Cambodia's Disputed Hindu Temple Joins Heritage List

[Plus]

Really? Khmer Rouge used the temple as their operation center?

Gave the temple to Cambodians and see what happened. Not that Thais can look after their own history either (Ayutthaya is about to be taken off the list).

There are lots of other of temples in that part of Thailand from Khmer period, they are no longer Cambodian, the empire is gone, it's not theirs anymore. Tthe only piece they were able to keep is Preah Vihear. Good for them.

In fact it's a perfect opportunity for two countries to reconcile their history and move forward. So far they can't, and everyone shares some guilt, but they have to move forward together, not try to snub the other side with meaningless "victories".

[kat]

Thailand didn't "give" the Cambodians anything; it's their temple. It is part of Cambodian history, including its wars. Thailand has no business looking down its nose at any of its neighbors' histories, that's for sure. If they do, they run the risk of having some very unpleasant and inconvenient facts thrust into their face, so best not to go there.

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Edited July 13, 2008 by kat

[CL0R0X]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia even Burma could still be under Khmer land, Khmer was there even before all these country exist, who would say that the temple was Cambodia, it was Khmer architecture that is still standing, when the Khmer was gone land divided between country, the French out of no where decided to cut the land and said it belong to Cambodia. for all we know Thailand was part of the Khmer civilization. well you figure out the rest.

[Plus]

Thailand didn't "give" the Cambodians anything;

The court gave it to them, or French, doesn't matter.

Khmers didn't exactly leave last will and testament bequeathing the temple to modern day Cambodians, they have no "right" over it.

[toptuan]

Incidentally, the temple is now accessible from the Cambodian side, albeit not a 4-lane expressway.

In about 2004, the Cambodians pushed through a rough road from the bottom of the escarpment all the way to the top. This has opened up more Khmer people accessing the temple area, mostly vendors, army and other support personnel. The track is best negotiated with motorcycles (dirt-bike-types), 4x4 vehicles, or on foot. Several of my American friends who live near the border on the Cambodian side have done the trip.

My guess is that with the recent UNESCO designation, that approach will be improved and Cambodia will be able to assert easier "natural" control of the site due to better accessibility. It's time for Thailand to give it up, practically and emotionally.

[Plus]

Surely one day they will manage to build some sort of an easy access, even by a cable car. Doesn't change the fact that naturally it was built and worshipped by people living in present day Thailand.

No one in Thailand claims it, btw, there's nothing to give up on.

Time to find a way to move forward together.

[funfun]

Incidentally, the temple is now accessible from the Cambodian side, albeit not a 4-lane expressway.

In about 2004, the Cambodians pushed through a rough road from the bottom of the escarpment all the way to the top. This has opened up more Khmer people accessing the temple area, mostly vendors, army and other support personnel. The track is best negotiated with motorcycles (dirt-bike-types), 4x4 vehicles, or on foot. Several of my American friends who live near the border on the Cambodian side have done the trip.

My guess is that with the recent UNESCO designation, that approach will be improved and Cambodia will be able to assert easier "natural" control of the site due to better accessibility. It's time for Thailand to give it up, practically and emotionally.

"It's time for Thailand to give it up, practically and emotionally"

Totally agree, the arguments of for and against or whose "now side" made it always seem to go with the cambodian side, they aint got owt left out of life and not as greedy as other countries, all they want is eat, happy and and some old temples, the most annoying thing in all of this is its hitting street people now with cambodian workers here (thailand) returning to cambodia through work not bieng passed them as much and a dislikeable attitude from (thai) boss's!

so "It's time for Thailand to give it up, practically and emotionally" and with good luck and maybe a helping hand from the thai tourism atth to promote and encourage visitors to thai to travel over the border to visit!

[toptuan]

No one in Thailand claims it, btw...

You haven't talked to many Thais!

[kat]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_people

The Khmer people are the predominant ethnic group in Cambodia, accounting for approximately 90% of the 13.9 million people in the country. Part of the larger Mon-Khmer ethnolinguistic peoples found throughout Southeast Asia, they speak the Khmer language.

[Los78]

"It's time for Thailand to give it up, practically and emotionally"

Exactly.

