Flexibility key to ending fighting

As Thailand and Cambodia continue to engage in what has become the deadliest border fighting in years, Assoc Prof Surachart Bamrungsuk, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University who has been studying issues relating to the problem-plagued border, assesses the impact on Thailand if the clashes are prolonged.

He shares his opinions with Bangkok Post reporter AMORNRAT MAHITTHIROOK.

How will the latest clashes affect the border situation?

The situation in Surin shows the possibility of a prolonged problem. I do not mean that the clashes will continue with no end. I do not think the international community will let that happen. But what is obvious is that the Thai-Cambodian border issue will become a long-term problem that will need serious attention.

Is it possible the clashes in Surin could expand to other areas?

The 798-kilometre-long border between Thailand and Cambodia includes many problematic spots. The area at the Preah Vihear temple is only one of 15 problematic locations along the land border. There have been problems at the clash sites in Surin province too. So, an expansion [of the fighting] is possible because there are more contentious areas than have been seen. What has so far drawn little attention is the problem of the marine border which is actually a big issue.

How long do you think the border fighting will continue?

Asean will not let the armed clashes continue for long as the regional bloc plans unification in a few years. Asean will find a way out. If it cannot, the United Nations will give a signal. The international community will certainly step in and that will not benefit Thailand.

Thailand has tried to call for a bilateral approach to solve the problem but the Thai-Cambodian conflict has passed its bilateral stage. The previous clashes at the Preah Vihear temple and Phu Makhua areas ended up with the United Nations Security Council assigning Asean to mediate.

Is Thailand's bilateral stance a result of its pride from the fact that it has never been "colonised"?

The assumption may make some sense but we have to take note that in the past Thai or Siamese diplomats were flexible in handling problems with neighbouring countries and in the international arena. The present Thai government is not flexible when it comes to its international policies. If we remain inflexible, the problem will grow.

Will Thailand be at a disadvantage if the problem is handled multilaterally?

Inflexibility [in international relations] would put Thailand at a disadvantage. If you think that you can deal with the issue in court, you must recall the battle at the International Court of Justice from 1959 to 1962. A return to the court would mean a return to using the same old documents - the 1893 treaty [which King Rama V signed to cede Mekong territories to France], the 1904 convention [which allowed then Siam and French colonial authorities ruling Cambodia to form a joint commission to demarcate their mutual border] and the 1907 map [the so-called Annex I map].

There will be nothing more than those old documents. Will they bring us any legal advantage?

More importantly, a war is not a solution. If a war leads to a greater disadvantage for the country, will the government or the military leaders be there to take responsibility?

Thailand also had border problems with Malaysia and Laos. What enables the country to coexist with them? Why can't Thailand and Cambodia reach a similar agreement?

Thailand shares its land borders with Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia for a combined distance of 5,656 kilometres. It has problems on all sides of the borders.

A border dispute with Malaysia was calmed with a joint development agreement, even though the dispute concerned a marine border, which is more complicated than a land-based one. This is an interesting and successful model that should be applied now.

Does the past case of ownership over the Preah Vihear temple remain a major obstacle?

I think it does but the case is over. If the Preah Vihear temple is allowed to be developed as a World Heritage site, new cultural tourism routes will be built from Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom in Cambodia to the Preah Vihear temple through to other stone temples in the Northeast of Thailand.

There are about 100 ancient stone temples in Nakhon Ratchasima province alone. The regional tourist link would boost tourism in the Northeast. I see more good than harm.