jimbob

The Cambodia are a gentle people and they do speak more english. They have lived thru so many horrors in the past 40 years its almost unbelieveable it happened. Where were the Americans and NATO when POL POT was there? NO where cause they don't have oil in Cambodia, ( unless its found in the gulf off Snooky in the future) so no one cared.

Well actually it was the pulling out of US troops and end of military and financial support to the Lon Nol regime that led directly to the fall of Phnom Penh and take over of the Pol Pot regime.

Of course the US did not know that there was oil off the coast of Sihanoukville at the time...

Could you highlight the 'cheap shots' at PW ?

I think they dismissively referred to it as a "local blog" while using it as a key source for a story a few weeks ago.

While it is a "local blog" I find that the news reports are often a much higher standard than the PG.

The figures quoted don't seem that far fetched for a very select number of highly talented chefs.

There are a few ultra expensive resorts/hotels in Thailand that cater for the super rich and celebrities who are willing to pay thousands of dollars a night and expect only the best in return with food being a big part of that.

$4,000 or $5,000 a month is not that much if a chef can keep high paying guests happy.

That type of salary would only account for a small percentage of expats though.

They (Cambodia) press for recognition as a World Heritage site and then they start planting mines around it, I find it hard to accept this and believe that the World Heritage listing should be removed.

That is not correct - the mines have been there for decades: http://www.ddasonline.com/minesPMN2.htm

Cambodia has been actively clearing these minefields, not laying new ones: http://www.cmac.org.kh/

BTW the 700bn isnt going to solve this issue, all that is, is some smoke and mirrors to bail out bankers at the publics expense, dressed up in public interest, again no mystery.

Too true! I realised there was something wrong with the banks at the same time I figured out the UK and US economy was basing their economic growth on easy credit and house prices rather than wealth creation.

This is completely off topic but how low do you think the US dollar will go and which currency will gain the most in the next few years?

(or could you pm links to relevant threads?)

Battambang and western Sisophon/Siem Reap were part of Siam's Eastern Provinces before the French came along, and had been under Siamese rule since the late 18th century. The governor's residence in today's Battambang was built by Italian architects under the last Thai governor (not by the French as often assumed), who was the sixth generation in a line of Thai rulers in Battambang.

The Thais ceded the territory to the French in 1907. The French agreed in theory and in treaty to a border theme that they subsequently altered by unilaterally taking charge of mapping in the early 1900s, despite Siam's long-term occupation of Cambodian border provinces and despite agreements that the mapping would be carried out by a bilateral commission.

The 1941 Vichy-Thai Friendship Treaty, amicable or not, returned the territory to Siam. After the Japanese were defeated, France asked for its territories back in 1946, threatening to veto Siam's entry to the UN if Siam didn't comply. France kept the territories till Cambodian independence in 1953.

One legacy of all this back and forth is undelineated frontiers at many points along the Cambodian and Lao borders. Basically anywhere abutting the territories in red in the map below have still to be 100% worked out since WWII.

The provinces in red are Siem Reap, Battambang, Preah Vihear and Stung Treng I believe.

As you mention in the first paragraph these provinces were occupied by Thailand in the 18th century before being ceded to the French under the protectorate of Cambodia in 1907.

What is the current Thai claim on this territory and the reasoning behind it?

Also I disagree that no land has been taken extralegally in the last century. Battambang and Siem Reap were annexed by Thailand during WW2 and Preah Vihear Temple was occupied for several years in the 50's.

How about the French seizure of Battambang at the start of the 20th century? Thailand's re-annexure was the result of the peace treaty brokered by the Japanese.

The seizure was the result of the 1940-1941 French Thai war. The provinces were taken because Thailand managed to dominate the relatively weak Vichy troops not because of an amicable treaty.

Japanese backing of this paved the way for their invasion of Thailand I believe.

My point was that whatever rhetoric Thai use internally is nothing compared to what members of Cambodians government say officially.

I consider that the Cambodian government have been fairly mute actually, calling for direct military and political negotiations to avoid confrontation and ordering that Cambodian troops should under no condition fire a shot against the Thai Army.

They also ordered police out in full force to protect the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh and made it clear to the public that there would be no repeat of the 2003 riots.

