Two memorandums of understanding (MOUs) signed by Thai governments more than two decades ago with Cambodia, aimed at helping settle simmering land boundary and maritime disputes, have become a minefield in Thailand's domestic politics.
Deputy House Speaker Chaiya Promma shocked everyone when he suddenly closed a session in Parliament on August 21 for unclear reasons when an opposition MP was about to propose a motion targeting the two MOUs signed in 2000 and 2001.
The decision to end the meeting was made as hundreds of right-wing nationalists gathered in front of the Parliament compound that day, pressuring the government to end the two bilateral agreements with Cambodia.
Tactical retreat in Parliament
Political sources believe such a game in Parliament was a simple dilatory tactic, as the current Pheu Thai Party-led coalition government had no other way of handling the hot potato spawned by the recent Cambodia border flare-up and its own uncertain political future.
Chaiya claimed initially that he was not informed in advance by whips from the government and the opposition about placing the motion on the agenda, but as the whips insisted the motion was already in place, the deputy house speaker from the ruling Pheu Thai Party bailed out.
He changed his excuse, saying he was too tired chairing the meeting and needed to rest.
Chaiya rejected an allegation that he was ordered to block the motion targeting the MOUs by the government, which did not want the debate to affect the ongoing border tension and relations with Cambodia.
The 2000 MOU was signed by the Chuan Leekpai administration to jointly survey and demarcate 798 kilometers of land boundary with Cambodia.
The conservative right wing has been concerned that the MOU recognizes the French map scale 1:200,000, under which the boundary line is different from the Thai interpretation.
The map played a crucial role in the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the Preah Vihear case in 1962 and its interpretation in 2013 in favor of Cambodia.
The 2001 MOU was signed by the Thaksin Shinawatra administration to delimit the maritime boundary and jointly develop hydrocarbon resources in the overlapping claims areas in the Gulf of Thailand.
Right-wing nationalists view the document as a recognition of Cambodia’s continental claim, and are concerned that it could lead to loss of Thai sovereignty over Koh Kut island as well as huge benefits in the petroleum resource.
Fear of territorial loss?
The opposition Bhumjaithai Party, which was a part of coalition governments in the past few years, appeared to sense danger from the two pacts only after its withdrawal from the Pheu Thai-led government in June.
The party’s exit from the current government was prompted by a leaked phone conversation between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and former Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen in June.
The leaked audio posed legal difficulties for Paetongtarn after a group of senators petitioned the Constitutional Court, accusing the PM of dishonesty and breaching ethical standards in violation of the Constitution.
The court suspended her from duty on July 1, pending an ethics investigation. Her coalition was vulnerable to accusations of being soft on Cambodia due to the Shinawatra family’s long-standing ties with Hun Sen, an opposition MP said.
Bhumjaithai could force the government into a defensive position by either forcing it to stand firm on the MOUs and appear weak or by agreeing to reconsider them and thus look incompetent in managing foreign relations, the MP said.
A week after the border flare-up, the party submitted a motion seeking a parliamentary resolution to terminate the two agreements, citing concerns about losing territory and maritime interests to Cambodia.
“It is clear that we see the danger of these MOUs. We have seen clearly what the mistakes are and how much impact they have had on people. That is why we put forward this motion,” the party’s spokesperson, Bunthida Somchai, an MP from Ubon Ratchathani, said.
If the motion had passed in the session, the House of Representatives would have set up an ad hoc committee to study and review the two MOUs within a certain time frame before submission to the government for the final decision.
The party also has proposed a series of public hearings to gather opinions from Thai citizens and pressure the government into reconsidering its stance.
The two MOUs might be unconstitutional as they have never been vetted and approved by Parliament. Under the Thai 1997 and 2017 constitutions an agreement or treaty with foreign countries that makes changes to the boundary or affects Thai sovereignty needs to secure parliamentary approval.
“Any action that affects the sovereignty and interests of the country without parliamentary oversight is not only a violation of the Constitution, but also a diminution of the nation’s dignity. It opens the way for foreign countries to exploit Thailand’s territory, while the Thai people may not receive fair benefits, or may even risk permanent loss of territory,” said Saritphong Kiewkong, a Bhumjaithai MP from Krabi province, who submitted the motion.
Pheu Thai Party spokesman Danuporn Punnakanta said the ruling party did not want to set up an ad hoc committee to study the two MOUs because the House of Representatives Committee on Border Security had already set up a sub-committee to review the documents.
“The result of the study could be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration, therefore there is no need to create another body,” he said.
Bhumjaithai’s move also places the main opposition People’s Party in an awkward position, as the majority in the party views the two MOUs as a key instrument to settle border and maritime disputes with Cambodia, according to a party source.
“Bhumjaithai and Phalang Pracharat, which earlier championed the termination of the 2001 MOU on the maritime deals, have problems with the MOUs only after they were kicked out of the coalition,” he said.
“Perhaps, the establishment of a committee to study the two border pacts is the best solution to reduce tensions domestically and internationally.”
Useful mechanisms
The Foreign Ministry insisted that the 2000 MOU is beneficial to Thailand, as it provides a framework and mechanism for joint border survey and demarcation, based on the Siam–Franco Treaties of 1904 and 1907, as well as related documents such as maps and records of past boundary commissions.
“The 2000 MOU also stipulates that both parties must refrain from any actions that may alter the conditions of the border area, such as digging trenches or moving military forces,” said Benjamin Sukanjanajtee, the ministry’s director general of Treaties and Legal Affairs.
“Another key provision of the 2000 MOU is that Thailand and Cambodia must cooperate in clearing anti-personnel landmines in the area, to ensure the safety of officials conducting border surveys,” he said.
The Joint Boundary Commission (JBC), a key mechanism under the MOU, has made significant progress in the survey, which managed to identify 45 out of 74 boundary pillars.
The JBC approved during a meeting in June the task for a joint technical sub-committee to identify the remaining 29 pillars. Such progress and tasks proved that the mechanism under the 2000 MOU functions and works well, Benjamin said.
If the MOU were to be revoked, as demanded by some politicians and conservative groups, there is no way to escape the facts established under the Siam–Franco Treaties of 1904 and 1907, as they form the framework setting out the details and bind both sides to the 1:200,000 map, he said.
