The Thai government’s decision to hold a referendum on the fate of two pacts signed with Cambodia more than two decades ago could muddy domestic political waters, erode international credibility, while resolving none of the border and maritime disputes.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul told Parliament on September 29 that his government planned to “conduct a referendum to enable public participation to deliberate, decide and express opinions on the revocation of the memorandum of understanding [MOU] between Thailand and Cambodia”.
The premier did not specify any MOU, but the implication was obvious. A pact on the survey and demarcation of the land boundary was signed in 2000 during the Chuan Leekpai administration, while the government of Thaksin Shinawatra signed the 2001 MOU on overlapping maritime claims to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Thailand.
“An MOU is about mutual understanding. If that understanding no longer exists, it can be terminated at any time. That’s why we must listen to experts in the deliberation. I want to stress that the decision on this matter lies with the Cabinet — it can decide without having to wait for the security agencies’ opinions,” Anutin told reporters.
To scrap or not to scrap
While the two MOUs were created as legal instruments to facilitate the settlement of boundary disputes, they came under fire due to recent border tensions, which led to hostilities. Right-wing nationalists warned that Thailand could lose territory and hydrocarbon resources to Cambodia because of the pacts.
The 2000 MOU has been blamed for recognizing the French map scale 1:200,000, which distorted the boundary lines, while the 2001 MOU acknowledged Cambodia’s continental shelf claims, effectively offering Phnom Penh a stake in the natural resources in the area.
A few weeks after the July border skirmishes, the Senate and the House of Representatives separately set up two ad hoc committees to study the usefulness of the two MOUs in settling disputes with Cambodia. The studies are due to finish by the end of November.
Deputy Prime Minister Borwornsak Uwanno wants to club together a referendum on the MOUs with one on the constitution along with the general election early next year. Prime Minister Anutin, however, has said the government must wait for the committee’s findings first.
“If the results clearly indicate that further study is unnecessary, the Cabinet may proceed to terminate the MOUs,” he said.
The government’s responsibility
Public figures and analysts have expressed mixed reactions on the plan to hold a referendum. Some of them, such as Sudarat Keyuraphan, leader of the Thai Sang Thai Party, believe that holding a referendum is unnecessary, as the government can decide to scrap the MOUs immediately.
Former senator Rossana Tositrakul expressed the same opinion, saying the government should not impose the burden of making a decision on the people as the Cabinet has full authority to terminate the pacts.
Opposition leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut of the People’s Party said the MOUs were too complicated for the people to understand and decide in a referendum.
“In fact, this should be the responsibility of the executive branch. The government should not shift this decision onto the public, because it has already been entrusted to handle foreign policy matters — issues that are complex and sensitive, including those related to national security. Whatever the government decides to do, it must take responsibility and make the decision itself,” Natthaphong told reporters.
Former foreign minister Noppadon Pattama of the Pheu Thai Party said it might be hard for the people to decide on such complicated and technical matters like the MOUs on the land boundary and maritime dispute.
The government may view this issue as one that involves widespread domestic debate and, therefore, wishes to consult the public as a form of direct democracy. In reality, the nature of the issue must also be considered when deciding whether to hold a referendum, he said.
“Matters of a technical nature, pertaining to international law, territorial boundaries and international relations may not necessarily be suitable for a referendum,” said Noppadon, who is also a legal expert.
Khattiya Sawadipon, a Pheu Thai MP, said the Bhumjaithai-led government’s plan to revoke the two MOUs would directly affect Thailand’s position and credibility on the international stage.
Strong public sentiment
An opinion poll conducted by the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) in early October indicated that 44.12 % of 1,310 respondents said they don’t understand the content of the two MOUs at all, but 60.76 % expressed their desire to vote to terminate them in the referendum.
Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow said the government needed to enforce its policy, which has been announced in Parliament, to hold the referendum but people should receive sufficient information and knowledge about the MOUs.
Reacting to the NIDA Poll results, Sihasak said that this was an issue of great importance to the Thai public and concerned national interest.
The foreign minister, who directly responded to the matter, emphasized the need for public participation in giving opinions and considering the matter. He reiterated that it was essential to provide the public with as much information as possible and to proceed with the utmost care, ensuring the public was well-informed and adequately prepared to express their opinion.
Wary of the ICJ
Given the fact that the two MOUs provided various bilateral mechanisms for the two countries to settle disputes on the land boundary and maritime, it would be a matter of great concern if the documents were scrapped without any alternatives, People’s Party MP Rangsiman Rome cautioned.
“Imagine this scenario: Without the 2000 MOU, Cambodia could say, ‘There’s no longer any bilateral mechanism, so let’s go to the International Court of Justice [ICJ]’,” he said.
Before the border clashes, Cambodia had notified the ICJ that it wanted to refer the disputed areas in the Emerald Triangle, Ta Moan Thom, Ta Moan Toch and Ta Kwai Hindu sanctuaries to be settled by the court.
The move ignited anger among the Thai elite and the military and reopened old wounds. The ICJ has twice ruled against Thailand — in 1962 and 2013 — in the Preah Vihear case. Thai authorities maintain that Thailand has not recognized the ICJ's jurisdiction since 1960 and will never do so.
According to Rangsiman, an ICJ ruling might not be the end of the boundary problem, as the court would rule only on specific locations in the case, leaving the border for the two countries to resolve bilaterally.
“Ultimately, the process could return to the original 2000 MOU framework,” Rangsiman said, adding: “In that case, revoking the MOU would be pointless, and there’s no guarantee that any new framework would be better.”
