Commentary: Trump's call didn’t stop the fighting in Thailand and Cambodia. Can Malaysia do better?

SINGAPORE: In a few hours, Thailand’s acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet will sit down for peace talks in Malaysia, amid an escalating border conflict that has killed at least 30 people and displaced thousands more.

The visit to Kuala Lumpur on Monday (Jul 28) by the leaders will offer the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) a chance to preserve its treasured centrality and demonstrate a capacity to solve its problems on its own rather than under external intervention or pressure.

It also offers current ASEAN chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, an opportunity to create a legacy. This is something that has thus far eluded him, and ASEAN in the other major crisis it faces – Myanmar’s seemingly intractable and ongoing civil war.

The scheduled talks follow a characteristically unilateral announcement on Saturday by United States President Donald Trump claiming both countries had agreed to work out a ceasefire after he threatened to cease trade talks if the fighting did not stop soon.

Cambodia had already proposed a ceasefire, but Thailand – after the call from Mr Trump – said that while it agreed in principle with a ceasefire, the onus was on Cambodia to stand down.

Mr Trump’s announcement did not seem to have any effect. There was no sign of de-escalation. Within hours of a brief pause, Thailand and Cambodia were exchanging rocket and gunfire again, possibly with each intent on gaining advantage on the ground ahead of a truce so that a clear win could be presented domestically.

A WINDOW FOR ASEAN

Speculation on the origins of the conflict ranges from bad blood over business and economic interests – from casinos to scam centres – to personal falling out between the Hun and Shinawatra families; to domestic agendas to prop up wobbly political parties and mandates; and even superpower rivalry between the US, an ally of Thailand, and China which has significant economic interests in Cambodia.

Premier Hun Manet’s father Hun Sen – now President of the country’s Senate and viewed as the de facto leader of Cambodia – may indeed feel he has greater strategic space with China’s backing, given China’s interests in Cambodia.

But while there may be some element of truth in that, it risks falling into the trap of seeing the conflict through an American, China-centric prism. China took pains last week to say the weaponry Cambodia was using was old stock supplied not recently but previously by Beijing.

In fact, any definitive explanation without real evidence is suspect; the origins of the conflict remain opaque and likely only really known to a relatively small circle of power elites in both capitals.

Regardless, neither country wants to be seen domestically to bending to external pressure. This offers a thus far ineffective ASEAN response new traction.

Conversely, the opportunity puts pressure on Mr Anwar, who may be seen as somewhat compromised by his decision earlier this year to appoint former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as an adviser – even if one of several – to the ASEAN chair he holds.

Thus while the meeting offers hope, underlying complexities should not be underestimated.

The proximate and historical causes of the conflict may be many, and significantly intertwined, but what is evident and indisputable is that what tipped a volatile situation over the edge was a falling out between old friends Mr Hun Sen and Mr Thaksin.

The latter’s daughter, Paetongtarn Shinawatra – who became prime minister only last August – has been suspended pending an ethics investigation over her leaked phone call with Mr Hun Sen, throwing Thailand’s civilian coalition government into some disarray and giving its military an opportunity to wave its nationalist credentials.

“Failure to secure a meaningful and lasting ceasefire could severely damage ASEAN's credibility as a regional problem-solver, especially given past criticisms of its effectiveness in other regional crises,” Professor Pavin Chachavalpongpun of Kyoto University’s Centre for Southeast Asian Studies told me.

THE LIMITS OF MEDIATION

The meeting signals a step towards de-escalation, but it doesn't magically resolve the deep-seated territorial disputes, nationalistic sentiments and historical grievances that fuelled this conflict, Professor Pavin added. “The true test will be whether it leads to genuine, sustained efforts to address the root causes, or merely provides a temporary pause in hostilities.”

That the conflict so easily ignited historical grievances underscores its unfinished nature.

A particularly disturbing aspect – mirroring the India-Pakistan crisis in May – is the jingoism that has reached such levels, even in the local media, that it has prompted some civil society organisations to speak out.

Thailand’s Assembly of the Poor, for instance, last week said: “We resist the ultra-patriotism and militarism that makes states turn their back on people, while manipulating fear, hatred and loss as their political instruments.”

Securing a ceasefire may be the easiest part of Monday’s meeting. The more difficult aspects will however have to be addressed by political-military elites in Cambodia and Thailand, to avoid a repetition of a cycle that, with tourism and investor confidence plunging, both countries can ill afford.

Nirmal Ghosh, a former foreign correspondent, is an author and independent writer based in Singapore.