The Thais were glued to the live broadcast from the Peace Palace in The Hague for the whole of last week. For the first time, the polarised Thais have shown a rare solidarity and stood behind the Thai team. They all wanted to know how their legal team would counter the Cambodian arguments. Albeit its imperfection, the simultaneous Thai interpretation allowed the whole country to follow the proceedings closely. It was exceptional in the annals of Thai history to witness such a unity, even for a short period. Prior to the hearing, the Thais were divided and full of anxiety. It remains to be seen how this solidarity can be further nurtured and prolonged.
After Cambodia brought the case before the ICJ, lingering doubts were high among Thais whether the powers-that-be would be able to defend the country's national interest this time around. After all, we lost out in 1962 when the ICJ ruled the temple belonged to Cambodia. For the past five decades, the country has been haunted by the decision. Worse, it also created a psychological wave of self-pity and incompetency. All that came to a halt during the Thai oral presentation along with well over 1,300-pages of written explanations.
Credit must be given to the Thai team, headed by Ambassador Virachai Plasai and his assistants, both Thai and foreign nationals. His cool, clear and calm demeanor last week has become the talk of the town. Without his steadfastness, determination and thoroughness, the Thai presentation would have been different. For the past three years, the Thai team has accumulated over 10,000 pages of documents related to the temple's dispute. "I left no stone unturned," reiterated Virachai during his numerous interviews. In contrast, Cambodia relied on one document - the Annex 1 map - for the whole ICJ presentation.
In preparation of dossiers for the ICJ, Virachai and his team were mindful of the country's political situation and fluidity - but he remained unfettered and refused to budge against political pressure, especially during the first few months of the Yingluck government. He also stood up against the government under former prime minister Samak Sundravej over a proposed oil deal with Cambodia.
It was agreed only recently that there would be a live TV broadcast throughout the hearing, after learning of possible technical problems during the ICJ live webcast through the UN online web-TV system. During the 2011 hearing, there was no live broadcast, leading to allegations of "hidden agendas" laid by the nationalists groups against the Thai team.
Interestingly, the live broadcast has created the kind of transparency that rendered an immediate effect in garnering support for the Thais, who previously were confused by daily doses of misinformation and disinformation. After the first round of Thai rebuttal to Cambodia's presentation on April 17, the public mood changed radically. It must be noted that leading senators including Kamnoon Sithisamarn, who had been the harshest critics of Thailand's handling of the ICJ case since the Abhisit government, were the game changers. Their constructive tweeted messages from the Peace Palace praising the Thai legal team increased the confidence at home. For the past six months, Virachai and his team have given numerous background briefings to various stakeholders as much as possible. Altogether, this public support also preempted other ultra-nationalist groups from causing havoc at the border areas near the temple. In 2011, similar groups accused the previous and current government of complacency and naivete in handing the ICJ case. When the two rounds of oral presentation ended on April 19, it was crystal clear that all the misinformation and disinformation, related to the case, by design or imagined, had been put to rest.
One positive outcome was the heightening of a sense of alertness related to the country's system of collecting information and data. The country's archives are still very mediocre. Thanks to the Thai Army's own collections, the Thai team was able to assemble the most complete dossiers related to the temple's dispute since the 1962 verdict. Eventually, this could lead the country to invest in protecting old documents and placing increased importance on articulating the contents of written documents, which used to be a Thai failing. One often heard, whenever there were international incidents related to treaties and legal documents, blame automatically placed upon desk officers, who often did not pay much attention to letters or documents from abroad. In retrospect, Thailand could have dealt with the Cambodian plan to add the temple on the World Heritage list if it had heeded the letter of enquiry from Unesco earlier, long before the Christchurch controversy in 2007.
There is one caveat though. Despite the freshness and positive energy bursting from The Hague, Thai public expectation could run amok as it often does in a case like this. The overwhelming good-feeling could backfire and generate unrealistic expectations from the pending ICJ decision. The Thais were disappointed with the 1962 decision, even though the Thai team under MR Seni Pramoj was so confident of its victory. Therefore, it is pivotal that all stakeholders, in particular the Pheu Thai Party and other extremists, hold their breath before the ruling due later in the year. Otherwise, it could impact on domestic politics and lead to unpleasant circumstances. Indeed, the decision could come much earlier if there is a clear consensus among the panel of judges.
Finally, in the post ICJ saga, the two countries must not stay idle, they have to overcome the hostile sentiments and narratives generated before and during the ICJ. Now the legal battle has ended, the real struggle in the political realm continues. Indeed, they must utilise the much touted leadership rapport across the border to keep a ceasefire sustainable and intensify the ongoing de-mining efforts in the disputed areas. At the same time, Thailand should now approve the terms of reference to allow the Indonesian observers in. In the court, they could be merciless in countering others - but once they move to day-to-day reality at the border area, they must be pragmatic.
Time has come to build up new confidence between the two countries. In their closing remarks, the Thai team cited Thailand's desire to see their country and Cambodia living in harmony and prosperity under the spirit of the Asean Community. Indeed, this should be their common ultimate objective.