With all respect to Thais. It is time you stopped creating divisions with your neighbours and respect the World Heritage listing. The current government has done nothing illegal or given up any Thai soil just it made the decision which had to be made. Its citizens should accept it, and stop using it as some political or nationalistic tool.

[sabaijai]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia even Burma could still be under Khmer land, Khmer was there even before all these country exist, who would say that the temple was Cambodia, it was Khmer architecture that is still standing, when the Khmer was gone land divided between country, the French out of no where decided to cut the land and said it belong to Cambodia. for all we know Thailand was part of the Khmer civilization. well you figure out the rest.

That's correct. 'Cambodian' is a political label, 'Khmer' ethnic. There are lots of Cambodians who aren't Khmer and vice versa.

Furthermore Cambodia and the Angkor Empire are not synonymous and their respective borders were never contiguous. Angkor once extended well into Thailand, and Ayuthaya once extended well into Angkor. When the Angkor Empire fell, all of Angkor was part of Thailand. The concession of this territory was to the French government, not a Cambodian government. After Cambodian independence a Thai-Cambodian border was mutually agreed to following French maps, not Cambodian maps. So the whole idea that current borders have very much to do with Angkor or Khmer history is fallacious to begin with.

In addition there are around a thousand Khmer-built Angkor-period temple sites in northeastern Thailand. So the argument that KPV is Khmer-built doesn't add much weight to the argument that the temple belongs to modern Cambodia. What about huge sites like Prasat Hin Phimai or Prasat Hin Khao Phanom Rung? Give them back to Cambodia?

Geographically there's a strong argument to site KPV within Thai borders as it sits on an escarpment that's the southeastern-most edge of a large land form that lies entirely within Thailand. Borders typically follow such land forms, rivers, and so on. Anyone who has actually visited KPV will see the obvious geographic divide. The fact that the main access is from Thailand demonstrates how the escarpment has until recently been an unreachable part of Cambodia, transport-wise. Obviously the temple was originally constructed from what is now the Thai side, not from the plains below the site in today's Cambodia. Epigraphically, KPV has been identifed as an Angkor satellite site on a pilgrimage route, just like many other Angkor-period sites in northeastern Thailand.

It's a valid debate, but it's frustrating that most people arguing on either side haven't got a clue about the history of the monument and the Thai-Cambodian border.

That said, a 1962 court decision gave KPV to Cambodia (ignoring French maps), and for the Thais to try and get around that decision isn't fair play. Like a lot of Thais, I personally disagree with that decision but it's a fait accompli.

[Plus]

No one in Thailand claims it, btw...

You haven't talked to many Thais!

I don't know of any Thai who'd claim ownership of the temple itself, but I haven't talked to all Thais yet, true.

Even the protesters currently there don't claim ownership of the temple, at least publicly.

For now the issue can be laid to rest - it will be up to the new Thai FM and new Cambodian government.

[Mig15]

There are lots of Cambodians who aren't Khmer and vice versa.

My wife is Khemer Thai. So maybe I could put in a claim.

[h90]

No one in Thailand claims it, btw...

You haven't talked to many Thais!

I don't know of any Thai who'd claim ownership of the temple itself, but I haven't talked to all Thais yet, true.

Even the protesters currently there don't claim ownership of the temple, at least publicly.

For now the issue can be laid to rest - it will be up to the new Thai FM and new Cambodian government.

Well all in my office claim ownership (thats the top of nonsense). A joint thing would have been the solution.....

[Plus]

In what way they present their claim? I said the temple shoule belong to Thailand myself, doesn't mean I don't recognise the court ruling. I think that was universally accepted.

[toptuan]

Every single Thai I've talked to hates the 1962 World Court ruling, and would take physical control of the site at the slightest provocation. Hence the Thai military helicopter landing pads just over the border on the Thai side. You have to walk across them to access the temple. That landing site has been used as a show of force several times in the last 10-15 years when tensions arose between the two countries. Latest incident was the burning of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh. I've visited the site four times with Thai friends and their "rightful ownership" (pre-1962) is all they talk about. Feel like wearing earplugs. Until now, they have NOT given up the temple practically nor emotionally.

[Briggsy]

About 20 cops (sitting lazily) outside the Cambo embassy today. A lot more than normal.

