[Inside Chodong] The Bitter Reasons Behind the Thailand-Cambodia Conflict

Thailand and Cambodia have agreed to a ceasefire after four days of fighting. While it is fortunate that the armed conflict between the two countries did not become prolonged, a closer look at the recent clashes leaves a bitter aftertaste. Innocent soldiers and civilians became victims due to the ambitions of their leaders.

The two neighboring countries have a long history marked by frequent disputes and wars, resulting in a bloody legacy that goes beyond mere hostility. However, even in such circumstances, the influential political family of Thailand, the Shinawatra family, and Cambodia's dictator Hun Sen, who is now President of the Senate, have maintained a close relationship. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister of Thailand and a telecommunications tycoon, established ties with Hun Sen as early as 1992, prior to being appointed Foreign Minister in 1994. The two were so close that they referred to each other as sworn brothers. From Hun Sen's perspective as a dictator, Thaksin, who was competing with the Thai military?his greatest threat?was a valuable ally. Conversely, Thaksin needed Hun Sen to keep the military in check. It is not widely known, but both men share a background as Chinese descendants from Guangdong Province.

However, their friendship of over 30 years began to falter in May this year. After a small-scale skirmish at the border resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, then Prime Minister of Thailand and daughter of Thaksin, called Hun Sen and addressed him as "uncle." She expressed that the real adversary of both leaders was the Thai military’s Second Commander, and that the border dispute was not beneficial. Although she intended to use the families' close ties to resolve the dispute, Hun Sen made the contents of their conversation public to Cambodian politicians. As a result, Paetongtarn faced public outrage in Thailand and was suspended from her duties as Prime Minister.

There are various opinions as to why Hun Sen suddenly turned against the Shinawatra family, but personally, I believe the reasons are political. The current Prime Minister of Cambodia is Hun Sen's son, Hun Manet. Although Hun Manet benefits from his father's influence, his political standing is not yet firmly established. Rather than relying on friendship, Hun Sen sought to strengthen his and his son's domestic position by stirring up traditional ethnic sentiments. In fact, after the conversation between "uncle" and "niece" was made public, anti-Paetongtarn protests broke out in Thailand, while pro-Hun Manet rallies were held in Cambodia. Amidst this heated public sentiment in both countries, the recent conflict ultimately benefited the Hun Sen family and the Thai military. The Hun Sen family gained the justification that they did not yield in battle against their archrival, and the succession process gained momentum. In Thailand, the military’s popularity has risen as it managed to restore political and military order.

However, it was the people who suffered. At the start of the conflict, a Cambodian rocket struck a convenience store in Thailand, killing six civilians. Among them was a father who lost three family members at once and survived alone. While the leaders focused solely on consolidating their own power and reaping the benefits, it was civilians and soldiers who bore the brunt of the damage. There is no guarantee that situations like the Thailand-Cambodia conflict will not occur in our own region. China's threats against Taiwan and North Korea's provocations, which resurface whenever they are forgotten, are similar cases. Coincidentally, both countries share the trait of lacking genuine democracy. It is not surprising that they make decisions that defy common sense for the sake of maintaining their own power. Our political leaders must always keep a close watch on such countries and be prepared to respond. While political gains may be possible, it is the people who ultimately suffer. It must never be forgotten that both politics and military power must always serve the people.