EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN STUDIES

European Institute for Asian Studies EIAS asbl Rue de la Loi 67, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium - Tel +32 2 230 81 22 - Fax +32 2 230 54 02 - eias@eias.org

The Thai-Cambodian border conflict: a growing role for ASEAN?

EIAS Newsletter March/April 2011

By Marily van Nevel

The latest fighting at the border of Thailand and Cambodia started on February 4th

and has seen several

new eruptions since then. As both parties are members of ASEAN (Association of the South-East

Asian Nations), it is particularly interesting to highlight the role of this regional organisation in the

conflict. Although historically ASEAN has profiled itself as a rule-based organisation that is

characterised by non-interference, the Thai-Cambodian conflict has given rise to a new, proactive

attitude. This article will give a brief overview of recent events and will highlight the role of ASEAN

in the process.

The historical roots of this conflict are found in the fact that, many centuries ago, much of southern

Thailand and, indeed, the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam belonged to Cambodia as part of the great

Khmer Empire. Many similar historical disputes, stemming for the pre-colonial period, bedevilled the

countries of South-East Asia following the end of colonial rule (e.g. Thailand/Malaysia,

Malaysia/Indonesia and Indonesia (the Philippines)) and the creation of ASEAN, in 1967, was aimed to

put an end to these potential conflicts.

The current Thai-Cambodian clashes have been the worst, since July 2008. The conflict is taking place

in the vicinity of Preah Vihear, a Khmer temple that was built in the 11th

century. The dispute about

this temple has a long history, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined, in 1962 that Preah

Vihear belonged to Cambodian territory. Both countries agreed to abide by this decision. However, the

surroundings of the temple were not a part of this ruling. The strip of land nearby the temple is being

claimed, since then, by both Thailand and Cambodia. An appointed joint Cambodia-Thailand border

commission is supposed to deal with this surrounding area.

Another key moment in the discussions took place in 2008, when UNESCO officially listed the temple

as a world heritage site of Cambodia. At that time, the proposal of Cambodia was supported by the

Thai Foreign Minister, Noppadol Pattama, from the government of Samak Sundaravej. The intention of

Cambodia to develop this site for mass tourism is heavily contested by Thai nationalists. Anti-Thaksin

politicians even went so far as claiming that the support of Thailand in this matter violated the Thai

Constitution.

In spite of some early comforting statements by both parties, the clashes at the Thai-Cambodian border

lasted several days. The cease-fire, signed between the two countries on 5 February 2011, collapsed the

next day, as their respective positions differed substantially. For the Cambodians, the actions undertook

by their neighbour represent an invasion attempt; the Thai argue their intervention was led by self-

defence concerns, in a legitimate way. The attacks of the Cambodian troops were qualified by the Thai

government as an act of violation of Thai sovereignty and territorial integrity (The Nation). Cambodia considered this incident as an act of aggression and has sent a letter to the United Nations

Security Council to complain about an invasion of its territory by the Thai army (The China Daily).

According to them, the fact that Thai soldiers crossed the border caused the Cambodian firings, in order

to repel the invasion.

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN STUDIES

European Institute for Asian Studies EIAS asbl Rue de la Loi 67, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium - Tel +32 2 230 81 22 - Fax +32 2 230 54 02 - eias@eias.org

It is clear that the latest hostile events are a direct consequence of the dispute that started in 2008. The

ways in which Cambodia and Thailand wish to deal with this conflict differ significantly. Thailand has

clearly expressed its desire to resolve this issue by bilateral negotiations. The Secretary of the Foreign

Ministry, Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, stated that only bilateral talks can prevent the issue from

becoming more complicated. He added that what the two countries need to do is just simply stop firing and sit face-to-face to solve the problem. Cambodia has quite a different view on the right solution mechanism and expected ASEAN from the beginning to take action.

The firing near the Thai-Cambodian border was taken very seriously by the international community

and the issue even made it to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The foreign ministers of

both warring parties, as well as the ASEAN Chairman from Indonesia, appeared at the UNSC.

