How to Quickly Destroy the Credibility of ASEAN and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC): The Preah Vihear Temple Border Dispute

Article 2 of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia states that the signatories of the pact,

shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :

a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;

b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;

c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;

e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;

f. Effective cooperation among themselves. *

In a matter of 10 months, Cambodia and Thailand have embarked towards a journey that could discredit a vital instrument of peace within the Southeast Asian region and the path taken by both sides can possibly cause ASEAN to lose face in the eyes of the international community.

The border dispute surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple area is indeed a matter of national pride and security for both countries and must be approached from the perspective of cool-headed diplomacy; indeed, the issue must be taken away from the rhetoric of national and military leaders that could undermine not only Thai-Cambodian relations, but the stability and credibility of ASEAN as a successful and functioning institutional mechanism for dispute resolution.

Need the two countries be reminded that as signatories to the Southeast Asian regional peace treaty, ASEAN could become a laughingstock among interregional governmental organizations for its failure to neutralize or even reduce the tensions that could lead to a territorial conflict between Cambodia and Thailand?

Indeed, the policy-makers of the two countries ought to remember that the prevailing reason for ASEAN integration is that countries within the region acknowledge that peaceful cooperation is necessary for the notion of a regional identity and stability to prosper and progress.

The question now presented is can ASEAN move forward to the vision of a cultural, economic, and (possibly) political community if member states are unable to shed their extreme nationalistic attitudes towards territorial issues at the expense of pursuing regionalism?

Reducing barriers to free trade, setting up a regional socio-economic community with a binding legal charter, and announcing to the world the birth of the ASEAN way and identity are meaningless and miniscule achievements if the regional integrity of ASEAN is undermined by this long-standing border dispute, an issue which could lead to an unthinkable disintegration.

Simply put, if you want to cut ties with family, make sure to claim each other's real estate property and instead of exhausting the advise and council of fellow family members to settle the property dispute amicably, keep making threats that could further escalate the situation.

Thus, Preah Vihear, in a political sense, reflects the serious flaws of regional confederational governments when the issue of national territory becomes involved and where sovereign entities may take the path of reverberating back towards the isolationist cave of nationalism.

To encourage internal strife within the region in order to defend the integrity of the national territory, however significant such territorial issues may be to a particular nation, is a failure of national leadership, and its inability to coordinate policies within the context of regional consultation and consensus.

It must be noted that the issue of Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines, not to mention the issue of Spratly Islands between China and a significant number of ASEAN countries, should have been a good example for Cambodia and Thailand to suspend territorial issues for the sake of regional stability and harmony.

Also, the facts attest to the issue of the border dispute as already decided through international judicial arbitration; indeed, for a country to have sought an international governmental organization for national recognition of such territory, regardless of whether it pertains to a specific cultural significance, is tantamount to declaring belligerent attitudes vis-a-vis the other state party involved in the dispute.

I suggest for the political leaders of the two countries to take the path of reconciliation and spare ASEAN further embarrassment in the international community. A win-and-win situation exists if national territory issues are not given priority over the issue of regional cooperation.

It is now in the hands of Cambodia and Thailand to decide whether both truly desire to achieve regional peace and prosperity for the entire southeast Asian region.

* - Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm