By Dr. Samran Sompong, Senior Journalist and Scholar in Buddhist Nonviolence and Media Communication.
Abstract
This article aims to examine Cambodia’s conduct within the framework of nonviolent approaches, focusing specifically on the Thai–Cambodian border conflict. Despite Cambodia’s declared commitment to peace and adherence to international legal obligations, empirical evidence during periods of border tension—particularly around the Preah Vihear Temple—reveals contradictory behavior. Actions such as military mobilization, rejection of bilateral negotiations, and strategic use of propaganda to assert unilateral legitimacy illustrate a departure from genuine nonviolent principles. This analysis employs Johan Galtung’s framework of nonviolence and positive peace, identifying dimensions of direct, structural, and cultural violence to expose underlying tensions between rhetoric and practice in Cambodia’s conflict behavior.
1. Introduction
Amid heightened tensions along the Thai–Cambodian border, especially near the Preah Vihear Temple, Cambodia has presented itself as a proponent of peace in international forums. However, its practical conduct often contradicts such claims. This article aims to analyze the inconsistencies between Cambodia’s peaceful discourse and its strategic behavior through the lens of nonviolent theory, in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms of the conflict.
2. Theoretical Framework
This study adopts Johan Galtung’s theory of nonviolence and positive peace, which categorizes violence into three dimensions:
Direct violence: Physical acts causing clear harm, such as armed conflict
Structural violence: Systemic inequalities embedded in institutions and policies
Cultural violence: The use of ideologies, beliefs, and narratives to justify violence
In addition, the study applies the principle of active nonviolence, which emphasizes peaceful conflict resolution through negotiation, mediation, and the use of international mechanisms.
3. Characteristics of Cambodia’s Conduct
3.1 Military Mobilization and Border Reinforcement
Despite formal commitments to peace, Cambodia has responded to tensions by deploying troops near disputed territories and reinforcing strategic positions—actions that undermine a conducive environment for constructive dialogue.
3.2 Peaceful Image in International Arenas
Cambodia is adept at leveraging international platforms, such as the United Nations or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to portray itself as a victim. Through narratives of Thai aggression and imagery of displaced women and children, Cambodia garners sympathy while omitting its own provocative actions.
3.3 Rejection of Direct Negotiations
Cambodia has occasionally rejected bilateral talks with Thailand, insisting instead on third-party mediation. This reflects a lack of trust and an unwillingness to open equitable channels of communication, which hinders genuine conflict resolution.
4. Analysis within the Nonviolence Framework
Cambodia’s conduct may be seen as “discursive nonviolence” rather than “practical nonviolence.” While it avoids overt acts of direct violence at times, it often resorts to propaganda, legal maneuvering, and international diplomacy as tools to gain strategic advantage. Such practices reinforce structural and cultural violence and hinder the development of mutual understanding or sustainable conflict resolution.
5. Policy Recommendations
Thailand should prioritize bilateral negotiations emphasizing cooperation, rather than allowing external parties to dominate the mediation process.
Cross-border communication at the grassroots level should be encouraged to promote peace culture and mutual understanding among citizens.
The academic community should play a more active role in presenting evidence-based perspectives to counter disinformation and prevent the misuse of peace rhetoric to justify coercive actions.
6. Conclusion
Cambodia’s behavior in the Thai–Cambodian border conflict highlights a contradiction between peaceful rhetoric and strategic conduct. While avoiding open armed conflict in some instances, Cambodia often engages in structural and cultural forms of violence through legal and discursive mechanisms. This article emphasizes the need to develop sincere and sustainable mechanisms for nonviolence—based on trust, equity, and collaborative dialogue between conflicting states.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น