The Thai military is doing its level best to sabotage even this latest ICJ effort to enforce peace through its provisional measures. As usual, Thai PM Abhisit Vejjajiva turned to the Thai generals for counsel and only then would he be able to outline what course of action for his government to follow. Nothing wrong with consulting with your military, but the outcome of this latest consultation is hardly a departure from all previous meetings the Bangkok government of Abhisit Vijjajiva had had with the men in the barracks concerning the Preah Vihear issue.
In fact, the call for bilateral talks and the insistence by the Thais that Cambodian troops withdraw from the area first as prerequisites for allowing the Indonesian observers to come and do their inspection work are a repetition of recent obstructing tactics by the Thais (military and civilian commands) following the last summit in Jakarta and the agreement on dispatching the Indonesian inspectors to the area in 'dispute'. I said 'agreement' here, but with Bangkok the term's meaning can be stretched, bended, twisted around or a combination of any of these post-agreement measures to conform to the conspirators' mood and ultimately prolong their staged crisis with little Cambodia. How could it be verified that the Cambodian troops vacate the area in question without the presence of third party observers being allowed in the same area to confirm or deny the withdrawal?
The incoming Thai government of Pheu Thai Party is likely to encounter a challenge posed by the Thai military similar to the difficulties Cambodia has been experiencing when dealing with the chief of the Thai Army, Prayuth Chan-Ocha, and his colleagues who have been in the same tune with the ultra-nationalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) since the time when both Abhisit and Thai foreign Minister Kasit Piromya were their members when they were in opposition.
Cambodia must have faith in international justice that came to her aid once before in 1962 when she did not even have an armed force strong enough to even contain Thailand's aggression. Whether she is allowed to station troops at the Temple itself, which is her legal and rightful property to begin with, is not of immediate relevance or concern at this point as the Court takes its time to look into Cambodia's complaint. Why came to the Court for intervention in the first instance, if you did not have sufficient trust in its integrity and judgement needed to dispense justice to either of the parties? What use is there for heavily armed combatants from both countries to be squaring up to within a few metres of one another? If there is such a strong desire to fight it out or shed blood, why not arrange to do so in the Gobi desert somewhere where innocent civilians will not be hurt?
Vast tracts of Cambodian territory have been strewn with cluster bombs and other unexploded munitions; a result of recent clashes, undoing all the last 10-15 years' de-mining efforts in the area. Whilst some Cambodians scream at the 'injustice' of being forced to vacate military personnel from their national property as contained in the provisional de-militarized zone, they have unwittingly overlooked the plight of their compatriots in the thousands who had been displaced or harmed by the recent military violence along the border as well as the many kilometre squares (perhaps several times the size of the provisional DMZ) littered with cluster munitions that can no longer be cultivated or used for generating economic subsistence; not at least for several more years to come.
In fact, the call for bilateral talks and the insistence by the Thais that Cambodian troops withdraw from the area first as prerequisites for allowing the Indonesian observers to come and do their inspection work are a repetition of recent obstructing tactics by the Thais (military and civilian commands) following the last summit in Jakarta and the agreement on dispatching the Indonesian inspectors to the area in 'dispute'. I said 'agreement' here, but with Bangkok the term's meaning can be stretched, bended, twisted around or a combination of any of these post-agreement measures to conform to the conspirators' mood and ultimately prolong their staged crisis with little Cambodia. How could it be verified that the Cambodian troops vacate the area in question without the presence of third party observers being allowed in the same area to confirm or deny the withdrawal?
The incoming Thai government of Pheu Thai Party is likely to encounter a challenge posed by the Thai military similar to the difficulties Cambodia has been experiencing when dealing with the chief of the Thai Army, Prayuth Chan-Ocha, and his colleagues who have been in the same tune with the ultra-nationalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) since the time when both Abhisit and Thai foreign Minister Kasit Piromya were their members when they were in opposition.
