.jpg)
This article analyzes Thailand’s conduct in the context of a nonviolent approach to the border conflict with Cambodia, particularly in the disputed area surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple. While Thailand has consistently upheld international law and promoted peace in various forums, its actions during the management of the border dispute reveal elements of power assertion, retaliation, and public communication that do not fully align with nonviolent principles. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Johan Galtung and Gene Sharp, the article examines Thailand’s policy decisions, military diplomacy, and public communication strategies during the period of heightened tensions.
1. Introduction
The Thai–Cambodian border dispute, especially around the Preah Vihear Temple area, serves as a case study reflecting the dynamics of interstate conflict encompassing historical, cultural, legal, and political dimensions. Cambodia’s assertion of sovereignty over territory historically administered by Thailand forced the Thai government to respond through multiple strategies—military, diplomatic, and communicative. This article assesses whether these responses align with or deviate from the principles of nonviolent conflict resolution.
2. Theoretical Framework
This analysis applies two key frameworks:
-
Johan Galtung: His concepts of “Negative Peace” (absence of direct violence) and “Positive Peace” (presence of justice and equality) alongside his typology of violence:
-
Direct Violence
-
Structural Violence
-
Cultural Violence
-
-
Gene Sharp: His theory of Strategic Nonviolent Action, emphasizing nonviolent resistance such as negotiation, non-cooperation, and public awareness campaigns to achieve social and political change.
3. Thailand’s Conduct in the Conflict Context
3.1 Adherence to International Legal Frameworks
Thailand consistently emphasized its commitment to the 1904 and 1907 Franco-Siamese treaties and declared a defensive stance, refraining from initiating armed aggression. This behavior aligns with the notion of “Negative Peace” by avoiding full-scale warfare.
3.2 Preventive Diplomacy
Thailand attempted to resolve tensions through bilateral dialogue rather than relying on international arbitration, particularly during periods when Cambodia sought third-party involvement. However, these efforts were hindered by Thailand’s domestic political instability, especially during 2008–2011.
3.3 Defensive Military Responses
In certain instances of border clashes, Thailand responded militarily, citing the right to self-defense under international law. However, these actions led to civilian casualties and raised questions about proportionality and Thailand’s international image.
3.4 Nationalist Communication and Public Discourse
The Thai government and some segments of the media employed nationalist rhetoric to foster unity. While this strengthened domestic cohesion, it risked fueling cultural violence toward neighboring Cambodia and narrowing space for constructive diplomacy.
4. Peace-Oriented Analysis
4.1 Strengths in Line with Nonviolence
-
Thailand refrained from initiating direct military aggression.
-
Thailand promoted negotiation mechanisms.
-
Thailand upheld sovereignty without violating legal obligations.
4.2 Weaknesses in Line with Nonviolence
-
Even defensive military actions escalated tensions.
-
Public communication lacked empathy and understanding toward the Cambodian perspective, undermining mutual trust.
-
Domestic political instability influenced foreign policy inconsistency, weakening Thailand’s diplomatic credibility.
5. Policy Recommendations
-
Promote both bilateral and multilateral negotiations with culturally neutral third-party mediators.
-
Develop public communication strategies that build mutual understanding among Thai and Cambodian citizens.
-
Encourage civil society engagement in cross-border peacebuilding efforts.
-
Decouple domestic political agendas from foreign policy to maintain consistency and long-term diplomatic stability.
6. Conclusion
As a democratic state and a key ASEAN member, Thailand has made notable efforts to resolve the border dispute with Cambodia through various nonviolent measures. However, certain behaviors reflect retaliatory mechanisms, mutual suspicion, and negative portrayals of the counterpart—obstacles to achieving genuine “Positive Peace.” The central challenge remains transforming peaceful rhetoric into sustainable, concrete action that fosters long-term regional stability.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น