Shocking by the polite standards of Southeast Asian diplomacy, the barbs and accusations traded recently between Malaysia and Thailand have exposed a major rift over the Muslim insurgency on their border.
At the height of the row last month, Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon said he had stopped speaking with Malaysia, accusing his counterpart Syed Hamid Albar of grandstanding over 131 Thai Muslims whose flight over the border triggered a diplomatic tussle.
Syed Hamid had enraged the Thais by saying they should be more "mature" over a consumer boycott called by Malaysian activists, which Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra reacted to in characteristically angry fashion.
Both sides stepped back last week, with Malaysian officials saying they realized there was no sense in poisoning the entire relationship over the fate of the displaced Thai Muslims, who said they feared for their lives in their homeland.
Thailand has insisted that they return, but predominantly Muslim Malaysia says it has a duty to protect Muslim refugees from southern Thailand -- a stance which has wide public backing here.
"I think gradually there is understanding that we should manage the problem," Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said last Monday after meeting his Thai counterpart Chidchai Vanasathidya.
"We should not allow the problem of the 131 to be blown out of proportion and ... it should not spill over into the other areas in terms of overall bilateral relations."
But despite the detente, political observers said their worst row in recent memory has highlighted serious differences between Thailand and Malaysia over the handling of the rebellion in Thailand's Muslim-majority southern provinces.
And despite Bangkok's attempts to fend off outside interference, the August flight of the 131 men, women and children has blasted the issue onto the international stage.
Former Thai ambassador to the UN, Asda Jayanama, said Thailand had itself to blame for allowing the issue to slip out of its grasp and draw the attention of the UN refugee agency and the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- the world's biggest Muslim grouping which Malaysia currently chairs.
"It was mishandled in a sense. Diplomacy was done at the highest level, the prime ministerial level. It need not have been that high," he said. "If you make a mistake, it's difficult to undo."
Relations between the two countries are improving now that the "megaphone diplomacy" has been lowered, Asda said.
"The diplomatic bridge has been burnt, it hasn't collapsed ... it's still there, but it's all charred, it's all black," he said.
Thaksin's management of the hostile south has been widely criticized as clumsy and insensitive, with too much use of military might instead of more subtle tactics like consultation, inclusion and economic advancement.
Bilveer Singh, associate professor in political science at the National University of Singapore, said Malaysia has been "very irritated" by Thaksin's barn-storming approach which has only worsened the violence.
And Thailand's claim that Muslim separatists met in Malaysia to plan attacks on its territory has cast doubt over Malaysia's cooperation in the US-led "war on terrorism," he said.
"That took the situation to a point of no return because it put the Malaysian government in a very bad light," Singh said.
"And the situation is even worse now because the Thai government seems to have lost control of the south," he said of the region where some 1,000 people have died in almost daily bombings, shootings and arson attacks.
Singh said Malaysia had lost its patience after facing flak over the rebellion, but having no chance to influence the way it is handled.
"The Malaysian government has been counseling restraint for a very long time but the Thai government is very dismissive, saying they can take care of the matter. Then when things are out of control, Thaksin blames Malaysia and Indonesia for being responsible for the insurgency in the south," he said.
Malaysia is aware it could have to bear the brunt of the consequences of worsening violence in the south, including widening insecurity and a possible flood of refugees into its northern states.
Religious leaders there, who believe Thai Muslims have been given a raw deal by the Bangkok government, have said they will welcome any refugees and offer them food and shelter.
ASEAN officials would not comment publicly on the row between two of its most important neighbors, but the bloc's former chief Rodolfo Severino said he was confident it was mostly hot air.
"They may feel the need to look tough in front of the public. Countries are under pressure from their people, especially democratic ones like these two, to take a firm stand," he said.
"But these things are invariably solved by compromise," he said.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS