Bangkok: Ambassador Rasm has stressed the potential disadvantages for Thailand if the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 43 is cancelled, warning that it would play into Cambodia’s hands. He cautioned Thai citizens against being misled by certain political groups advocating for its termination.
According to Thai News Agency, former ambassador and assistant minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Rasme Chalichan, addressed the recent calls for the government to cancel the MOUs from 2000 and 2001. He insisted that cancelling these agreements would primarily benefit Cambodia, leaving Thailand at a disadvantage.
Mr. Rasm elaborated that MOU 43 is merely a “framework for negotiation” rather than a “territorial contract.” It provides a structured guideline for discussions between the two nations, and any negotiation outcomes must be approved by Parliament to have any legal effect. He emphasized that neither the government nor any other entity can independently alter the agreement’s terms.
Mr. Rasm explained that MOU 43 was established to provide direction for negotiations, as previous Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) meetings lacked clarity. If the MOU were to be terminated, a new framework would need to be developed. Termination can only occur if both parties agree under international law; unilateral termination is not permissible.
He pointed out that Cambodia has been violating MOU 43 by engaging in activities in areas where changes were agreed upon or attempting to bypass bilateral negotiations by taking matters to international forums like the International Court of Justice. Cancelling the MOU would further favor Cambodia by freeing them from the obligation to negotiate with Thailand.
Despite being termed an “MOU,” Mr. Rasm noted that in international law, it holds the same status as a binding treaty. Cambodia is attempting to evade this obligation, and cancelling the MOU would be advantageous for them. By adhering to the MOU, Thailand showcases Cambodia’s non-compliance to the world.
Mr. Rasm also expressed surprise over some parties’ calls for cancelling both MOUs, noting these parties had not objected during their near-decade tenure in the previous government. This shift in stance raises questions about their intentions and sincerity.