Transcript of the above video: 

I would like to preface this video by making it very clear the initial video I was going to make is going to be the first sort of half of this analysis and then frankly toward the end of the day yesterday, there were a totally new set of data points that came from this leak regarding the Prime Minister's phone call with the President of the Senate I think is his nominal title over in Cambodia, Hun Sen, former Prime Minister over there. Anyone who knows the history of Cambodia knows Hun Sen has basically been front and centre in terms of a leadership of Cambodia basically going back to Vietnamese invasion and thereafter and the end of the Khmer Rouge. If you get into the history there was the era of the two Prime Ministers and all of that good stuff and when the UN was over there and but Hunsen has been sort of the, I think I read a biography of him, I think it was actually called "strong man" if I recall correctly but they talked a lot about he was sort of the “epitome” of a Southeast Asian strongman. To be clear, on many levels I have a certain amount of respect for Mr. Hun Sen insofar as he is definitely a political survivor and he managed to cobble together some sort of working entity out of really a bad situation in Cambodia, so worth noting. But back to my point, initially this was going to purely be a video where I was comparing the Cambodian stance on joining for example the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, versus its now position regarding it wants to take all this new dispute up along the border to the "World Court". I'll get into that analysis but then it became an order of magnitude different thing in light of these recent revelations regarding the Prime Minister's communication with Mr. Hun Sen. So let me just dive in here. 

I initially thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post which I'll get into in a moment, but that article is titled: Thai Deputy PM makes case, excuse me, sorry. I originally thought of making this video after reading an article in the Nation, that is nationthailand.com, the article is titled: Cambodia submits border dispute with Thailand to ICJ. So first of all, what is the ICJ? It is this International Court of Justice, sometimes called the “World Court”. Anybody that has ever watched any of my videos on an ongoing basis knows I am a nationalist okay. Now I was born in America; I believe in American nationalism. I became a Thai; I believe in Thai nationalism. I think nation states can handle their own stuff. I think there has been a concerted effort especially by whatever you want to call it, supranationalist globalists, you can call them neo-fascist, you can call them Comintern of the modern era, World Economic Forum types, these kind of globalist people who think, "oh no, we don't need the nation state. It's antiquated." They'll tell you it led the wars and all of this terrible stuff. Well if you look at the history, it was actually these very same people or frankly their fathers, grandfathers and whatnot, who actually instigated those things and then blamed the nation state model if you look at it. But the point I am trying to make is I have never seen much of anything good come from these World Courts and I especially find it to be a disingenuous argument that we need to appeal to some outside body, especially in light of the fact that the underlying claims are oftentimes predicated on maps and basically claims that arose during the French Colonial era which really, we are dragging that back up out of the sea? Really? I mean it just sort of bothers me. That said, quoting directly: "Cambodia formally submits it's border dispute with Thailand to the International Court of Justice sparking concern over bilateral ties. Cambodia has formally submitted a letter to the International Court of Justice over its ongoing border dispute with Thailand, prompting concern from the Thai Foreign Ministry,” - rightly so – “which warned that involving a third party is not the right path to preserve friendly bilateral relations.” And moreover, the World Court has made its law. Now let him enforce it to paraphrase Andrew Jackson back in the United States. At a certain point, where do they get off coming in and putting their nose in to begin with? This is a matter between Thailand and Cambodia. What has the International Court of Justice got to do it? And beyond even that, are they basing this stuff on these old French Colonial maps? It is my understanding that is where a lot of this is predicated on. And if so, then is not the World Court merely acting as a smoke screen for again neocolonialism? It looks like that to me. Meanwhile, I find this position where the Cambodians say, “Oh, we are going to put this before the World Court", to be rather hypocritical when the Thais were trying to come to some kind of understanding regarding the situation involving Maritime Boundary disputes and in that set of circumstances, Cambodia was all against being involved with the UN convention on the Law of the Sea, which brings me to an article that I actually cited some months ago. The article is titled: Thai Deputy PM makes case for Cambodia deal. Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com. And if you get into that, basically, they were trying to come up with some working consensus to deal with drilling rights down here in the Gulf, and there is Maritime Boundary disputes and these type of things. Cambodia is not a member of UNCLOS, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which here they are calling in the World Court and saying, "oh we need the World Court", but with regard to this Maritime boundary dispute, Thailand is part of UNCLOS and Cambodia is not, and it was in their interest to not be in that because they don't want to have their hands tied to the rules regarding UNCLOS in that scenario, but they are sure as heck ready to just bound everything up in this World Court stuff. And again I am wondering if the World Court is then going to use these old French Colonialist claims as some sort of basis for adjudicating any further sort of dispute regarding this border issue. That said, quoting directly: "Dr. Warong however, pointed out the Government must firmly request that Cambodia ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea before both sides proceed with any further talks. Without ratifying UNCLOS, Cambodia could later exploit the fact that it isn't a signatory as an excuse to present an obstacle in future negotiations on the disputed Maritime Boundary demarcation, said Mr. Warong." Yeah, great point. And on top of that, here they are in that situation saying, "oh we don't want any outsiders, we just want to deal with this one on one". But then over here on this dispute, "oh we have got to bring in the World Court." Well which is it? Do you want a third party in one, but not the other and why? Is it because it's for your national interest? It's better for Cambodia? So is there really an interest in this supranational, hey let's all sing kumbaya and have peace and peaceful relations, or is it all just a bunch of shadow boxing so that at the end of the day, you can get what is best in your national interest which is really how we should be negotiating this to begin with, and let's just get rid of the chicanery and negotiate that way. That said, quoting further: "Under the 2001 MoU, the 26,000 square-kilometer OCA is split into two parts." - worth pointing out. The MoU is another one that has been brought up a bunch; it is somehow sort of legally binding, which I have my questions regarding that, but let's leave that aside. - "the upper part that is pending boundary demarcation negotiations, and the lower part that is designated for joint development by both nations, said Dr. Warong. He expressed dismay about the PM's "naïve misunderstanding" about the continental shelf area claimed by Cambodia, which goes around Koh Kut." And I want to get into naïveté on the part of the Prime Minister which that's about the best word I have for it under the current circumstances. That said, quoting further: "The PM didn't appear to be aware that such a designation is something to which no other countries could agree, except for Thailand, he said." So again, to put a fine point on it here. Here's Cambodia on the one hand saying we want to draw in one of these supranational bodies to help adjudicate these matters, but then on the other hand, when Thailand has said hey we are trying to come to some kind of understanding; we are in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, why don't you come in so we can deal with this under that sort of framework?" Oh no, can't have that. Well what gives? What's the difference?

