A 'peace deal'? Thailand's foreign minister won't go that far

 

Khmer Circle: 

What are the reasons for Thailand's insistence upon seeking resolution to the dispute via "bilateral talks" while declining offers of international mediation? Why would Thailand fear the possibility of the dispute with a small country being "internationalised"? 

Would a criminal want to 'settle' his victim's grievances with the court or the police?  

^^^ 

Jonathan Head
BBC South East Asia Correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

After the ceremony, the Thai Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow refused to call it a peace agreement, sticking instead to their own preferred title 'Joint Declaration by the Prime Ministers of Thailand and Cambodia on the outcomes of their meeting in Kuala Lumpur', which doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue.

“I would call it a pathway to peace,” was as far as Sihasak was willing to go - a far cry from Trump’s expansive claims for it.

Cambodia has been a lot more enthusiastic, but then it has always sought to internationalise its dispute with Thailand, referring it to the International Court of Justice, something Thailand does not agree with.

At the ceremony, Prime Minister Hun Manet gushed with praise for the US president, reminding him that his government had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul was more circumspect, mindful of nationalist pressure back home not to be giving too much away to Cambodia.

Thailand has always insisted the dispute should be resolved bilaterally, with no outside mediation. It says it "appreciates" President Trump’s support, and describes the US and Malaysia only as "facilitating" this agreement.