Win or lose, the point is to put up a good fight

It may not matter if we lose the battle. What matters most is whether we have put up a good fight and can learn from it. Therefore, it is disheartening to hear Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul’s comments, which suggest his lack of enthusiasm to fight the case over the disputed Preah Vihear temple on the border with Cambodia. It is a no-win situation for Thailand, he noted.

“If we lose the case, we lose it [the territory]. Even if we don’t lose the case, it goes back to square one. That is, the temple belongs to Cambodia and the area surrounding it remains as it is,” Surapong said.

Cambodia has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify its 1962 ruling on the dispute over the border temple. The court previously ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, but the territory around it remains contested by both countries.

It is ironic that Surapong seems to have thrown in the towel before the scheduled ruling. The ICJ is set to deliver a verdict next October. As the head of the Foreign Ministry and a deputy premier, Surapong’s comments will have implications for the morale of the Thai negotiating team.

The content of what Surapong has said is not as surprising as the messenger himself and the timing of the message. In fact, the wrangling over the disputed territory is complicated since it involves legal and technical issues against the backdrop of strong nationalist sentiment on both sides of the border. And both governments will naturally fight to the end to defend their sovereignty. 

Thirty years after the Falklands War, Argentina and the UK are still embroiled in sovereignty claims over the disputed islands in the resource-rich south Atlantic. Meanwhile Asean unity is being tested by territorial disputes in the South China Sea, where no claimant party is willing to show any sign of compromise over ownership of islands, islets and reefs. And China and Japan’s rival claims over islands in the East Chin Sea have given rise to nationalist sentiment in both countries. 

Preah Vihear is of significant historical value to both Thais and Cambodians alike. Therefore Surapong should have no choice but to put up a good fight and stick with it to the end, whatever the verdict. It is his duty to encourage members of the Thai legal team and boost their morale as they defend the country’s claim of national sovereignty over the disputed area. 

After the verdict, no one would then blame Surapong if Thailand were to lose the case, even if he admitted he had carried the case with a heavy heart, knowing it was a losing battle. 

But how can we convince the judges to rule in Thailand’s favour if the leader of the negotiating team shows no enthusiasm or ability to lead before the battle is over? This has raised the question of whether Surapong is qualified to represent the interests of Thailand. 

Surapong might be trying to protect himself and have ready excuses for the loss, if it happens. But he has to put the national interest before his personal feelings. And he has to act like a foreign minister, not a team leader who is too prepared to lose.

Instead of complaining about the difficulty of the case, Surapong has to support his legal team to the best of his ability. Winning or losing does not matter ultimately as much as the fact that the trial process will provide insight to Thais about their history and background.

Surapong doesn’t have to be worried about the issue being politicised. Thais have been familiar with this issue since 1962 and are prepared to deal with the verdict. What they want to see is the government best representing their interests on the international stage. 

Instead of showing a lack of interest, Surapong should instead provide facts and information in an honest way, in order to further educate the public about the issue. Pride in our nation and origins depends on a thorough understanding of history. And the government and its legal team have to show the public that we are justified in the contest over Preah Vihear.