Friends turned foes of the government fire nationalist barbs

The coalition government of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra is facing intense criticism from the opposition Palang Pracharath Party and right-wing activists, who are leveraging nationalist sentiment to accuse the administration of jeopardizing territorial sovereignty.

The reason for this attack is the government’s plan to resolve maritime disputes with Cambodia and pursue joint petroleum development in the Gulf of Thailand.

Prawit Wongsuwan, leader of Palang Pracharath, commissioned his crew to object to the government’s plan and demanded that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on a maritime deal signed with Cambodia in 2001 by the Thaksin Shinawatra government be scrapped.

Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala, head of Palang Pracharath's academic group, said during a recent press briefing that if the government resumed negotiations under the MOU framework, Thailand could lose sovereignty over Koh Kut Island.

An executive member of the Palang Pracharath, Kornkasiwat Kasemsri, said Cambodia’s claim to the continental shelf was beyond what was its right under international laws on the sea.

If the MOU is used as the basis for negotiations, it would tantamount to Thailand recognizing and accepting the Cambodian claims, he told the press conference.

On September 12, Paetongtarn told Parliament that the negotiations over the overlapping claims areas (OCA) with neighboring Cambodia were intended to enhance energy security and reduce costs.

Responding to the opposition's attacks, Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai told reporters that his government badly needed to resume negotiations with Cambodia to settle the maritime disputes and explore shared interests in oil and gas production under the 2001 MOU framework without any concern about losing sovereignty over Koh Kut.

Since the 1970s, differing claims over the continental shelf have created a 26,000-square-kilometer overlapping area in the Gulf of Thailand, which potentially holds up to 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 500 million barrels of condensate and oil.

The MOU was co-signed by former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai and late Cambodian senior minister Sok An in June 2001 to address these overlapping maritime claims, aiming to resolve disputes and jointly develop and share the benefits of petroleum resources.

What Surakiart did more than 20 years ago is the best mechanism to settle the territorial dispute and in the mutual interest of the two countries to extract petroleum resources, said Phumtham, who is also the defense minister.

“Please don't lose focus on the main issue. The important thing is the resources under the sea, including the oil that can be utilized, which will become less significant in the next 10 years. Even if an agreement is reached here, it would take more than five years to start benefiting from these resources.

If nothing is done within the next 10 years, it will become meaningless because electric vehicles are already prevalent. It would be a shame for the country not to tap into these valuable resources,” he said.

Politicizing the deal

The plan to settle the maritime disputes and jointly develop abundant hydrocarbon resources in the OCA has been stuck in a quagmire for the past two decades due to technical challenges, political complexities, and both internal and international conflicts.

The 2001 MOU itself fell into diplomatic trouble as the Thai government under Abhisit Vejjajiva wanted to terminate it in retaliation over the appointment by Cambodia of the then-fugitive Thaksin as prime minister Hun Sen’s advisor.

The document, however, survived as the Abhisit government failed to formally inform the Cambodian side of its intention.

Ironically Prawit, who was a defense minister during Abhisit’s administration and later in Prayut Chan-o-cha’s government, never championed the idea of terminating the MOU.

He even chaired a Joint Technical Committee and led a Thai delegation in discussions with his Cambodian counterparts on a joint development scheme under the MOU framework.

Noppadon Pattama, a former foreign minister, argued during a TV program that the MOU provided a framework and an instrument for the two countries to settle maritime disputes peacefully.

“I believe nobody wants a war to settle the territorial disputes,” he said. “Whenever we need to talk, we need such a framework and an instrument.”

“Section 5 of the MOU makes clear that the MOU itself and actions taken under the MOU are without prejudice to the maritime claims of either party,” said Noppadon, a legal expert of the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The Palang Pracharath Party only began scrutinizing the OCA and the MOU after its relationship with the ruling Pheu Thai Party soured, leading to its expulsion from Paetongtarn’s coalition government.

The party’s secretary-general, Paiboon Nititawan, had earlier filed a petition with the Constitutional Court seeking nullification of the MOU as it was never approved by Parliament.

The court, however, ruled 6-3 on September 4 that Paiboon lacked the constitutional standing to bring the case before the court.

Stirring nationalist sentiment

Many ultra-rightist activists echoed the party’s stance, distorting the issue by claiming that Thailand could lose Koh Kut to Cambodia if the government proceeds with negotiations.

They are demanding an increase in deployment of forces by the military to protect national sovereignty and called for the government to abandon the agreement.

A royalist-nationalist scholar, Panthep Puapongpan, posted on his Facebook page on October 23 that since Thailand had unilaterally declared its continental shelf in 1973, the area should rightfully belong to Thailand under the 1958 Geneva Convention.

“These areas were secured through the blood and sacrifices of Thai ancestors since the reign of King Rama V.

It should not be misrepresented, as some have done, with royal decrees from the reign of King Rama IX, to make these areas appear as overlapping zones between Thailand and Cambodia in an attempt to unjustly compete for energy resources. Such actions do not fully benefit Thailand or its people,” he stated.

Panthep, along with another royalist historian, Thepmontri Limpaphayom, intentionally connected the theme of territorial loss to King Rama V’s birthday on October 23, aiming to foster royal nationalism as a stance against the government.

Several social media posts on October 23 echoed this message. One post stated, “King Rama V protected Koh Kut, Trat and Chanthaburi, ensuring they remained a part of Thailand. Any tyrant who attempts to hand these areas over to Cambodia is betraying the land.”

Right-wing groups had previously stoked nationalism and anti-Khmer sentiment in 2008, by opposing Cambodia’s bid to list the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, to create unrest and ultimately undermine the government of Samak Sundaravej.

Noppadon, who was forced to step down in 2008 after the signing of a joint communique to support Cambodia’s proposal to list the Preah Vihear temple, said the governments then and now did nothing wrong in the deal with Cambodia.

He does not see a threat to the survival of Paetongtarn’s government because of the attack by nationalists.

Defending Koh Kut

Navy Commander Admiral Jirapon Wongwit visited Koh Kut on November 2 to boost the morale of troops and residents on the island, vowing to defend the country's territorial integrity and protect national interest.

“Rest assured that the Navy is fully committed to protecting the nation's territorial sovereignty and safeguarding the country's maritime interests.

We affirm the relationship between both countries, and want to emphasize that there are no conflicts in the overlapping claims area,” Jirapon told reporters.

Koh Kut district chief Pairat Soisaeng made a plea via Facebook on November 2 asking nationalists not to use the island as a protest site to raise tensions and disturb peace and tourism in the area.

“Koh Kut district primarily relies on tourism-related businesses. Each year, more than 300,000 tourists, both Thai and international, visit the area, generating billions of baht in revenue for Thailand.

Therefore, we appeal to nationalist groups reporting on Koh Kut to consider carefully the impact before publishing their news, as it could directly affect the local population and tourism operators in Koh Kut,” the district chief said in a statement.

By Thai PBS World’s Political Desk