Contentious MOU or sound framework for negotiations?

The Palang Pracharath Party and national activists have long called for the government to revoke a contentious memorandum of understanding – MOU44 –signed in 2001 over fears that it could cause Thailand to lose territory to Cambodia, especially parts of Trat’s Ko Kut island.

Those calls became louder after the Pheu Thai-led coalition announced plans to go ahead with talks on jointly exploring and drilling for oil in the overlapping claims areas in the Gulf of Thailand.

MOU44, an initiative led by then foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai under the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, aimed to ensure collaboration on the development of resources in overlapping claims areas under international law. In an article published in May 2011, Surakiart said the negotiation over the 26,000-square-metre overlapping claims areas had kicked off in 1970 in Phnom Penh, and it had failed many times.

He stressed that while Cambodia had once claimed ownership of half of Koh Kud island, the country later admitted that the island belongs to Thailand based on the map attached to MOU44.

“Cambodia’s official acceptance of Thailand’s sovereignty over Koh Kud island is considered a significant success,” he wrote, adding that Thailand had promoted a clear straight line maritime boundary without overlapping the island.

Surakiart explained that the MOU44 was focused on the exploitation of petroleum reserves in the overlapping areas and to determine a clear maritime boundary. That exploitation should be conducted without debating the boundary issue, he said.

He confirmed that the MOU also aimed to protect Thailand by stating that negotiations should meet international law, that they should not affect the claims of either party, that the final agreement should receive approval from the Parliament, and that a joint technical committee should be established to study negotiation details.

Surakiart noted that the discovery of oil and natural gas resources in the overlapping areas has drawn multinational oil companies to negotiate with Cambodia, which could trigger difficulties in future negotiations.

“Discussions between multinationals and Cambodia would complicate benefit- sharing negotiations in the future,” he said.

He advised Thailand to promote negotiations under the MOU to ensure mutual benefits, noting that Thailand’s readiness in technology, petroleum exploration and production experience, and its role as the biggest market in the region, would  make collaboration beneficial for both countries.

“This MOU changes conflict into collaboration and forms the basis for a negotiating framework under international law,” he said, stressing that negotiation under this framework would benefit both countries, especially now that the demand for energy has surged and more players are interested in operating in the overlapping area.