[hammered]

From the Post

Military urges reversal of Cambodia support

The Foreign Ministry should inform Cambodia and all concerned countries and organisations that Thailand is revoking the joint communique issued to support Cambodia's bid to register the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage Site, Supreme Commander Boonsang Niempradit said.

Continued here: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=128859

[kat]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia even Burma could still be under Khmer land, Khmer was there even before all these country exist, who would say that the temple was Cambodia, it was Khmer architecture that is still standing, when the Khmer was gone land divided between country, the French out of no where decided to cut the land and said it belong to Cambodia. for all we know Thailand was part of the Khmer civilization. well you figure out the rest.

That's correct. 'Cambodian' is a political label, 'Khmer' ethnic. There are lots of Cambodians who aren't Khmer and vice versa.

Furthermore Cambodia and the Angkor Empire are not synonymous and their respective borders were never contiguous. Angkor once extended well into Thailand, and Ayuthaya once extended well into Angkor. When the Angkor Empire fell, all of Angkor was part of Thailand. The concession of this territory was to the French government, not a Cambodian government. After Cambodian independence a Thai-Cambodian border was mutually agreed to following French maps, not Cambodian maps. So the whole idea that current borders have very much to do with Angkor or Khmer history is fallacious to begin with.

In addition there are around a thousand Khmer-built Angkor-period temple sites in northeastern Thailand. So the argument that KPV is Khmer-built doesn't add much weight to the argument that the temple belongs to modern Cambodia. What about huge sites like Prasat Hin Phimai or Prasat Hin Khao Phanom Rung? Give them back to Cambodia?

Geographically there's a strong argument to site KPV within Thai borders as it sits on an escarpment that's the southeastern-most edge of a large land form that lies entirely within Thailand. Borders typically follow such land forms, rivers, and so on. Anyone who has actually visited KPV will see the obvious geographic divide. The fact that the main access is from Thailand demonstrates how the escarpment has until recently been an unreachable part of Cambodia, transport-wise. Obviously the temple was originally constructed from what is now the Thai side, not from the plains below the site in today's Cambodia. Epigraphically, KPV has been identifed as an Angkor satellite site on a pilgrimage route, just like many other Angkor-period sites in northeastern Thailand.

It's a valid debate, but it's frustrating that most people arguing on either side haven't got a clue about the history of the monument and the Thai-Cambodian border.

That said, a 1962 court decision gave KPV to Cambodia (ignoring French maps), and for the Thais to try and get around that decision isn't fair play. Like a lot of Thais, I personally disagree with that decision but it's a fait accompli.

Oh, please. There is nothing so mysterious or exclusive about this information because it is in a number of history books, that anyone can read, and articles can be download from a wire service. You can look and see the changes of the borders of SEA very well in a couple of history books available in Thailand. Wyatt's is very good. It is OBVIOUS that the borders were never contiguous, because each migration into SEA and successive empire changed the borders with the rise and fall of Kingdoms since before the 1st Century. The Thai nation was not contiguous for that matter, and there are multiple ethnic groups all over SEA for this reason, including modern Thailand. Is Lanna Thai? Was the Sukhothai Kingdom Thai? Should it be designated as Thai even though it was at war with Ayutthaya? It is not even an issue today, because we know that that it was part of the historical state-building process which produced the current Royal Thai Kingdom, from varying and ethnically diverse kingdoms which PRECEDED Thailand; but, there is no question that they are Thai. Are the Siamese Thai?; your point about Khmer/Cambodia as a state is about as ridiculous as that question. If you want to get into a discussion about the varying ethnic groups that still exist within SEA and China for that matter, including those who have been subsumed into current identities of "Thai" and "Khmer", that is a whole different matter, but right now we are talking about the boundaries of overlapping empires and modern states: Khmer/Cambodia and Ayutthaya/Siam/Thailand. The Khmer Empire is as Cambodian as Ayutthaya and Siam are Thai. The language of the state in Cambodia is Khmer, the dominant ethnic group of the state are Khmers, and the temple in question was built by the Khmer Empire. To even belabor this point on this issue is a ridiculous stampede toward imaginary wind mills.

