Cambodia’s relations with Thailand

By Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres

Dear Khmerization:

I fear the debate on the current state of Cambodia’s relations with Thailand is reaching a point of being farcical and does not help to a proper assessment of the situation and a better understanding of developments.

May I, at the outset, point out that I do not consider your blog to be “ultranationalist” even though at times some of the comments in the blog are offensive to other people. Worse still, some of the comments are so lacking in knowledge of the facts of a particular event that they put people off from offering a better informed comment.

But coming back to the current difficulties regarding Cambodia’s relations with Thailand, it is necessary for rational and calm minds to assess the problem and find a solution to the problem. In this regard, it is necessary in my humble opinion and with respect, that a few historical facts be recalled, as too often they are ignored:

1) Thailand and Cambodia are neighbours placed next to each other by the Creator. Every possible effort should be made by the leaders of both countries to maintain friendly relations that benefit the peoples of Thailand and Cambodia.

2) It is regrettable that Thailand has never accepted the 1962 ICJ judgment that the temple of Preah Vihear is located under the sovereignty of Cambodia. This issue has been used by successive Thai governments to instill nationalism in the minds of new generations that often have not studied the ICJ judgment or are only impressed by temporary unrealistic nationalist causes.

3) During the horrible Democratic Kampuchea period, Thai villagers in areas near the Cambodian border were the victims of the excesses of Pol Pot and his murderous clique. Yet, the people of Thailand opened their door to many thousands of Cambodians that managed to escape Pol Pot’s inferno.

4) Following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Thailand opened its doors widely to thousands of Cambodians who were escaping Vietnams’s occupation of their homeland. Her majesty Queen Sirikit personally toured some of the refugees camps at the Thai-Cambodia border to ensure that conditions for the Cambodian refugees were as good as possible.

5) At the same time, the nationalist Cambodian fronts fighting against Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia, including the Khmer Republicans and Royalists as well as the remnants of the Khmer Rouge, were allowed to operate offices and safe houses both in Bangkok and provincial cities of Thailand to pursue their diplomatic and military activities against Hanoi’s troops.

6) It is true, that some Thai military leaders made fortunes out of the parlous situation of Cambodia during this time. I recall vividly the day, when as I worked at the FUNCINPEC office in Soi Suan Phlu in Bangkok, the wife of General Chaovalit arrived without an appointment, surrounded by a large entourage and police and tried to persuade Prince Norodom Ranariddh to agree to the sale of the Royal Cambodian Embassy in Tokyo, which was being sought by rapacious Japanese businessmen whom Mrs Chavalit represented (For those that do not know, the Royal Cambodian Embassy in Tokyo was purchased by His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk in the 1950s, and is located at a site near the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, which is considered not only the best location in Tokyo but also the most prestigious and expensive in real state value). To his credit, Prince Ranariddh, as did also Samdech Son San and Mr Khieu Samphan, they all declined to sell the Embassy site and recommended to His Majesty King Sihanouk, then President of the CGDK, to inform the Japanese government accordingly.

7) In the search for peace for Cambodia during the late 1980s and early 19990s, Thailand played a leading role and hosted several international meetings both in Bangkok and Pattaya to try to find a settlement of the Cambodian conflict.

8) Following, the Paris Peace Agreements on Cambodia of October 1991, Thailand re-established its diplomatic and commercial presence in Cambodia. This was both good and sometimes bad for Cambodia, as some of the businesses just tried to make a quick profit without providing the local Cambodians appropriate training to be able to build on for their future job prospects. Other businesses were more serious and did indeed provide training either in Thailand or on the job.

9) One of the businessmen that took advantage of the new opportunities the opening of Cambodia presented was Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin a vain and overbearing man, immediately understood that power in Cambodia did not lay with the winner –FUNCINPEC- of the 1993 elections but rather with the looser –the CPP- and began courting the CPP leadership as well as some of the objectionable “business” in Cambodia that prospered under the CPP’s patronage. Again, here I need to recall how as Acting Director of the Khmer Institute of Democracy (KID) in Phnom Penh, I was constantly frustrated in my attempts to have a KID produced TV program broadcast by the then Thaksin owned and operated TV channel in Phnom Penh. His representatives in Phnom Penh would not broadcast any program that may appear to be critical of the government.

Regarding the current difficulties in the relationship between the two countries it is necessary, without wishing to blame any side, to point out the following:

1) The issue of the temple of Preah Vihear has been manipulated by the People Against Democracy (PAD) to create a misguided nationalism in Thailand in their efforts to discredit Thaksin Shinawatra. But, I fear, the PAD is not alone in using the Preah Vihear issue for its own domestic political purposes and their opponents the so-called “Red Shirts” are also instilled by manipulated nationalist aspirations to “recover” Preah Vihear for Thailand.

2) The ‘hero” of the Red Shirts is Thaksin Shinawatra who during his rule as Prime Minister of Thailand presided over a corrupt regime, indeed he has himself been tried for corruption charges, and also during which gross violations of human rights took place in Thailand.

3) The Cambodian government of Prime Minister Hun Sen never did anything to improve access to the temple of Preah Vihear from the Cambodian side of the mountain, prompting most foreign tourists to visit the temple from the well developed and safer Thai side of the mountain, thus creating employment opportunities on the Thai side of the mountain but not on the Cambodian side, which remains underdeveloped and difficult to access.

4) Hun Sen also manipulated the successful inscription of the temple of Preah Vihear into the list of UNESCO’s World Heritage sites to present it as one of the “great” accomplishments of his regime but, more importantly, to hide the failure of more pressing domestic issues such as corruption, lack of an independent judiciary, violations of human rights and land grabbing, prior to the July 2008 election.

5) Any study of the literature prepared by the current Cambodian government about the temple of Preah Vihear will show that the Hun Sen-led government has claimed complete responsibility for the 1962 ICJ decision totally obscuring the role played by King Father Norodom Sihanouk on this issue, thus not giving the opportunity to new generations of Cambodians to learn about this event in their country’s history.

6) The issue has become more and more complex because both sides have used their “personal” contacts or military personnel to try to reach a settlement over the marking of the land surrounding the temple which Thailand disputes. The Thaksin aligned forces have used their “contacts” such as retired General Chaovalit, who is both despised and tolerated in Cambodia to try to sort the impasse. Both countries have sidelined the Foreign Ministries of Thailand and Cambodia which should be the leading agencies dealing with the problem. In this Thaksin and Hun Sen are very similar, they are unable to distinguish between “personal affairs” and “State affairs”, just as both have tried to diminish the links existing between the Monarchy and the peoples of Thailand and Cambodia.

7) With all its faults, Thailand remains a democracy with a strong free press and independent judiciary. Cambodia, I am afraid, is not a democracy but rather a one-party autocracy. The current Thai Prime Minister is a decent man who is trying his best to fix the many problems confronting the fabric of Thai society.

8) Last but not least, by cancelling all aid projects with Thailand, Hun Sen is again manipulating the nationalistic feelings of Cambodians and trying to bully the Thai Prime Minister, just as he bullies anybody who does not agree with him or his policies in Cambodia. Worse, by appointing Thaksin to an advisory position in his government and openly taking sides with the Thai Thaksin-aligned opposition, Hun Sen is interfering in Thailand’s internal affairs and creating a precedent for future foreign interference in Cambodia’s internal affairs.

Kind regards,

Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres

Adjunct Research Fellow

The Asia Institute, Monash University

Melbourne, Australia

3 December 2009