If a war between Thailand and Cambodia over this issue ever broke out, then I would completely agree with you as diplomatic negotiations would be of utmost importance. Just not now.

I really hope that any kind of fighting or loss of life does not take place and that both Thailand and Cambodian can negotiate an amicable solution.

My main concern recently has been the lack of control that the Thai government seemed to have over the Army. Samak appeared to have no power over them, that is not good for Thailand or any of its neighbours. I hope political stability does return to the country soon but I don't know when or how it will happen and cannot see the border issue being resolved in the near future.

I think you need to be more specific about the use of the French maps and about the maps themselves. In fact the French never finished surveying the Thai-Cambodian border and there never has been a single authoritative source used by either side, as both sides readily admit.

Most telling of all is the fact that both Cambodia and Thailand agree that there are many areas that still need proper delineation. The French survey serves only as a starting point for those.

Although the Cambodian press tries to make out otherwise, the Thai government has not asserted sovereignty over any territory that is in dispute, bilaterally. They have only objected where Cambodia itself has tried to assert sovereignty over an area in bilateral dispute. In fact in every case recently, Cambodia has been the aggressor, but the international audience is only hearing one half of the story – the Cambodian half. That appears to be the only side you are interesting in recognising as well.

Historically both sides have taken land from the other but neither has done so extralegally in the last century or so. If you are referring to lands acquired via the French after French colonisation of Cambodia, Thailand gave up more land than it was given.

Thank you for taking the time to state your case clearly. I find that a few posters prefer to attack rather than debate the issue and would prefer to overlook many things.

I would agree that proper delineation is needed and yes the French maps would be the starting point. Cambodia actually has a good record of settling border disputes such as with Vietnam and Laos in recent years.

The main problem lies in the Thai inability to negotiate due to political problems and also the actions and words of various political factions in the Thailand. I found the speeches made by Sondhi about seizing the temples and the sea border by force to be just the worst kind of nationalistic tripe possible. The scary thing is a lot of people support him and agree with what he says.

In terms of the media coverage I would disagree with you. I felt that many media sources were more biased to the Thai side at first before leaning slightly towards Cambodia then turning their focus towards Thai domestic issues.

Also I disagree that no land has been taken extralegally in the last century. Battambang and Siem Reap were annexed by Thailand during WW2 and Preah Vihear Temple was occupied for several years in the 50's.

Your point fails, IMO, showing your unfamiliarity with the treaty, as the French maps were in direct contravention of said treaty. The fact that the ICJ decision disregarded the treaty means the ICJ ruling is still in question, multilaterally speaking, as having been in violation of international law. But that's another kettle of fish.

The only substantive issues here are solving the border delineation disputes. ICJ's 1962 ruling concerns the KPV temple complex, not adjacent lands and not any other points in dispute along the border.

Thailand used the French maps domestically for several decades and did raise any objection to them until 1958 hence are recognised as being legitimate. Thailand has never formally objected to this or raised the issue internationally because they know their case is weak.

Thailand has continually invaded and expropriated land from Cambodia for centuries while denying the Khmers cultural link to their ancestors and condemning them as mere "Khmer Padong".

How the hel_l can you people justify that?

I am confused. You were discussing the ICJ decision which occurred 50 years ago, but now you have suddenly switched to making comments on the Thai economy, political affairs and diplomacy.

On the ICJ decision, no country is going to march on Thailand because they don't follow it. That decision was based on politics then, bombings in Pakistan killing people is based on politics now. Countries are much more concerned with terrorism today than a silly border issue between two countries on the other side of the world. Let's not give this an importance it doesn't deserve. Thailand and Cambodia can work this out themselves.

You say negative media reports are streaming out of Thailand on an hourly basis. A bit of an overstatement, eh?. Let's be serious here, the west is not concerned in the least with Thailand's economy given the mess they are in now.

While political issues in Thailand are a mess and the constant changing of foreign ministers is embarrassing in the diplomatic community, this is the PPP government. Nobody really expects anything more from the PPP, why should you?

I think you must be confused if you cannot recall back to your previous post?

You raised a point about the change in international relations between the ICJ judgement and current events commenting that no international body was interested today.