However, I do agree that the boundary issue is not clear-cut. On that, I think there is a valid argument, that could go either way. There is really not one position that is wholly right or wrong on that one, so the decision and conclusion that you establish depends mostly on judgment. The fact that there are many other Khmer temples in Thailand isn't an issue, because they are not in a border area that was arbitrarily decided by a colonial map and a bi-lateral decision which excluded Cambodia. The fact that Preah Vihear is in fact in a border region with a contentious history, is a result either way of colonial map-making, and is of World Heritage Site caliber is what makes this an issue. At the end of the day, on both the history, the ICJ ruling, and current circumstances, I favor Cambodia. I think Thailand has the lesser claim.

Edited July 14, 2008 by kat

[sabaijai]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia even Burma could still be under Khmer land, Khmer was there even before all these country exist, who would say that the temple was Cambodia, it was Khmer architecture that is still standing, when the Khmer was gone land divided between country, the French out of no where decided to cut the land and said it belong to Cambodia. for all we know Thailand was part of the Khmer civilization. well you figure out the rest.

That's correct. 'Cambodian' is a political label, 'Khmer' ethnic. There are lots of Cambodians who aren't Khmer and vice versa.

Furthermore Cambodia and the Angkor Empire are not synonymous and their respective borders were never contiguous. Angkor once extended well into Thailand, and Ayuthaya once extended well into Angkor. When the Angkor Empire fell, all of Angkor was part of Thailand. The concession of this territory was to the French government, not a Cambodian government. After Cambodian independence a Thai-Cambodian border was mutually agreed to following French maps, not Cambodian maps. So the whole idea that current borders have very much to do with Angkor or Khmer history is fallacious to begin with.

In addition there are around a thousand Khmer-built Angkor-period temple sites in northeastern Thailand. So the argument that KPV is Khmer-built doesn't add much weight to the argument that the temple belongs to modern Cambodia. What about huge sites like Prasat Hin Phimai or Prasat Hin Khao Phanom Rung? Give them back to Cambodia?

Geographically there's a strong argument to site KPV within Thai borders as it sits on an escarpment that's the southeastern-most edge of a large land form that lies entirely within Thailand. Borders typically follow such land forms, rivers, and so on. Anyone who has actually visited KPV will see the obvious geographic divide. The fact that the main access is from Thailand demonstrates how the escarpment has until recently been an unreachable part of Cambodia, transport-wise. Obviously the temple was originally constructed from what is now the Thai side, not from the plains below the site in today's Cambodia. Epigraphically, KPV has been identifed as an Angkor satellite site on a pilgrimage route, just like many other Angkor-period sites in northeastern Thailand.

It's a valid debate, but it's frustrating that most people arguing on either side haven't got a clue about the history of the monument and the Thai-Cambodian border.

That said, a 1962 court decision gave KPV to Cambodia (ignoring French maps), and for the Thais to try and get around that decision isn't fair play. Like a lot of Thais, I personally disagree with that decision but it's a fait accompli.

Oh, please. There is nothing so mysterious or exclusive about this information because it is in a number of history books, that anyone can read, and articles can be download from a wire service. You can look and see the changes of the borders of SEA very well in a couple of history books available in Thailand. Wyatt's is very good. It is OBVIOUS that the borders were never contiguous, because each migration into SEA and successive empire changed the borders with the rise and fall of Kingdoms since before the 1st Century. The Thai nation was not contiguous for that matter, and there are multiple ethnic groups all over SEA for this reason, including modern Thailand. Is Lanna Thai? Was the Sukhothai Kingdom Thai? Should it be designated as Thai even though it was at war with Ayutthaya? It is not even an issue today, because we know that that it was part of the historical state-building process which produced the current Royal Thai Kingdom, from varying and ethnically diverse kingdoms which PRECEDED Thailand; but, there is no question that they are Thai. Are the Siamese Thai?; your point about Khmer/Cambodia as a state is about as ridiculous as that question. If you want to get into a discussion about the varying ethnic groups that still exist within SEA and China for that matter, including those who have been subsumed into current identities of "Thai" and "Khmer", that is a whole different matter, but right now we are talking about the boundaries of overlapping empires and modern states: Khmer/Cambodia and Ayutthaya/Siam/Thailand. The Khmer Empire is as Cambodian as Ayutthaya and Siam are Thai. The language of the state in Cambodia is Khmer, the dominant ethnic group of the state are Khmers, and the temple in question was built by the Khmer Empire. To even belabor this point on this issue is a ridiculous stampede toward imaginary wind mills.

