Bangkok: “Ajarn Panithan” analyzed the statement of “Sihasak”, both experienced and lucky. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Panithan Wattanayagorn, a security and international affairs expert, analyzed Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkaew’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), covering eight pages and 63 points, with the radio news editorial team. He concluded that this speech marked Thailand’s “initiation of proactive action” to prevent Cambodia from unilaterally distorting the facts on the international stage. He responded more promptly and comprehensively than Cambodia, earning praise from both Thais and the United Nations, where applause ensued.
According to Thai News Agency, this statement, Thailand maintained its gentlemanly tone, even its tone. This was due to the minister’s “personal abilities”, his experience on the international stage, his previous political work, his recent speech drafting for a former prime minister, and perhaps due to “luck” or “US intervention.”
Prior to the speech, the United States convened a four-party meeting: the United States, Malaysia, Thailand, and Cambodia. The discussions were generally positive, but when Cambodia appeared on the UNGA stage, it distorted the facts. This clearly demonstrated to the United States and the international community that Cambodia was “one-upp’s-up.” If Thailand can continue its aggressive and intensive proactive actions at both the ASEAN and APEC meetings, it is possible to deprive Cambodia of space to return to talks with Thailand. Peace could easily be achieved. It is predicted that tensions, troop deployments, and the deployment of weapons may be delayed until next month, until after the ASEAN meeting. However, Cambodia cannot be trusted. Thailand must remain strong, and this is only the first round of containment. If Cambodia does not change its mind and resumes its offensive, it will have to adopt a more aggressive approach.
Regarding Thailand’s history of providing humanitarian assistance to Cambodia, this fact is well-known and well understood internationally. Thailand currently bears a heavier burden than many other countries in providing humanitarian assistance to its neighbors. However, it is acknowledged that the conflict in Cambodia has raised concerns among many countries about Thailand’s future potential for refugee admissions. A sensitive issue is law enforcement against Cambodians, which must be clearly emphasized as Thai territory. It must also be acknowledged that some countries may perceive us as a larger nation and may bully smaller nations, leading to continued assistance to Cambodia.
Regarding the issue of holding a public vote on MOU 43-44, which has both advantages and disadvantages, I believe that if a public vote is held and MOU 43-44 is cancelled, the benefit would be a fresh start, avoiding the complex trap of the past. However, a vacuum must not be created. Previous agreements must be clearly agreed upon whether to remain or be scrapped. This requires clear communication with the public: international relations will significantly degrade, and committees working together will be reduced. Alternatively, the public can be informed about alternatives. Another option might be to “request a temporary suspension” and test the impact of the temporary suspension.