have known that Sihanouk’s policy of a personality cult politics has brought irreparable damages to Cambodia’s national interests in the 1950s and 1960s. Sihanouk was a very good friend of Mao Tse-tung and Chou Enlai of China, Nehru of India, Pham Van Dong of Vietnam, Sukarno of Indonesia, Tito of Yugoslavia, Kim Il Sung of North Korea etc, etc. When these leaders died, Cambodia and Sihanouk lost their patrons and therefore the benefits.
By supporting Thaksin against the legitimate Thai government, even though it came to power through a constitutional coup d’etat, Mr. Hun Sen had angered the majority of the Thai people and had caused Mr. Thaksin to alienate many of his supporters because they consider his acceptance of the appointment by a foreign government as unpatriotic.
Mr. Hun Sen’s appointment of Mr. Thaksin is wrong. In the long term, his political gamesmanship is dangerous and will not benefit anyone, not even himself, as Thailand will retaliate and set out to find ways to destabilise his rule and eventually bring down his government one day as Thailand had done in the past by using the Issarak Movement and the Khmer Serei Movement against Sihanouk in the 1940s and 1950s.
Instead of creating rifts in the region, Mr. Hun Sen should be working towards creating a favourable condition to reaching a border resolution and regional peace, not working toward creating more troubles and instability in the region. Thanks to the maturity of the military leaders on the ground, unlike their political mentors, the border situations remain calm due to their restraint. As Thai prominent historian Charnvit Kasetsiri puts it "The only positive factor was that the military on both sides had so far stayed clear of the political gamesmanship". And one would have hoped that the situation will remain that way until the political waters had calmed down.
5 comments:
you talking nonsence. you have no idea what's comming next. just wait and see. save your stinky breath.
Hey 8:58 PM
Be nice and reasonble as a decent person!
Nobody asks you to read this editorial. It is an opinion. You have yours and the writer has his.
The writer has raised several excellent points that are quite valid.
Anet Khmer
I tend to agree with the author of this article. To cause tensions with Thailand for Hun Sen-Thaksin's personal benefits is very dangerous to Cambodian national interests.
Hun Sen should take the Preah Vihear case to UN or other international forum.
Thaksin, as a foreigner, cannot serve Khmer interests like Khmer. To use Thaksin against the Thai government, Hun Sen thinks more about his and his friend's interests more than Cambodian national interests.
8:58 PM, please look at the big picture. Don't be fooled by Hun Sen's political game.
To provoke another government this way will not serve any purpose, except to cause more problems. Hun Sen should not mix personal and national interests. He must separate the two.
Like the article says, I don't think Thaksin can bring billions of dollars of trades and investments to Cambodia. In fact his appointment will bring nothing. On the contrary, his appointment has damaged diplomatic relations with Thailand. Thailand has cut aid, and if it closes the borders, Cambodian workers, border traders and students will be the ones who will suffer, not Hun Sen.
Furthermore, border talks will be delayed and Cambodia will be the one who will lose because Thai troops still occupy Khmer lands.
If you think about the big picture then you will know why Thaksin's appointment is wrong and will not be at the interests of Cambodia and her people.
Good English, Poor and biased analysis.
Post a Comment