I then responded by pointing out Cambodia's UNESCO success and the potential deterioration of Thailand's diplomatic power due to domestic instability which could affect their ability to block future attempts to engage ASEAN or UN.

Also, in terms of negative Thai related news there have been many times recently when news has been streaming out on a hourly basis e.g. PAD invasion of government house, Samak's court case, Shinawatra court case etc.

Certainly Thailand did its best to block Cambodia taking the matter to ASEAN and UN.

They could not block UNESCO though could they?

The flow of negative media reports streaming out of Thailand on a hourly basis are ebbing away the country's international credibility, the economy is sagging and the political deadlock seems unlikely to end anytime soon.

How can Thailand continue to effectively manage its international affairs when it changes Foreign Minister on a monthly basis?

So a more accurate interpretation would be:

the Joint Communique states clearly in points 4 and 5 that the Inscription of the Temple has no bearing or jurisdication on future territorial claims or final borders (Item 5), but does clearly state that there are areas of dispute as identified as N3 on the Map (Item 4)

Yes, I would agree with that.

So much talk on this and the ICJ decision. Even the French Ambassador to Thailand, when discussing Phra Viharn, said that it is a local issue or at best a regional issue. The only ones bringing up the ICJ decision these days are those it favors.

I am neither Cambodian nor Thai.

I am simply a person who recognises that the Cambodian side has a stronger case over the border disputes backed by an international court ruling that recognised the legitimacy of the Franco-Siam treaty and map.

The only ones who talk down the ICJ ruling are the those who don't wish to honour their commitments to it.

Sorry but your logic is completely backwards. Basically the ICJ decision has no bearing whatsoever in this situation. And the more recent agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, signed by ex-FM Noppadon, makes it even less so.

You need to go back and read through earlier posts in this thread. All of this has been debated at great length already.

My point stands.

I think you have a poor understanding of the importance of legal precedence under international law.

The ICJ recognized the legitimacy of the Franco-Siam treaty and border map. As such it sets a legal precedence in Cambodia's favour were it to go back to the ICJ or UN - nobody recognises Thailand's map except Thailand and any international court would refer back to ICJ ruling as the standard benchmark.

Also, the Joint Communique states clearly in points 4 and 5 that the document has no bearing or jurisdication on future territorial claims or final borders and is purely for conservational purposes.

This has been posted already in this thread, and is entirely irrelevant to the disputed areas. It's a ruling on Khao Phra Viharn only, and no one is disputing ownership of the temple.

The ICJ ruling also does not apply to the situation at Ta Muan or Ta Khwai, or any of the myriad other disputed areas along the Thai-Cambodian border. So the validity and relevance of the Franco-Siamese treaty with regard to border mapping is still relevant for all areas currently in dispute.

The ICJ ruled that Preah Vihear temple belonged to Cambodia based on the legitimacy of the Franco-Siam treaty and border map.

This set a precedence that would most likely be followed if any other border disputes were taken to ICJ or UN.

Basically it means under international law the treaty and map are valid and that Thailand's unilateral map is not worth the paper it is printed on. Therefore Thai claims on Ta Muan, Ta Krabey are without merit.

Domestically it could be an issue but I am not an expert on the specific technicalities of either country's political systems regarding this matter.

But the whole UNESCO thing does not count for squat in terms of territorial sovereignty.

According to the remit and scope of UNESCO there are no tangible implications under international law with regards to border claims when a designation is made - it cannot be used by either side as justification for or support sovereignty.

Below is the summary of the ICJ ruling.

I have highlighted the section that rules out Thailand's argument against the legitamacy of the Franco-Siam map.

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

(MERITS)

Judgment of 15 June 1962

Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.

In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.

Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.

*

* *

In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission

In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.

The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.

The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.

The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia.

Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line.

Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.

From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

That border treaty relies on a very old map that doesn't even correspond to the present day natural environment, ie. watershed areas have shifted.

That's why these areas are called "disputed" terrotories and there's no mutually agreed border between two countries.

Of course the map is old, most 100 year old maps are.

