By Nguon Serath

WITH Cambodia and Thailand embroiled in a serious diplomatic row, and fears that a war might even erupt, all parties have a role in easing the tension and resolving the situation peacefully.

That means everyone from politicians and journalists to ordinary people of both nations should take a 'softer' position.

It is well-known well beyond our two countries that the Cambodian government appointed former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as its economic adviser, then refused to extradite him despite Thailand's
request when he visited.

The media obsessively reported the confrontation, but may have not sufficiently sought to contribute to easing it.

For sure, none of us in Cambodia and Thailand want to see a full-blown war erupt which will bring death and destruction to both sides.

Yet have the media in Cambodia and Thailand practised 'peace journalism', or 'conflict-resolution journalism',
or 'conflict-sensitive journalism', in order to head off war?

Reading the news reports and watching Cambodian and Thai TV, we notice both positive and negative aspects of the media coverage of the dispute.

On the positive side, the media in both countries did cover stories which carried the message that the majority of the Cambodian and Thai people do not want to see a conflict, and that they want the two governments to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation.

By such coverage, the media - on behalf of their respective peoples - warned their governments against decisions that could negatively affect the people's interests.

For instance, at one point Bangkok threatened to shut down the Cambodia-Thai border in retaliation for Thaksin's
appointment and Phnom Penh's refusal to extradite him.

Now, this was reported in the media and drew strong reactions, since the border closure would affect the lives of many.

Because of the reaction and media coverage, the Thai government changed its position and no longer threatened a border closure.

Thus, the media in Cambodia and Thailand helped to prevent a decision that would have adversely affected the common people.

On the negative side, as nationalism flared up in Cambodia and Thailand over the confrontation, that nationalism
made its way into journalism.

It brought about a way of reporting in some instances that could have ignited hatred between the two peoples.

Such nationalism can be manipulated by opportunists to serve their illicit ends.

This requires us to review our practices: We certainly failed here to promote mutual understanding.

As journalists, we must dedicate ourselves to humanism rather restrict ourselves to nationalism.

We must remember the tragic mistake made by the media in Rwanda 15 years ago, when its reportage is blamed for helping to bring about a genocide that killed hundreds of thousands.

No one wants another such tragedy.

In reporting the dispute between Cambodia and Thailand, may peace journalism prevail.

The author is the news editor of Rasmei Kampuchea, a newspaper that is part of the Asia News Network.

For more my paper stories click here.