Cambodia has long since shown its intention to bring this dispute to the UN platform but has never

succeeded. However, the recent increased intensity of the fighting raised concerns among the UNSC

members, who decided to call for a UNSC meeting on February 14. The involvement of ASEAN at the

UN is quite rare, as the last time they were present was in 1999 concerning the issue of East Timor. The

fact that, today, the UNSC includes new emerging powers could be one of the factors that has allowed

the Thai-Cambodian clashes to appear on the agenda.

After this meeting, the UNSC called for a permanent ceasefire between the parties, based on

negotiations. More importantly, the UNSC expressed its support for the role of ASEAN in seeking a

solution to the conflict. They called upon both Thailand and Cambodia to cooperate with ASEAN. It is

not surprising that the UNSC wants to boost the role of the regional organisation, because it is aware of

the complexity of the conflict. Similar trends can be observed in the case of Africa, where the African

Union was asked to play an active role in certain peace keeping operations.

If we look at this dispute in the light of the ASEAN membership of Thailand and Cambodia, we can

conclude that the fighting violates the values of ASEAN. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in

South-East Asia (TAC, 1976) was indeed signed by both warring parties, which means they are

committed to reject the use or threat of force in relations between member-states and to the peaceful

settlement of inter-state disputes. It is clear that the deaths of several people following the recent

clashes strongly violate this agreement.

The Thai-Cambodian conflict has a large impact on the image of ASEAN because both warring parties

are members of the regional organisation. It is the very first time that two members fight an open war,

thereby severely disturbing the political peace within ASEAN that has often been raised as its trump

card. It seems that ASEAN, especially the current Chairing, Indonesia, is very aware of the damage

these events could bring to ASEANs credibility.

Since 2008, ASEAN has a charter that includes guidelines with regard to intra-ASEAN conflict. This

charter allows the warring parties to request the Chairman or Secretary-General of ASEAN to provide good offices, conciliation or mediation. Therefore, Indonesia, more specifically, its Foreign Minister, Mr. Natalegawa, took the initiative to organise a meeting among ASEAN foreign ministers.

The outlined goal of this meeting was to discuss a more systematic approach to conflict resolution and

more importantly, to put it into practice. This was perceived as an ambitious initiative, as ASEAN has

never engaged in chairing a dialogue process to resolve an intra-ASEAN conflict.

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN STUDIES

European Institute for Asian Studies EIAS asbl Rue de la Loi 67, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium - Tel +32 2 230 81 22 - Fax +32 2 230 54 02 - eias@eias.org

At the meeting, on February 22nd

, both warring parties discussed the issue in a civilised way in the

presence of the Indonesian Chair. Specific output included the decision to send out observers to the

region of conflict. A ceasefire agreement was not deemed necessary because there is no shooting at the

moment. Observers hope that the support of ASEAN will stimulate the sense of responsibility among

the warring parties.

In the past ASEAN was rather reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of member countries. In

this regard, this recent meeting was memorable, maybe even setting a precedent to discuss sensitive

bilateral problems in the presence of a neutral chair. Could it be that the initiative of Mr. Natalegawa to

moderate this meeting, signals a bigger role for ASEAN?

Now that the situation in the border region has normalised, ASEAN can take the time to draw lessons

from the Thai-Cambodian dispute. The event has proven that the international community is closely

watching the role of this regional organisation. Now that ASEAN has taken its responsibility as a

mediator in the conflict, one can only hope this will have a positive effect on the tensions in the region.

By taking up this role as an active mediator, ASEAN has proven to the international community that it

is more than a rule-based, bureaucratic organisation. The future will tell whether it will continue this

active approach if other intra-ASEAN conflicts emerge.

European Institute for Asian Studies asbl

67 Rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels/Belgium

Tel.: 0032-(0)22308122 Fax: 0032-(0)22305402 Email: eias@eias.org Website: www.eias.org