Meanwhile, first off real quickly, I'd like to go ahead and say I am doing a long-form video on our paid news service, that's Integrity News Service and as we have discussed in other videos, I'll put the email in the description below. The paid news service, you can email us at [email protected], I'm going to title this video: Batten down the hatches. I have been looking at sort of exchange rate stuff. A lot of things are reminding me of things that happened some 15 years ago, and this is more on the global stage, not so much Thailand specific, although there are some kind of specific ramifications happening here in Thailand. But long story short, I kind of wanted to let people know I am doing another video on there. We have already done three. Each of them is at least 30 minutes long. Again this is long form content, and we go into further depth and it's not so much news like this is.  Meanwhile another quick plug. Pancake Palace as I have discussed in other videos, we are open at Pancake Palace, for those who want American diner style food, we will put some of that up for you. We've got chilli, we've got great buffalo wings, we've got cheeseburgers. We have got all that kind of stuff, not to mention obviously as the name implies pancakes; American diner food, American breakfast anytime, Pancake Palace. We are down on Anuman Rachadhon between Silom and Surawong Road. A Google link to the maps is below in the description. That said, coming back here to the Prime Minister's “naïveté” let’s go over to a very recent article I just found yesterday; it broke yesterday. Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Paetongtarn on defensive after leak of call with Hun Sen. Quoting directly: "Addressing Hun Sen politely as "uncle", she said she did not want him quote: "to listen to our opponents … like the Commander of the Second Army Region because he is the man of the opponents. After hearing what he said, I don't want you to be upset or frustrated because actually it is not our intention."  

