һƷ̽��

Following peace talks in Malaysia on July 28, Thailand and Cambodia agreed on an unconditional ceasefire to end fighting in disputed zones along their 800-kilometre border that began on July 24. Exchanges of artillery fire and rockets killed at least 42 people and displaced more than 300,000 on both sides.

Responding to the outbreak of hostilities, Socialist Workers Thailand (SWT) released a statement on July 25 calling for a ceasefire and “swift resolution” to the war, saying that “the bloodshed is a tragedy for all who believe in peace”.

SWT called on “everyone who stands for justice and peace across Thailand, Cambodia, and the Southeast Asian community” to unite behind the ceasefire call, arguing that “[w]ar between nation-states is a crime that the people never choose. It is driven by the ruling elites of modern states who seek to expand military influence in order to increase bargaining power over economic interests and to divert attention from class conflict, social inequality, and the erosion of democracy through the spread of nationalism and by allowing the military to monopolise national security.

“True national security defined as the well-being of the people and the safeguarding of democracy is not solely the business of the military, nor is it achieved through retaliatory or escalatory violence…

“The nationalist incitement spread on social media and echoed by mainstream media since the beginning with hashtags like “Thailand is peace-loving but not afraid to fight” and “We will not lose even an inch of territory” — is completely inappropriate. It fuels racial hatred and dehumanises others, and the victims of this hatred are Cambodian migrant workers in Thailand.

“We firmly believe that building an anti-war movement led by peace-loving citizens is the most reliable way to pressure the leaders of both nations to take public concern seriously.”

The SWT called for “an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops from the conflict zone” and “solidarity between the people and workers on both sides through joint expressions of the desire for peace and opposition to war while creating space for dialogue to build lasting peace that goes beyond the framework of ‘nationalism’.”

Exiled Thai political commentator and dissident Giles Ji Ungpakorn, writing in , argues that the military clashes “exposed the fact that the military still control power in Thailand, despite claims that Thailand has a ‘civilian democratic government’...

“In Thailand, the military stand to gain the most from this conflict. The anti-Cambodian jingoism and chauvinism being whipped up by right-wingers paints the military as the saviours of the nation...

“The pro-military mood is in stark contrast to the anti-military feeling a couple of years ago.

"In 2020 Generalissimo Prayut’s military government faced mass pro-democracy demonstrations led by young people. Eventually the movement was repressed, with many young leaders being imprisoned under the ��è����-����������é [insulting the monarch] law.

“Many people associated the military’s control of political power with the monarchy ... The opposite is true. The military use the King to help legitimise their power. They also use war.”

Ungpakorn also points out how the military uses its influence to control the democratic process in Thailand.

“In the 2023 elections, held under rules designed by the military, the two military-run parties only managed to scrape together 76 seats in the 500-seat house of representatives. The neo-liberal Move Forward Party (now renamed Peoples’ Party) came top of the poll with 151 seats. Together with Taksin Shinawat’s Pua Thai Party, they controlled 292 seats.

“But Move Forward Party had no hope of forming a government for two major reasons. Firstly, the military used their appointed senate and their appointed Constitutional Court to destroy the party. Secondly, Taksin did a grubby deal with the military in order to be able to return to Thailand without having to face prison. His Pua Thai party became an agent of the military and was able to form a government with all the reactionary and military parties, excluding the Move Forward / Peoples’ Party. Eventually, Taksin’s daughter, Paetongtarn, became Prime Minister.”

The appeal to nationalism isn’t limited to Thailand, says Ungpakorn, with Cambodian political elites also appealing to chauvinism and manoeuvring behind the scenes.

“In June, the Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn had a phone conversation with [Cambodia’s former Prime Minister] Hun Sen in order to try to smooth out border problems. She referred to Hun Sen as ‘uncle’, which is a common way to address a friend of your father. She also complained to him that the Thai army commander was too gung-ho over the border disputes.

“This conversation was leaked to the press by Hun Sen and led to a political crisis in Thailand. Paetongtarn was accused by the military and conservatives of ‘betraying her country’, while trying to defuse the border conflict. It is noticeable how the Thai military have been in charge of border policy instead of leaving decisions to the ‘elected civilian’ government. The end result was that the military-backed Senate and the military-appointed Constitutional Court removed Paetongtarn from office.

“No doubt, Hun Sen had political reasons for putting the cat among the pigeons and he is certainly trying to raise support for himself and the Cambodian government by creating a chauvinistic mood inside Cambodia. The Cambodian military’s organising of civilians to sing the National Anthem at a disputed temple site on the border was part of this. Ever since the United Nations so-called ‘solution’ to the civil war in Cambodia in 1991, he has used various repressive measures to avoid sharing power with any opposition parties or politicians.

“Taksin was angered by what he called Hun Sen’s ‘betrayal’ of their friendship,” and has "called for the Thai military to ‘teach Hun Sen a lesson’. In choosing between Hun Sen and the Thai military who prop up the government and allow Taksin to enjoy freedom, Taksin chose the latter.”

“In any war there are always claims from each side that the other side started the shooting. In reality, such claims are irrelevant and only serve to blind people from the real underlying reasons for the conflict between the warring ruling classes...

“This conflict is pathetically idiotic because it is supposed to be about a few metres of undefined land on the borders. But in reality, it is about the serious interests of the two ruling classes in holding on to power over their citizens."

The Thai military exploit the conflict to portray themselves as national saviours, Ungpakorn writes. “Many so-called radical figures and trade union groups in Thailand have fallen for this nationalistic propaganda.

“Across the border, Hun Sen and his allies are also using the conflict to shore up their support. The casualties of the fighting are just seen as expendable collateral damage.”