Since your question arose after reading the article, I guess it is essential to point out some misrepresentations in it.
First of all, the premise of this secular article is entirely false. Asaram Bapu is a Hindu self-styled Godman, who himself is jailed on charges of child molestation. The details of his case can be accessed here Asaram Child Abuse. Second, the idea that, and I am paraphrasing the author, Indians are joining similar violence prevention courses over the advice of religious opponents who echo Buddha, is entirely author's misconstrued imagination with no basis in reality. Buddha never figured in the contemporary discussion on sexual abuse in India post the December 2012 gangrape.
Third, the Buddhist society in general can be divided in 4 different categories:
a. Bhikkhu (Male Monks)
b. Bhikkhuni (Female Monks)
c. Upasak (Lay Male Follower)
d. Upasika (Lay Female Follower)
The 'Kakacupama Sutta' mentioned in the article is addressed to the monks who have renounced lay life and are determined and dedicated to the path of enlightenment. Its quotation is out of context.
It is important to note that Buddha never discouraged Kings (Govts in the modern context) from keeping a standing army. In fact, he even gave advice to the Licchavis on how to well defend their republic.
A detailed explanation of the role of King and the Soldier in the society and their importance is given here: Role of the Soldier with proper references of the relevant Suttas.
From the above link, it is quite clear that the idea of Radical Pacifism as 'You may not hurt others, even if you're "being rendered limb from limb".' is not what Buddha taught in the context of Kings and Soldiers. This was a teaching given to monks.
This might be a little off-topic but it is important to understand that in Buddhism, a lot of emphasis is put on meditation. The Dhamma says 'Ehipassiko' - i.e. come and see for yourself. So, on a personal level, if a soldier comes to realize the effects of his livelihood on the experiential level, he is welcome to become a monk. But while being a soldier, if he is practicing the teachings of monks, then he is harming himself and he will harm the nation. Buddha gave the Noble Eightfold Path to come out of suffering.
Now coming to:
'•In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level?
•Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism?
Now, since, Buddha never taught Radical Pacifism to Kings and Soldiers, I think the question is a non-issue. Also, even if the majority of population is Buddhist doesn't mean the state is Buddhist. In Cambodia, during the Cambodian Genocide, religion was banned and there was repression of even the Buddhists. Even during the rule of Mao in China, religion was heavily repressed. Japan had a pacifist constitution for a while before Abe but that was inspired by the second world war. I think a better question would be impact of Buddhism on general governance in different countries.