In big picture, Thai-Cambodian conflict is playground tussle

There was a time when Thailand, the United States and China supported the infamous Khmer Rouge together. They were against the Hun Sen government backed by the Vietnamese who were in turn favoured by the Soviet Union at the time.

It was one big global mess, the scale of which made the latest Thai-Cambodian border standoff look like four-year-old kids fighting to take control of a sandbox.

But that highly-complicated historical background was also a reason why Thailand and Cambodia can never really trust each other. It explains why there are amicable group photos one day and border shooting the next.

In the past Cambodian war, alliances changed constantly. International support jumped from one camp to another. Superpowers came in, and then deserted, and then came back in in one form or another.

Refugees flooded Thailand. England helped trained the already fearsome Khmer Rouge. Soldiers with miserable conditions mingled with the refugees and “humanitarian” channels allegedly helped restore military strengths.

Movies were made on the hardships of ordinary Cambodians, with renowned The Killing Fields highlighting the cruelty of a political and military group supported by much of the “free” world. Songs were written about the boat people.

When the best-known western movie about the Cambodian war demonised the Khmer Rouge and not the pro-Hanoi, pro-Soviet regime renounced by the West, everyone knew things were very complicated.

A lot of people regarded by Hun Sen, who even today remains one of Cambodia’s most powerful men, as his enemies had shelters in Thailand. Even when Thai national policies seriously transformed with a commitment to “turn warzones into trade havens”, Cambodia has had every right to view Bangkok with lingering suspicion.

The Thai-Cambodian relations were very much dictated by Cambodia’s long-drawn national conflicts apart from the fact that the two countries always have overlapping territorial claims and the competition to be “the first” or “better” when cultural evolutions are concerned.

A few times, it has been “much ado about nothing”. Nationalistic sentiments, for example, were allowed to surge over places that those making noises never visited and those co-existing peacefully never saw problems.

Hate her or like her, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra had a point when she asked reporters this week: “Have you been there?”

She then went on to counter criticism that her government was handling the latest conflict too softly. It was highly-sensitive, she said, pointing out that Thailand must tread carefully to avoid detonating the combustible situation.

Paetongtarn was not wrong. In 2003, riots broke out in Phnom Penh after a famous Thai actress was reported by a Cambodian media network as saying that Angkor Wat probably belonged to Thailand. The Thai embassy was burned and hundreds of Thai immigrants including many professionals fled from Cambodia.

Thai monarchial photos were burned and Bangkok protesters responded by burning Cambodian flags. Diplomatic ties sank to very low levels and Hun Sen banned Thai TV shows and films.

And all of this took place when Paetongtarn’s father, Thaksin Shinawatra, was in power.

Then again, riots are not systematic genocide, full-scale wars and displacement of millions. Cambodia has experienced all that, so border problems with Thailand could be just a ripple after big, back-to-back storms.

And Thai ultra-conservatives’ ire was not directed at just the Shinawatras. When Abhisit Vejjajiva was prime minister, the “yellow” camp asked him to resign for “failing to defend the Thai sovereignty.”

Nationalism often peaked when territorial issues erupted between Thailand and Cambodia. The current situation became a lot more complex given, somewhat ironically, the Thai political divide.

Just as Thailand housed Hun Sen’s enemies bent on dethroning him during the big Cambodian war, his country has been known for being extra-friendly toward one Thai political camp. It happened to be Thaksin’s.

That gave birth to a conspiracy theory, which Prime Minister Paetongtarn strongly denied.

On the one hand, it is true that nationalism can be manipulated and thus help embattled rulers politically. On the other hand, nationalism has to subside sooner or later.

The big picture, therefore, may be more interesting. Vietnam, which used to invade Cambodia and drive out the Khmer Rouge, is getting closer to the United States. China, which sided with the US over the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia, is now close to Russia and has become Washington’s top rival.

Through all of the above, Hun Sen is a survivor, amid government upheavals in Thailand and America, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and China fading away. Some might even say he’s a winner, like him or hate him.

He must be the biggest, most mischievous kid at the sandbox.