What is preventing progress in land negotiations between Thailand and Camdbodia? | DW News

Key Concepts

• Border Dispute: Conflict over the demarcation of the boundary between Thailand and Cambodia.
• Ceasefire: An agreement to stop fighting.
• Bilateral Mechanism: Negotiation and resolution processes involving only the two directly involved countries.
• International Court of Justice (ICJ): An international court that settles legal disputes between states.
• Collateral Damage: Unintended harm to civilians or civilian property during military operations.
• Self-Defense: The right of a nation to protect itself from attack.
• Prisoners of War (POWs): Combatants captured during armed conflict.
• General Border Committee (GBC): A joint committee for border management and dispute resolution between Thailand and Cambodia.

Border Dispute Between Thailand and Cambodia

This summary details a YouTube video transcript discussing the ongoing border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, which is impacting a Southeast Asian leaders' summit. The conflict involves accusations of ceasefire violations, land seizures, and differing perspectives on the use of force and international intervention.

Sticking Points in Negotiations and Accusations

Cambodia's Information Minister highlights the primary sticking point as the cessation of fighting, stating that force should not be used to alter borderlines, yet Thailand is allegedly doing so. He claims Thailand is not respecting the ceasefire, citing the placement of barbed wire along the border, which prevents Cambodian civilians in Prejan and Chokch from accessing their homes.

In response to Thailand's perception of civilian targets being hit (e.g., a 7-Eleven and a gas station), the Cambodian minister asserts that Thailand used F16 aircraft to bomb civilian houses, schools, and pagodas in Cambodia. He argues that Cambodia is merely exercising its right to self-defense to protect its territory, characterizing any civilian harm as collateral damage.

Paths to Resolution and International Involvement

Cambodia believes that conflict and war cannot be ended by fighting but by negotiation. They emphasize that they are not advancing into Thai territory but are protecting their border according to internationally recognized maps and those used by the ICJ. However, Cambodia notes that Thailand does not recognize the ICJ in this conflict.

With a shared border of over 800 kilometers, Cambodia advocates for using bilateral mechanisms. For issues that cannot be resolved bilaterally, they seek third-party intervention, specifically mentioning the ICJ as a preferred avenue for resolution, as Cambodia desires peace and the protection of its sovereignty.

Thailand's Perspective on the Dispute

Surasand Conseri, representing Thailand's defense ministry, rejects Cambodia's accusations of Thailand breaking the truth. He states that Thailand is adhering to the rules of law and the international order, has been abiding by all truths since the beginning of the situation, and is seeking peaceful means of resolution. He agrees that the negotiation table is the most crucial instrument and that Thailand has been trying to resort to bilateral negotiation through existing mechanisms.

Obstacles to Progress and Insincerity

Thailand attributes the lack of progress in negotiations to insincerity and dishonesty from Cambodia, accusing them of threatening Thailand with producing fake news and misinformation. Thailand claims that much of the information originating from Cambodia is fabricated and intended to provoke the situation.

Reluctance to Involve Third Parties

Thailand expresses reluctance to cooperate with neutral international institutions like the ICJ. Conseri uses an analogy of neighbors quarreling over fences, questioning the necessity of going to a world court for such a dispute when bilateral mechanisms (like the General Border Committee and Joint Boundary Commission) are already in place and agreed upon by both sides. He believes that a third party would not understand the local situation, culture, tradition, or way of life of the people along the border.

Counterarguments on Third-Party Involvement and Initial Aggression

In response to the argument for third-party involvement, the interviewer points out that people are being killed and the parties are unable to solve the issue, thus questioning why a neutral party shouldn't be involved.

Thailand counters that the deaths did not start from outside. They claim that on July 24th of that year, the firing originated from the Cambodian side, killing innocent civilians. Thailand states it resorted to self-defense under the UN Charter, using aircraft to bomb military targets, not civilian ones, to cut off Cambodian armed forces' capabilities. Conversely, they allege that Cambodia fired BM-21 multiple rocket launchers into civilian homes and facilities, which they describe as indiscriminate firing. Thailand reiterates its preference for bilateral means due to existing mechanisms and the fact that the dispute was initiated by Cambodia.

Status of Cambodian Prisoners of War and Conditions for Resolution

Regarding the 18 Cambodian soldiers captured by Thailand, Conseri states they are in good health and being looked after as prisoners of war (POWs). Thailand is considering their return and will do so as soon as hostilities from the Cambodian side end.

Recently, a General Border Committee meeting concluded with both sides agreeing on four conditions that Cambodia and Thailand must fulfill:

1. Removal of heavy weapons along the border to prevent indiscriminate firing and harm to civilians.
2. Cooperation in resolving the demining issue along the border.
3. Collaboration to resolve cyber scams and scam centers.
4. Ensuring that villages along the border return to their normal lives.

These four conditions, particularly those Cambodia must fulfill, are seen as prerequisites for discussions on returning the POWs.