The ongoing border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand can’t just be about the Preah Vihear Temple—if the clashes really are motivated only by patriotic determination to defend ownership, then these two neighbours have gone mad.
The ‘idiocy of the situation,’ as described by Thailand-based twitter user @thaitvnews refers to the irony of two Buddhist countries fighting over a ruined 900-year-old Hindu temple. Let’s also not forget that the contested territory on which the temple is located covers only about 1.8 square miles (4.6 square kilometres). It’s therefore difficult to comprehend why two countries are ready to go to war, and risk dangerous instability in the region, over such a tiny piece of land.
But if it’s not about the temple, then what are they fighting for?
My guess is that the real aim of both Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is to strengthen their respective domestic leadership credentials. The border dispute, despite its unpleasant portrayal in the international press, serves the political interests of Sen and Vejjajiva. The two leaders seem to be basically using this ‘patriotic war’ to drum up civilian support for their governments. More specifically, they could be planning to project the image of a decisive leader ahead of elections—Thais go to the polls this year, and Cambodians next year.
The war could also be a pretext for requesting bigger military budgets this year, while also helping distract the public from their empty pockets and lack of freedoms.
Whatever the motivations, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of nationalism. More Cambodians, for example, seem to be expressing anger in cyberspace these days, especially since their leaders reminded them that the Khmer Empire was once the oldest and largest in the region, but that centuries of war and invasion have trimmed the country to the size of the state of Missouri. Meanwhile, ultra-nationalists in Thailand are trying to prod the government to take over Cambodia’s Angkor Wat in exchange for the Preah Vihear Temple.
Sen and Vejjajiva, who are supposed to be calming their citizens, are only encouraging more hatred by issuing bellicose political statements.
The United Nations is hesitant to intervene, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as expected, is powerless to implement a peaceful settlement of the issue. Still, they probably offer the best outside chance of preventing the tense situation on the border from deteriorating.
But more importantly, let’s hope that the peace-loving citizens of Cambodia and Thailand reject the war rhetoric of the ultra nationalists in their own countries. They should realize that real patriotism isn’t about supporting warmongers, but exposing the unpatriotic motives of their politicians.
Sam
I got a response for this Writer. He has some points but he is certainly not knowledgeable enough.
>>My guess is that the real aim of both Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is to strengthen their respective domestic leadership credentials.
Wrong for Thai PM. Thai PM received massive criticism for not being decisive or brave enough to deal with the matter. He was majorly criticized for always be the one who followed after Hunsen motives, and not the one who lead Hunsen in the matter. So, he doesn’t getting more popular with the people from this matter. For Hunsen, it’s so true as he has been using this tactic for so long now.
>>>Meanwhile, ultra-nationalists in Thailand are trying to prod the government to take over Cambodia’s Angkor Wat in exchange for the Preah Vihear Temple.
This is just wrong and very very unwise claim. The ultra-nationalists did want Thai PM to use force as well as take lead on Cambodian matter but the PM would not. The ultra-nationalists are asking the PM to keep the disputed land a no man land per treaty. This was why Thai PM is not popular on this matter in Thailand. Angkor Wat is way beyond the border to even be considered here. Not long ago, Cambodian press made fake news that Thai actress claimed Angkor Wat belong to Thailand. It was a big propaganda that went all over the Combodian news, got many people believed causing the riot in Cambodia. In the end, the source of the news was never instantiated. Clearly a hoax. I watched Thai news every day now, and I have never heard of such a claim. Where is the wisdom in this? Check your source buddy.
Nawapon
Your artical does not grasp the true nature of this issue! It’s not just the 4.6 square kilometers! It would alter the and create a new boundary that would provide Cambodia access to the oil and gas rich Gulf of Thailand, which under current boundary it has no right.
Yours sincerely,
Nawaponrath Asavathanachart
Jon
I think the gist of your story is accurate – nationalism is the driving force benind the postures both countries have adopted. The details and editing of your report could use some work. Based on what I know about where power resides in the Cambodian government, I don’t think Hun Sen is losing sleep over his military budget “request.” Also, I’ve never seen either of these leaders referred to by last name only (“Sen” and “Vejjajiva”), western style. Second references to the Cambodian PM are always his full name – “Hun Sen” – and the Thai leader is known as “Abhisit.”
Jesse
John, You make a good point with regards to addresses the names.
If you look at the Thai news, they are stating Cambodian businessmen
welcome Thai investors. So in essence the people are not paying attention to this
as a major story.
Nawaponrath,
Your answer is a typical one. Who is to say the boundaries are correct?
They were drawn by the Brits and French years ago. Besides Hun Sen is a man of courage and one who knows a weak prime minister when he sees one.
poke
are u sure about cambodia’s next year election, 2012?
true answer is: 2013
Editor
Editor’s note: Next year sees local elections, followed by national elections in 2013, so there are elections taking place in both years.
Savath POU
To the writer Mong Palatino,
On the same day of February 18, 20011, in the same issue of The Diplomat, Michael Hayes wrote an article entitled ”Cambodians, Rightly, Dig In Heels”. I don’t want to play stupid. But maybe I am truly and honestly stupid to ask you this question. Why are you so different from Michael Hayes on exactly the same subject? Judging from your article, I can see that you are educated neither in the communist China nor in Fidel Castro’s Cuba. So please answer to my question and please do not say that, in an open society, people are free to express their opinions. Right, but you can’t say to the world that horse have horns. That would be a travesty pure and simple. And your article is not worth the paper you write on.
Yours sincerely,
Phnom Penh, 18 February 2011 at 3:PM Phnom Penh time.
Savath Pou
Grant
I don’t really see what Communism has to do with anything. As for why this article is so different, I would presume because that’s the point of it. To provide different viewpoints. Political science doesn’t have absolute answers, rather it has educated views.