Preah Vihear Verdict was a Slap in the Face for Thai Nationalists [A view from a Thai academic]

Mr. Chachavalpongpun (left) being interviewed on CNBC TV.

By Pavin Chachavalpongpun
Published on July 20, 2011

Monday’s verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Preah Vihear Temple case is a slap in the face for members of the Bangkok establishment.
They should not have shot themselves in the foot in the first place. They have been politicising the Preah Vihear issue since 2008 in attempts to undermine their political opponents. They successfully created instability along the border. They even “declared war” with Cambodia to justify their confrontational policy. Now they have been told to remove themselves from the disputed area.
There are four main “orders” in the ICJ verdict. First, both parties must immediately withdraw their military personnel currently present in the provisional demilitarised zone and refrain from any military presence within that zone and from any armed activity directed at it. Second, Thailand should not obstruct Cambodia’s free access to the temple, and the two countries should continue their cooperation within Asean and allow observers to have access. Third, each country should inform the court of their compliance with the mentioned provisional measures. And fourth, these measures are binding and create international legal obligations with which both countries are required to comply.
Emerging from the ICJ meeting in The Hague, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, a former distinguished member of the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and a known anti-Hun Sen figure, continued to unashamedly explain away the Preah Vihear case rather than facing the truth.
He told reporters, “The court decision was in line with the Thai government’s demand for the withdrawal of Cambodian military personnel in the conflicting area.” Kasit added, “We will urgently request Indonesian observers to observe the withdrawal. Thailand has always supported Asean’s role in mediating the conflict.”
Meanwhile, departing Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, in yesterday’s meeting at the National Security Council, assigned relevant agencies to map out the framework for talks with Cambodia in implementing the ICJ’s orders. Yet Abhisit still insisted on managing the problem through existing bilateral frameworks, such as the Thai-Cambodian General Border Committee, rather than regional mechanisms as recommended by the ICJ.
Abhisit also said, “The ICJ’s orders have no bearing on the Thai boundary line and sovereignty”. So does this mean the disputed area is not a part of Thai territory, as repeatedly claimed by Abhisit, and thus withdrawing from it will not affect Thai sovereignty?
These controversial statements reveal the ugly reality – the politics of the Preah Vihear issue are full, in the words of a Thai historian, of deception. Deception, distortion and blatant lies to the Thai public are keys to this complicated political game. Both Abhisit and Kasit quickly declared that the ICJ verdict was to Thailand’s advantage. Was it really?
Cambodia took the case back to the ICJ earlier this year. It requested that the ICJ order Thailand to withdraw its troops from the area. Therefore, in many ways, the ICJ has responded to the Cambodian request. Kasit immediately downplayed Cambodia’s victory by glorifying the court decision forced upon Cambodia to withdraw its military personnel.
What Kasit did not tell the Thai public is that the ICJ unanimously rejected Thailand’s request for the case introduced by Cambodia to be removed from the General List, and that Thailand must not prevent Cambodia from providing fresh supplies to its non-military personnel in the vicinity of the Preah Vihear Temple.
Perhaps Kasit had some reasons for not telling the whole truth. The ICJ’s unanimous rejection of Thailand’s request to dismiss the case has immensely embarrassed not only the Abhisit government, but also some of its supporters in the mainstream media and academia. Some irresponsible Thai historians continue to belittle the role of the ICJ and endorse a military option to deal with the problem. They still make absurd arguments, such as, “Cambodia may legally own the temple, but the land beneath the temple belongs to Thailand.” It shows that nationalism is a powerful force and can prevail over rational thinking and good judgement.
How long will they be able to lie and distort facts? It is surprising why Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, who represented Thailand in the 35th World Heritage Committee (WHC) Conference in Paris last month and threatened to resign from the WHC, has not come forward to condemn the ICJ’s verdict. Suwit tried desperately to exploit the Thai resignation to boost his election campaign. He paid for a full-page advertisement in a newspaper in which he claimed to have saved his motherland from a greedy neighbour. Yet, Suwit failed to win the election. Politicians should not count on lies alone as a survival strategy in the political game.
Who actually gained from the latest Preah Vihear drama? Perhaps, the Yingluck government. The announcement of a demilitarised zone will reduce the influence of the military on foreign affairs. Yingluck has wanted to neutralise the military. This is a good chance for her to do so. Thai foreign policy toward neighbouring countries has been dominated by the military since the Cold War. It has been made a security-centric policy, thus legitimising the role of the army.
Troop withdrawal is a powerful way to strip the military’s authority in Thai policy toward Cambodia. Big bosses in the army were in the past keen to create a state of ungovernability along the border to justify their power position. But they pushed it too far. Yingluck will have the last laugh, using the hand of the ICJ to subdue the power-hungry men in green uniforms.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a fellow at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.