|
ANCIENT
HISTORY: Thailand and Cambodia make peace – but for how long?
By
Jonathan Hopfner
While the war on Iraq is in
the early stages, another, a less prominent conflict drew to a close
March 22, when checkpoints on the Thai-Cambodia border were officially
reopened after remaining shut for nearly three months in response
to the torching of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh.
The Thai-Cambodia dispute registered as little more than a blip
on the global radar, but despite both governments’ insistence
that they consider the matter resolved, could yet have serious implications
for relations between the two countries and the fragile unity of
the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The conflict was also a potent reminder that in Southeast Asia,
ancient history continues to exert a forceful, if often unnoticed,
influence on present events. The furor was sparked when a Thai actress
popular in both her native country and Cambodia, Suwanan Khonying,
allegedly commented that she would not visit Cambodia until it returned
the 1100 year-old Angkor temple complex to Thailand. While Khonying
insisted she uttered these lines in a role on a soap opera that
aired in Thailand two years ago, her words appeared in the Khmer
press early this year, prompting Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen
to comment at a rally in January that Khonying was “not worth
a blade of the grass that surrounds Angkor.”
What happened next stunned even those well accustomed to Cambodia’s
political instability. On January 29, bands of protesters that had
gathered in front of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh broke into the
compound and set the building alight. Having exhausted government
targets they next turned their attention to the private sector,
burning and looting Thai-owned businesses throughout the capital.
By the time order was restored over 30 firms, including hotels,
restaurants and airline offices, were damaged or destroyed; Thai
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had sent five planes to the capital
to evacuate Thai nationals and the Cambodian ambassador to Bangkok
was expelled. Future tallies estimated the riots cost Thai companies
at over 2 billion baht, but it is more difficult to gauge the fiasco’s
effect on the already tenuous relations between the two nations.
Theories as to the true causes of the incident abound; Thai Ambassador
to Phnom Penh Chatchawed Chartsuwan implied upon his return to Bangkok
that the riots were not spontaneous and that the Cambodian police
were slow to respond to his requests for assistance. Many observers
accused Hun Sen of deliberately whipping up nationalist sentiment
ahead of nationwide elections in July; a time-honored tactic of
Cambodia’s current administration. The Cambodian government
itself accused opposition leader Sam Rainsy of fomenting disorder
to discredit Hun Sen and his party; a charge Rainsy has hotly denied.
More insightful analysts have suggested that the Cambodian unrest
had been brewing for some time. Thailand and Cambodia have been
trading salvos for years over two other temple complexes on the
Thai-Cambodian border that both countries lay claim to. More of
a factor may have been Cambodians’ increasing resentment over
what they see as Thailand’s economic colonization of their
country; trade along the border reached 18.7 billion baht (US$420
million) last year, with Thailand recording a surplus of a whopping
17.76 billion (US$396 million). Much of Cambodia’s nascent
infrastructure, including its mobile phone network, is wholly or
partially owned by Thai firms. Even tourism, which the Cambodian
government has upheld as a key engine to the country’s development,
has grown under Thai auspices; three of the largest hotels in Phnom
Penh are Thai-owned and Bangkok Airways enjoys a virtual monopoly
on the lucrative route from Bangkok to Siem Reap and the temples
of Angkor. Thai music and television is so favored among Cambodian
youth that Senior Minister Sok An last May asked local television
producers to impose a moratorium on Thai films, soap operas and
game shows.
The aftermath of the riots only highlighted to many Cambodians the
extent to which they are dependent on their wealthier neighbor.
As border posts closed, the economies of towns in Cambodia that
rely heavily on cross-border trade and traffic such as Poipet were
devastated.
With the border situation returning to normal on March 21 after
Hun Sen paid 252 million baht (US$5.8 million) in compensation to
Thailand for the destruction of the embassy, relations between the
two countries look set to steadily improve. But several thorny issues
remain unresolved. Though the Cambodian government has agreed in
principle to pay an additional 2 billion baht (US$46.6 million)
to businesses affected by the incident, trust between Phnom Penh
and Bangkok remains at an all-time low, as evidenced by Shinawatra’s
insistence that Cambodia compensate at least one business before
the checkpoints were opened. Hun Sen may also have some difficulty
persuading his largely impoverished people – many of whom,
correctly or not, believe too much Cambodian money already ends
up in Thai coffers – that settling the outstanding bill is
in the nation’s best interests.
This is to say nothing of the conflict’s wider implications,
especially for the investment climate of Cambodia itself and ASEAN
as a whole. Many of the grouping’s nations are locked in an
uneasy coexistence. Disputed areas exist between Thailand and Myanmar,
Thailand and Laos, and the Philippines and Vietnam; Singapore and
Malaysia frequently lock horns over issues such as waste and water
supply, and Malaysia regularly accuses Indonesia of failing to control
illegal logging and immigration along their border on the island
of Borneo. The shared history of Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia
and Vietnam is one of war and conquest; foreign investors may rightly
wonder now whether the nationalist tendencies that crop up in all
these countries could once again give rise to events like those
that took place in Phnom Penh. Business and trade will soon recover,
but the real casualty of the Thai-Cambodia spat may be the image
of stability and unity that ASEAN has been struggling to project
to investors in the face of increasing competition from China. At
the very least the incident is a powerful reminder that in Asia,
old habits die hard.
Ilissa
A. Kabak, C.
H. Kwan,
|