The dispute is stemming from the Thai side due to their unilateral map that only Thailand recognises while the Cambodian's are using the map that both sides agreed to (and which Thailand used for domestic purposes up to WW2).

False. Cambodia had nothing to do with the early 20th-century maps they're now trying to use as a reference. They were French-drawn maps in direct violation of a Franco-Siamese agreement that French and Thai cartographers would work together to come up with a mutually agreeable map.

No, it is still true that the "Cambodian side" agreed to the map.

Cambodia was a protectorate of France who had authority over all foreign affairs therefore could act as the "Cambodian side".

I think an earlier post pointed out that Thailand used the French map domestically for a number of decades which indicates it was indeed mutually agreeable. Also, there was a letter written to the Bangkok Post a few months ago that addressed a similar point I believe.

If Thailand really wants to test the legitimacy of the map then they should take it to the UN or ICJ for validation. As we know, Thailand will not do that because it is highly likely any international court would favour the Cambodians.

There's no justification for using rude and abusive language with your negotiation partner. It shows political and cultural immaturity. I hope they grow out of that stuff soon.

Which South East Asian country has had the most military coups in the last century?

Which country's former PM is now an international fugitive?

Which country is facing political paralysis due to protests in the capital city?

Which country is facing allegations of mass democratic fraud?

I like Thailand very much but the country is in no position to accuse other nations of political immaturity.

Sam Rainsy's Statement - February 1, 2003

...

2- The January 29 incidents do not reflect the feelings of the Cambodian people toward the Thai people. For partisan and personal interests, Prime Minister Hun Sen stirred up anti-Thai feelings in order to divert attention from increasingly serious internal problems he cannot solve. On January 27 he made an inflammatory speech broadcast on the national radio, which was an incitement to racism, hatred and violence. Subsequently, Hun Sen’s supporters meticulously organized the violent and destructive January 29 demonstrations, during which the police stood idle until the Royal Thai Embassy was completely burnt down.

http://www.2bangkok.com/burning.shtml

Believe him or not, but that view was shared by quite a few people as well.

Hun Sen is still in charge, still exploiting Thai-Cambodian issues for his ends, it's not "history".

It is recent history, as was the massacre at Preah Vihear.

As far as Sam Rainsy goes, are you aware that he is a virulent racist with no credibility in Cambodia or abroad?

While Hun Sen is fairly flexible when it comes to relations with neighbouring countries Sam Rainsy openly calls for the deportion of non-Cambodian nationals. Thankfully the Cambodian people do not support this minority opposition politician.

I recall that in the current war of words various Thai politicians have been extremely uncivilised in their phrasings calling Cambodia a "rogue country" that uses "guerilla tactics".

How about a source?

"Guerilla tactics" was from Don Pramudwinai, Ambassador to UN.

"Rogue country" was from Sondhi Limthongkul, Democracy advocate and lover of all things Cambodian.

I note you have not provided sources for your earlier statements...

The anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh were a blot on good relations between the two countries but Thailand has also acted in equally negative ways in the past.

The key word here is "in the past". Cambodian mobs torched the embassy under the supervision of their current PM - Hun Sen.

Not under his supervision.

My understanding is that affair was created by a rebel faction seeking to take power away from PM Hun Sen, who actually paid money out of his own pocket to a number of affected Thai businesses.

You seem to have issues over timelines - an event that happened 5 years ago is relevant to you but another that happened 20 years ago is not.

In my mind history is history and the loss of civilian life is always relevant.

I seriously doubt that there will amicable solution any time soon, if Hun Sen and so-called educated Cambodians keep calling Thai people thieves.

Only five years ago they torched Thai embassy, how uncivilised is that?

When Tej Bunnag took his office, there was a short article in the media where Cambodian FM made some very derogatory remarks about Tej's qualifications.

They should show some manners if they want to be treated with any respect.

I recall that in the current war of words various Thai politicians have been extremely uncivilised in their phrasings calling Cambodia a "rogue country" that uses "guerilla tactics".

The anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh were a blot on good relations between the two countries but Thailand has also acted in equally negative ways in the past. As stated earlier in this thread the Thai Army caused a massacre of Cambodian refugees at Preah Vihear by forcing them at gun point into a minefield, very far from "civilised".