Tackling Thai-Cambodian border row

The tragic landmine injuries on Monday to two Thai soldiers have cast doubt on whether the ceasefire agreement with Cambodia will hold.

- William Roth

This file photo, dated April 15, 2013, shows a hearing at the UN's highest court about the dispute between Cambodia and Thailand over land around the Preah Vihear Temple.

But, even if it does, one also has to wonder whether either country really wishes to have lasting peace along this border. After all, for over 70 years, both countries, for domestic political purposes, have periodically used the continuing uncertainty about the actual boundary line to whip up nationalist sentiment.

But let's assume the positive and imagine that both countries now truly are desirous of having lasting peace along the unsettled 195km of their roughly 800 km-long shared border. (Some 603km has already been demarcated. "Demarcation" means the physical marking of the boundary on the ground.) To achieve a lasting settlement, however, a "true" boundary line has to be determined. But how can this be achieved? Before the Oct 26 peace accord, signed in Malaysia, Thailand had always insisted that any agreement about the Cambodian border must be the result of bilateral negotiation, rejecting any talk of third-party facilitation or mediation.

By contrast, Cambodia has repeatedly sought third-party involvement, and on July 7 formally indicated its preference to have the International Court of Justice (ICJ) resolve the dispute over just four specific areas along the border. Thailand, however, no longer submits to ICJ jurisdiction, and remains irate over the Court's 1962 judgment that awarded the Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia.

There is, however, an intractable problem with Thailand's continued insistence on a "bilateral solution": it will never happen. Never. There are two major reasons.