This article aims to analyze the role of peace practitioners in the context of the Thailand–Cambodia border conflict, specifically the case in which Cambodia initiated military engagement against Thailand. This interstate conflict involves historical grievances, international legal interpretations, and regional political psychology. Using the Nonviolence Approach as the conceptual framework, along with actor-centered conflict analysis, this article explores how peace practitioners contribute to violence prevention, mutual understanding, and long-term international relationship restoration.
1. Introduction
The border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, particularly around the area of Preah Vihear Temple, has been a prolonged conflict rooted in territorial claims and historical tensions. At various points, the conflict has escalated into armed confrontations, such as incidents where Cambodian forces initiated gunfire against Thai troops. These incidents have led to heightened military tensions and anxiety among the civilian populations on both sides.
In this context, peace practitioners—those committed to resolving conflicts through peaceful means—can play a critical role in de-escalating violence and opening channels for communication between the disputing parties.
2. Theoretical Framework
This article employs Johan Galtung’s Nonviolence Theory and John Paul Lederach’s Conflict Transformation framework, focusing on structural change, collective memory healing, and trust-building among leaders and the general public.
3. Nature of the Thailand–Cambodia Conflict
The conflict is characterized as an interstate dispute involving the following issues:
-
Territorial disagreements over border demarcation
-
Divergent interpretations of the 1962 International Court of Justice ruling
-
Clashing nationalistic sentiments and historical narratives
-
Internal political interests influencing foreign policy decisions on both sides
Although the conflict is rooted in legal and historical factors, violent incidents such as border skirmishes reflect a failure in peaceful conflict management mechanisms.
4. Role of Peace Practitioners
Peace practitioners can intervene in multiple dimensions:
4.1 Violence Prevention
-
Implementing early warning systems for potential conflict escalation
-
Supporting the establishment of demilitarized safety zones along the border
-
Creating communication networks among grassroots stakeholders such as villagers, local leaders, and officials from both countries
4.2 Dialogue Facilitation
-
Organizing public forums and civil society dialogues
-
Promoting mutual understanding through a “truth–forgiveness–reconciliation” framework
4.3 Post-conflict Reconciliation
-
Advancing peace education in border communities
-
Encouraging youth exchange programs between Thailand and Cambodia to build people-to-people diplomacy
5. Limitations and Challenges
-
Mutual distrust between the Thai and Cambodian governments
-
Resistance from nationalist factions or domestic political interests
-
Restricted access to military zones or conflict areas for peace practitioners
-
Risk of being labeled as “unpatriotic” or “sympathetic to the enemy”
6. Policy Recommendations
-
Establish independent cross-border cooperation mechanisms
-
Promote the training and deployment of peace practitioners in conflict-prone areas
-
Leverage civil society organizations to cultivate a long-term culture of peace
-
Enhance transparency in conflict-related reporting and information sharing
7. Conclusion
Despite various constraints, peace practitioners remain essential actors in de-escalating international tensions—especially in situations where political motives may exacerbate conflicts. They are not merely mediators but transformative agents who can guide societies toward empathy, patience, and a sustainable peace rooted in mutual understanding.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น