Let me first of all say, I just did a recent video talking about Paetongtarn our current Prime Minister has come out and been gung-ho about protecting Thai sovereignty, which I kind of said okay, fine yeah, and I agree with that. Not a morsel of land should be ceded by Thailand; I couldn't agree more. I'm a naturalized Thai, the fervour of the converted, yeah I believe in that, but she is out there talking about sovereignty and then we see, and I really urge those who are watching this video, check out that article: Paetongtarn on defensive after leak of call with Hun Sen. Read that article. I mean it's like you are telling us you are gung-ho on sovereignty, and then meanwhile this is the conversation you are having with a foreign leader? Another thing that is worth pointing out here, and I don't know how Cambodian politics exactly works, but it's my understanding the Prime Minister over there is Hun Manet, Hun Sen’s son. Meanwhile Paetongtarn is talking to Hun Sen, and I do get that; he is a power centre in his own right, whatever, and again I am not casting aspersions, and I don't exactly know how it works over there. But just as an aside, is anybody else here in Southeast Asian kind of tired of this puppeteering, shadow boxing, where nobody's talking to the real guy? It's always “I'm talking to this person, but the real person is the other person”, and and when are these like Boomer era people going to step aside and let the next generation start to govern? That’s another good point. That said, continuing to quote: "In the recorded conversation, Miss Paetongtarn is also heard apologising for the revelation of a Thai plan to cut off water and electricity to the Cambodian side if the situation deteriorated." Apologise? Again you are talking about Thai sovereignty, and this is what you're doing? Talking to, I don't want to say opponent or adversary, okay. I'm hoping this can be worked out peacefully, but you are talking to another sovereign about stuff that is happening in our house effectively over here. What gives? Quoting further: "She stressed to him that these were only plans and were not meant to be executed. She proposed that the pair release some kind of joint statement saying that they share the same intention to maintain peace." Okay, fair enough. I mean yeah, we all want peace here. 

That said, it's worth pointing out here - and I'll get into why this makes me so passionate here in a moment on a personal level - but it's worth pointing out, we did 10 years under the military government, which there's a lot to say about that, but we didn't have any of these particular border disputes and what little ones we had, were sort of diffused as quickly as they could be diffused. I find it interesting that there's political considerations, you know Mr. Thaksin's whole stay in the hospital rather than jail is currently under serious scrutiny. And now, oh magically we have got these border disputes which causes jingoism and I think in my opinion, causes a distraction from internal politics and this was a calling card, a Hallmark move if you will that I saw in 2008, '9, '10 even into '11 and '12 and in the Yingluck era, any time that what is the current iteration of the “Core Coalition Party” gets their political back up against the wall, they have some problem with Cambodia. It used to be Preah Vihear Temple and then, oh goodness now we have got that issue which then misdirects everybody from domestic political considerations. I have to wonder if that hasn't been what's occurring in the past few weeks over here. Again I agree, maintain peace, that's a great idea, but not at the expense of our sovereignty. And I thought that that was what she wanted, but after these leaks, it's really a good question. That said, quoting further: "She also asked Hun Sen to give her advice, complaining that she was being heavily criticized for her handling of the situation." What's he got to do with it? Quoting further: "Hun Sen repeated his call for the Thai military to restore normal border opening hours." So again, what's he got to do with it? "Ms. Paetongtarn agreed," - so who's - "but proposed that both countries do so simultaneously so that she would not be accused of doing what others tell her." - and then it goes on - quote: "But he disagreed," she said at Government House on Wednesday. Quote: "He said he would open the border five hours after" the opening by the Thai side." 

Again the quote, I don't know that it's completely out of left field to be accused of “doing what others tell her” based on what we are reading here. And I really urge people to go read this, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, Paetongtarn on defensive after leak of call with Hun Sen. Again, I really wanted to give our current Prime Minister the benefit of doubt; I made videos to that effect. I really want to believe in this Coalition, and then when this stuff popped up at the border, I'm as Thai as the next person, I know I'm naturalized but I have the fervour of the  converted; I love this place. I don't want to see Thailand's sovereignty infringed in anyway, but I have to question how much fervour she has for the sovereignty of Thailand, when one, as I've discussed in other videos, she's courting all these supranationalist World Economic Forum types and then on this issue that she says, “we all need to rally behind for Thailand's sovereignty”, this is what she's doing behind all of our backs? I mean I don't know what to say other than we will certainly be keeping you updated on this situation as it evolves.