Thai govt under pressure over maritime deal with Cambodia

Thailand is still obscured by the contentious Memorandum of Understanding ( MoU) signed in 2001 with Cambodia to develop portions of an OCA and establish a maritime boundary.

The OCA, which covers an area of about 26, 000 sq miles in the Gulf of Thailand, is believed to be rich in fossil energy sources.

A Thailand-Cambodia joint technical committee (JTC ) must be established to discuss the maritime border demarcation and joint development under the MoU.

Since then, there have been numerous discussions, but none have made any progress, primarily because neither has accepted the other’s regional say.

The Pheu Thai-led administration’s plan to restart trade with Cambodia has skepticism, mostly due to Thaksin Shinawatra’s close ties with former prime minister Hun Sen’s recent visit to Bangkok, which has heightened concerns about the contentious MoU.

Calls for scrapping the MoU are then intensifying, pointing to Cambodia’s 1972 say to half of Koh Kut in Trat state.

Reviewers say the state contradicts the 1907 French-Siamese agreement, rendering the MoU itself illegitimate. But, Cambodian Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra stated that a JTC will be established by the middle of this month to continue negotiations under the 2001 MoU.

Social experts were asked to comment on the MoU, asking whether it might destabilize the coalition government.

Additionally, they discussed the significance of Pheu Thai, especially given how influential Thaksin is in influencing the public’s desire to continue discussions.

Struggles from the start

Panitan Wattanayagorn, an intellectual in security and foreign relations, said the 2001 MoU has faced criticism from the start, specifically about how the procedure was rushed when compared with various agreements.

He claimed that a straightforward document rather than a binding contract was needed. He claimed that the government may define this because it is still not clear whether it specifies obligations for Thailand to follow.

The obligations may be eliminated, according to the researcher, regardless of whether the limit or the posting of marine resources is reached earliest or whether they are treated as one package.

” Critics claim it will result in a loss of territory, but if that’s not the case, the government must clarify what the obligations are, address the implications of Cambodia’s territorial claim and resolve them so the document does n’t impose obligations and the talks can proceed”, he said.

The MoU will turn into a political hot potato, he claimed, noting that congress may later need to withdraw it in order to ease tensions.

He suggested that starting discussions with Cambodia would help to reduce conflicts with the neighboring nation.

Since the Preah Vihear debate, which offers an opportunity for both sides to solve contentious problems, Thai-Cambodian relationships have improved, according to Mr. Panitan.

Thaksin’s suggestion that the government hold talks is unfavorable because improving relations there a good chance, but political parties are turning this chance into a crisis, he said.

Mr. Panitan warned that if the MoU’s problems become as pernicious as they have been in the past, sensitive problems will probably continue to be unsettled.

He refrained from speculating about whether the case may be decided before the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, he said that for a test to resume, both parties may consent to join.

The researcher cited Cambodia’s geographical claim to half of Koh Kut as the most difficult part of the MoU, saying that it is unconstitutional.

Mr. Panitan even demanded clarification from state organizations that support the MoU about how repealing it would be bad for the nation.

What’s at play

Wanwichit Boonprong, a lecturer in Rangsit University’s social science program, pleaded with the government to provide any scientific evidence supporting the claims that the combined development agreement could have a potential economic value of 2.2 trillion baht. He said the prime minister’s comfort only that Koh Kut belongs to Thailand is inadequate.

While the majority of the populace doubts Koh Kut’s position, he said there are growing concerns about Cambodia’s ability to share its maritime resources and whether Thailand might suffer as a result.

” States about the 2.2 trillion-baht economic price have yet to be confirmed by any state agency, leading to debate that we may be at a disadvantage”, he said.

Additionally, according to Mr. Wanwichit, Thaksin’s strong ties to Cambodia and his influence over the Pheu Thai-led authorities have increased open skepticism.

He claimed that because the country’s main state party is unaffiliated with Thaksin, the relationship between Thailand and Cambodia is frequently thought to be unstable.

” The people want to know who has the greatest chance of gaining from the use of coastal assets.” They also want to be assured that]Thailand ] will not be disadvantaged. If the government ca n’t address this, it will fuel political tension”, he said.

The state coalition partners, he said, may acquire a “wait-and-see” approach before making a move. He noted that these controversial issues may undermine the security of the government because of the growing opposition to the nomination of a political consultant as the Bank of Thailand’s chairman.

Phichai Ratnatilaka Na Bhuket, project director for politics and enhancement method at the National Institute of Development Administration, echoed Mr Wanwichit’s comments regarding common beliefs about the Thaksin-Hun Sen marriage.

There is a chance that the conversations may succeed, he claimed, if the MoU is reviewed and revised. He emphasized, however, that to avoid conflicts from rising, the authorities must take immediate action.

Social objective

Noppadon Pattama, a former foreign affairs minister and Pheu Thai Party record member, claimed the coalition government is in charge of the discussions with Cambodia and not just Pheu Thai itself.

He said the agreements will be handled by the JTC, which includes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘ Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, the Energy Ministry and the military, no Thaksin, and that during the Prayut state, the conversations were revived under the MoU model.

Mr. Noppadon noted that if the parties are cooperating in good terms, negotiations can usually go smoothly, but that the environment is less important than the outcomes, which must be in line with international law. He argued that the MoU’s problems should not be politicized because the consequences may threaten both the balance of the government and national security.

Asked about the Palang Pracharath Party’s call for the renewal of the MoU, he shot up, asking why Gen Prawit Wongsuwon, then president of the PPRP, chaired the JTC for eight years and failed to take actions.

” Thais, regardless of their political connections, love their country. It’s time to speak the truth and the reality, not just the legal details. Prevent discrediting people because it threatens both national surveillance and the government, he urged.

Mr. Noppadon argued that Thailand had not acknowledged Cambodia’s geographical claim to the eastern half of Koh Kut and that their maritime claims would remain unaffected if negotiations broke down. Cambodia made its first state in 1972, which Thailand rejected. The next month, Thailand made its suit.

Mr. Noppadon said the falsehood that he had given over the Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia while serving as foreign minister is reminiscent of the false information about possible country damage.

Surakiart Sathirathai, the then-foreign secretary, and Cambodia’s Sok An, the power affairs minister, signed the MoU while the Thaksin government was in power. It was described by the next state as a “very important street” for assistance in oils.

In addition to the PPRP, Thai Pakdee Party chair Warong Dechgitvigrom just launched a petition to collect 100,000 names in support of the 2001 MoU.