Cambodia must have faith in international justice that came to her aid once before in 1962 when she did not even have an armed force strong enough to even contain Thailand's aggression. Whether she is allowed to station troops at the Temple itself, which is her legal and rightful property to begin with, is not of immediate relevance or concern at this point as the Court takes its time to look into Cambodia's complaint. Why came to the Court for intervention in the first instance, if you did not have sufficient trust in its integrity and judgement needed to dispense justice to either of the parties? What use is there for heavily armed combatants from both countries to be squaring up to within a few metres of one another? If there is such a strong desire to fight it out or shed blood, why not arrange to do so in the Gobi desert somewhere where innocent civilians will not be hurt?
Vast tracts of Cambodian territory have been strewn with cluster bombs and other unexploded munitions; a result of recent clashes, undoing all the last 10-15 years' de-mining efforts in the area. Whilst some Cambodians scream at the 'injustice' of being forced to vacate military personnel from their national property as contained in the provisional de-militarized zone, they have unwittingly overlooked the plight of their compatriots in the thousands who had been displaced or harmed by the recent military violence along the border as well as the many kilometre squares (perhaps several times the size of the provisional DMZ) littered with cluster munitions that can no longer be cultivated or used for generating economic subsistence; not at least for several more years to come.
2 comments:
I agree with the author, however ICJ is not the main problem here. Cambodia has faith in ICJ that is why it went to ICJ for justice. Althought the ruling is questionable but if it means saving lives, at least Cambodia has some senses to accept it for the sake of Khmer and Thai's lives. ICJ pushed for ASEAN to be in charge is a grave concern due to lack of leadership from the past by Mr. Marty. Foriegn Minister of Indonesia canceled his trip in the past when Thailand and Cambodia situation heated. Thailand doesnt have respect for ASEAN under Indonesia leadership. I remembered Mr. Marty cancel his trip last minutes and He came up with the lame excuses not the come and allowed both countries killed each others. Actually both countries decided not to shoot up any more that is why we have this temporary cease fire until ICJ ruling, ASEAN didnt do anything to stop or prevent the clashes. We can continue to blame the Thailand for noncompliance with their extreme PAD's view ideology or blame Thailand for the agression. Who will stop Thailand? Cambodia has no choice but to fight back like it or not. I dont see any change in Thailand behavior thus far and we can only hope and pray for the next government to help find peace. My hope that the next Thai's government has indpendence power to make decision without control from the invisible hand as Thailand's critics put it. Cambodia should not put all its eggs in ASEAN under Mr. Marty leadership or depend too much on ASEAN to resolve and minitor the withdrawal of troops with proper authority to inspect to ensure that both sides withdraw its troops. This is the wrong job for ASEAN because their expertise is not peace keeping operation. Cambodia should have plan B which is the UN security council to assist in monitoring the peace agreement. Cambodia cannot allow the UN to push this issue aside without voicing our concerns loudly to the world body. Cambodia needs to gain support from China and Russia to push the issue to higher level in order the end the dispute once for all. If the next Thai's government has the desire to resolve the dispute then it would be the blessing from the sky but I doubt that it would be a walk in the park as you have witnessed after Thai's election dramas. PM-elected Yingluck is not out of the wood to form the government with many law suites piling more headaches to the EC to delay more endorsement of MP. Cambodia has always respect ICJ because it is ours only hope and it is the independence body that Cambodia can put its fate upon. What choice do Cambodia has? Should Cambodia explores the 1991 Peace Agreement signed by all parties? If Thailand doesnt listen to ICJ what make Peace Agreement any different? Opposition Sam Rainsy insisted again and again that we ought to take 1991 Peace Agreement as the base to resolve the issue. I am puzzle by his suggestion too but perhap the opposition can show a few pointers to why it makes senses. Is it a smoke screen for opposition to find excuses to attack Cambodia's government while they are dealing with the headache Abhisit administration and its PAD dogs.
Post a Comment