Theoretical Perspectives on the Cambodian–Thai Border Dispute

 

 

Yasser Harrak

A Quick Overview

The Thai-Cambodian border dispute is an important case study that can inform on how conflict can arise and escalate if proper conflict resolution theories are applied. This conflict can be summarized in 3 critical phases. The 1954-1962 phase is when the Thai troops occupied and claimed Preah Vihear due to post-colonial border ambiguities that was followed by the ICJ’s decision that the area in the vicinity of Preah Vihear was part of Cambodian territory (Asia Report, 2011).  The 2007-2008 phase marked the listing of the temple complex as a UNESCO World Heritage site following Cambodia’s application despite formal objections from Thailand. Troops by both countries were moved to the borders (CSR, 2012).  The 2008-2013 phase marked the outbreak of hostilities resulting in the death and displacement of civilians. Cambodia filed a request for interpretation of the 1962 judgment and won the ICJ ‘s decision in 2013 (Asia Report, 2011).

The Concept of Solidarity

Post-colonial borders ambiguities could well be the spark that started this conflict but it cannot explain how the conflict escalated. Conflicts can occur within the same country (such as former Yugoslavia) between different ethnic groups and also between members of the same ethnicity such as the case in South Sudan and Libya. Solidarity is a key weapon in conflict. Groups with solidarity are more capable of mobilizing and fighting, and groups with very intense solidarity are especially sensitive to threats to their boundaries (Collins, 2012, p. 2). Intense solidarity in the Thai-Cambodia appears strongly in Thai nationalist polarizing activities especially after the ICJ ruling in favor of Cambodia. The Thai nationalists’ polarization, rhetoric and social and political campaigns against the IJC sought to diabolize Cambodia and all opposing local voices, mobilize the army and save the country. Historical rivalry aside, it was mainly the ultra-nationalist movements that ignited this border conflict (Asia Report, 2011).

Theoretical Perspectives

Feminism first, could this border dispute have been propelled by unconscious ideas on gender and power dynamics?  This idea could be more important in the case of the George Bush war on Iraq where it is research-worthy to analyze irrational impulsive behaviours pushed by one powerful male figure. In this border dispute however, the Thai nationalists worked within communities rallying around the myths that Thailand still owns the temple (Ibid). From a primordialist  perspective, The concept of kinship between members of an ethnic group can explain conflict  (Mohamad, 2015, p. 89). This perspective seems not perfectly applicable considering multi-ethnic settings where no ethnic conflict has ever occurred, in addition to the large multi-ethnic and multicultural settings that have evolved in the West where ethnicity did not prove to be the main driver behind social conflicts. The question of generalizability remains an inescapable issue for this theory. Although instrumentalism looks tempting considering the capitalization of the Thai politicians on the issue of the temple for political ends (Asia Report, 2011),  Thailand is a strong monarchy where the pre-conflict king was the same as the post-conflict king,  and above all, he is the head of the armed forces according to the constitution. Political rivalries may have played a role but can neither explain the real reason behind such an escalation.  Other explanations such the systemic and domestic analyses where the light is shed respectively on the role of international authorities that could be too weak to keep groups from fighting, as well as the role of domestic socio-economics and race relations are both valuable, yet do not offer idiosyncratic explanations . Constructivism focuses on the way norms, values, identities and institutions are constructed in a way that affects state and non-state actors’ behavior. This theory suggests that through the processes of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences, which is then internalized by learners (Mohamad, 2015, p. 89). It is reasonable to say that if we consider the explanation of conflict by each other theory to be one factor; if we put all those factors together in the process of accommodation and assimilation, the end explanation would be constructivism. Historical factors, political life, socio-economic realities, religion, local and regional security situations all have created the buildup for this dispute. The temple issue presented the perfect occasion to ignite it.

References

Asia Report. (2011). Waging Peace: ASEAN and the Thai-Cambodian Border Conflict. International Crisis Group. Retrieved from https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/215-waging-peace-asean-and-the-thai-cambodian-border-conflict.pdf

Bin Mohamad, N. (2015). Ethnic Conflict: Theories and Understanding the Root Causes. The Journal of Defence and Security, 6(2), 87-97. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ethnic-conflict-theories-understanding-root/docview/1793541312/se-2?accountid=8289

Collins, R. (2012). C-Escalation and D-Escalation: A Theory of the Time-Dynamics of Conflict. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 1-20. Retrieved from https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=866bfba4-f201-47e1-81a5-a333e6e9c11f%40redis

CSR. (2012). Chronology of Events: Thailand/Cambodia. Security Council Report. Retrieved from https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/chronology/thailandcambodia.php

Mohamad, N. b. (2015). Ethnic Conflict: Theories and Understanding the Root Causes. The Journal of Defence and Security, 6(2), 87-97. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ethnic-conflict-theories-understanding-root/docview/1793541312/se-2?accountid=8289