Thailand and Angkor
|
|
The fluid historical relationship between Thailand and Cambodia has prompted some Thai nationalists to claim that Angkor belongs to Thailand. This claim, coupled with economic, cultural and political factors, resulted in riots in Phnom Penh on January 29, 2003.
| Contents |
Background
Historical
Historically, the relationship between Siam (modern Thailand) and Cambodia was extremely fluid, reflecting the region’s division into city states rather than nation states. These city states were bound together into empires by more or less strong political, military and tributary ties. In the 14th century, the centre of Thai power passed from Sukhothai to the more southerly Ayutthaya, in territory which had formed part of the Khmer empire. The threat posed by Ayutthaya to Angkor increased as its power grew, and in the 15th century Angkor itself was sacked.
The ensuing centuries saw numerous further incursions by the Siamese. Stories of these were embellished and fictionalised in order to support the Siamese position that Cambodia was weak and naturally subservient to Siam. For much of the 19th century, northern Cambodia, including Angkor, was ruled by a Siamese tributary state. The degree of independence enjoyed by this state fluctuated according to the relative fortunes of Siam, Cambodia and the French colonialists. Angkor’s being subject to a foreign power made it a potent national symbol from this time on.
In 1907, Siam ceded northern Cambodia to France. In the 1930s, this loss became the basis of the nationalist government’s claim that the area was a “lost territory” which rightfully belonged to Thailand. This claim was not abandoned until the 1950s.
Economic
Thailand’s rapid economic progress during the 1980s and 1990s made its economy one of the strongest in south-east Asia. Conversely, the Khmer Rouge government and the subsequent civil war kept Cambodia economically weak. As a result, Thai businesses dominate the Cambodian economy, fuelling resentment.
Cultural
Compared to Cambodia, Thailand has a far greater population, is much richer and is more open to western influences. These factors have given Thailand a substantial cultural influence on Cambodia, particularly in music and television. This is coupled with a perception on the part of many Cambodians that Thais are arrogant and racist towards their neighbours, and towards Cambodians in particular.
Cause of the riots
The January 2003 riots were prompted by an article in the Cambodian Rasmei Angkor (Light of Angkor) newspaper on January 18. The article alleged that a Thai actress, Suvanant Kongying, had said that Cambodia had stolen Angkor, and that she would not appear in Cambodia until it was returned to Thailand. The newspaper’s editor gave the source for the story as a group of Khmer nationalists who said they had seen the actress on television. No evidence to support the newspaper’s claim has ever emerged, and it seems that the report was either fabricated or arose from a misunderstanding of what Suvanan’s character had said. It has also been suggested that the report was an attempt by a rival firm to discredit the actress, who was inter alia the “face” of a cosmetics company.
The report was picked up by Khmer radio and print media, and copies of the Rasmei Angkor article were distributed in schools. On January 27, the Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen repeated the allegations, and said that Suvanan was “not worth a few blades of grass near the temple”. On January 28, the Cambodian government then banned all Thai television programmes in the country.
The riots
On 29th January, rioters attacked the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh, destroying the building. Mobs also attacked the premises of Thai-owned businesses, including Thai Airways and Shin Corp, owned by the family of the Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.
The Thai government sent military aircraft to Cambodia to evacuate Thai nationals, while Thais demonstrated outside the Cambodian embassy in Bangkok.
Responsibility for the riots was disputed: Hun Sen attributed the government’s failure to prevent the attacks to “incompetence”, and said that the riots were stirred up by “extremists”. The chairman of the National Assembly, Prince Norodom Ranariddh claimed that opposition leader Sam Rainsy had directed the attacks. Rainsy said that he had attempted to prevent the violence.
In the context of the ongoing intimidation and violence instigated by Hun Sen in the run up to the 2003 elections, many believe that the riots were merely yet another of these tactics gone out of control.
The aftermath
The Thai government closed the country’s border with Cambodia following the riots. The border was re-opened on 21 March 2003, following the Cambodian government’s payment of $6 million compensation for the destruction of the Thai embassy. The Cambodian government also agreed to compensate individual Thai businesses for the losses which they had suffered, to be negotiated separately.
External link
- The Nation Bangkok (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/Cambodia_riot/)