Can Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia be trusted as an honest broker in the Thai-Cambodian border dispute? The answer depends on which groups of people you ask in Thailand.
When Anwar first stepped in to mediate between the two warring neighbours, leading to a ceasefire agreement in late July following five days of border skirmishes, his role was generally appreciated by most Thais.
But today, the Malaysian leader is being labelled everything by increasingly vocal nationalist groups, from an untrustworthy leader to a threat to Thailand’s security. His recent offer for Malaysia to host another round of peace talks has been roundly rejected by these groups.
Anwar has also been subject to heavy criticisms in TV and online interview programmes for being allegedly biased in favour of Cambodia.
A retired army general, Rangsi Kitiyansap, known for his fiery rhetoric on the border conflict, even accused Anwar of being a “spy” and demanded that he stop interfering in Thailand’s affairs.
Rangsi, a former director of the army-owned TV Channel 5, is now a regular media interview guest who on many occasions has called on the Thai military to declare war on Cambodia.
He is among a horde of hawkish nationalists advocating a confrontational approach in dealing with Cambodia and opposing what they see as intervention in Thailand’s internal affairs by Anwar and US President Donald Trump who helped broker the peace deal.
The anger toward Anwar was in full display on Saturday when hundreds of protesters led by the nationalist group “United Power of the Land to Protect Sovereignty” rallied outside the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok, demanding the Malaysian leader to stop meddling in Thailand’s sovereignty.
The protesters were seen waving posters opposing Malaysian and US role in the border conflict, with one asking “Is Anwar a slave of Cambodia?”
The rally and the accusations prompted Anwar to deny that Malaysia has interfered in the border dispute.
Speaking to Malaysian media in Johannesburg, Anwar said, “We are not involved, nor do we give any specific prescription on how they should achieve a settlement.”
He said Malaysia merely enabled communication between the two countries’ armed forces chiefs and foreign ministers, and encouraged direct talks between the prime ministers.
It is still unclear at this point when the good offices offered by Anwar will take place, amid increasing tensions between Thailand and Cambodia. Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hassan has said that Malaysia is ready to facilitate peace talks to be held in Kuala Lumpur.
While acknowledging Anwar’s trust deficit in the eyes of many Thais, regional affairs experts believe that the Malaysian leader should still continue to help mediate the border conflict.
Chaiwat Meesanthan of the Institute of East Asian Studies, Thammasat University, pointed out that Anwar earned the ire of many Thais by making remarks that are seen as favouring Cambodia, especially when he called on Thailand to oblige by the peace accord after Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul put it on hold following a landmine explosion that injured four Thai army personnel early this month.
“Despite the doubts, I think he can still be an honest broker,” he said.
However, he said it’s incumbent on Anwar to demonstrate that he is a neutral facilitator. “There is no way that such dialogue will succeed if one or the other of the conflicting parties does not trust the mediator,” he said.
Kavi Chongkittavorn, another regional affairs expert, also agrees with Anwar’s mediating role which he said has helped put the spotlight on ASEAN.
However, both Kavi and Chaiwat questioned the role of US President Trump which many see as an interference and self-serving for the US.
On the other hand, they agreed that the US involvement has also raised questions about the ability and unity of ASEAN to resolve problems among their members.