However, I do agree that the boundary issue is not clear-cut. On that, I think there is a valid argument, that could go either way. There is really not one position that is wholly right or wrong on that one, so the decision and conclusion that you establish depends mostly on judgment. The fact that there are many other Khmer temples in Thailand isn't an issue, because they are not in a border area that was arbitrarily decided by a colonial map and a bi-lateral decision which excluded Cambodia. The fact that Preah Vihear is in fact in a border region with a contentious history, is a result either way of colonial map-making, and is of World Heritage Site caliber is what makes this an issue. At the end of the day, on both the history, the ICJ ruling, and current circumstances, I favor Cambodia. I think Thailand has the lesser claim.

Double I wasn't arguing that KPV was Thai. When KPV was built neither 'Thailand' nor 'Cambodia' existed. I was merely pointing out the gaping holes in your stance that KPV had always been 'Cambodian'. And you were conveniently ignoring the fact that over a thousand Khmer sites are within Thai borders already. So your original argument for giving KPV to Cambodia was baseless. The counter-argument isn't that it's Thai, but that French maps suggest that KPV was not part of the orignal concession. Moot point now unless Thailand wants to petition the ICJ, which it has every right to do, as the demarcations for the 700+ km Thai-Cambodian border are still incomplete.

Never said there was anything exclusive about the history, don't know where you got that idea. It's self-evident that very few people, Thai, Khmer or otherwise, know the basics, yourself included.

[kat]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia even Burma could still be under Khmer land, Khmer was there even before all these country exist, who would say that the temple was Cambodia, it was Khmer architecture that is still standing, when the Khmer was gone land divided between country, the French out of no where decided to cut the land and said it belong to Cambodia. for all we know Thailand was part of the Khmer civilization. well you figure out the rest.

That's correct. 'Cambodian' is a political label, 'Khmer' ethnic. There are lots of Cambodians who aren't Khmer and vice versa.

Furthermore Cambodia and the Angkor Empire are not synonymous and their respective borders were never contiguous. Angkor once extended well into Thailand, and Ayuthaya once extended well into Angkor. When the Angkor Empire fell, all of Angkor was part of Thailand. The concession of this territory was to the French government, not a Cambodian government. After Cambodian independence a Thai-Cambodian border was mutually agreed to following French maps, not Cambodian maps. So the whole idea that current borders have very much to do with Angkor or Khmer history is fallacious to begin with.

In addition there are around a thousand Khmer-built Angkor-period temple sites in northeastern Thailand. So the argument that KPV is Khmer-built doesn't add much weight to the argument that the temple belongs to modern Cambodia. What about huge sites like Prasat Hin Phimai or Prasat Hin Khao Phanom Rung? Give them back to Cambodia?

Geographically there's a strong argument to site KPV within Thai borders as it sits on an escarpment that's the southeastern-most edge of a large land form that lies entirely within Thailand. Borders typically follow such land forms, rivers, and so on. Anyone who has actually visited KPV will see the obvious geographic divide. The fact that the main access is from Thailand demonstrates how the escarpment has until recently been an unreachable part of Cambodia, transport-wise. Obviously the temple was originally constructed from what is now the Thai side, not from the plains below the site in today's Cambodia. Epigraphically, KPV has been identifed as an Angkor satellite site on a pilgrimage route, just like many other Angkor-period sites in northeastern Thailand.

It's a valid debate, but it's frustrating that most people arguing on either side haven't got a clue about the history of the monument and the Thai-Cambodian border.

That said, a 1962 court decision gave KPV to Cambodia (ignoring French maps), and for the Thais to try and get around that decision isn't fair play. Like a lot of Thais, I personally disagree with that decision but it's a fait accompli.

Oh, please. There is nothing so mysterious or exclusive about this information because it is in a number of history books, that anyone can read, and articles can be download from a wire service. You can look and see the changes of the borders of SEA very well in a couple of history books available in Thailand. Wyatt's is very good. It is OBVIOUS that the borders were never contiguous, because each migration into SEA and successive empire changed the borders with the rise and fall of Kingdoms since before the 1st Century. The Thai nation was not contiguous for that matter, and there are multiple ethnic groups all over SEA for this reason, including modern Thailand. Is Lanna Thai? Was the Sukhothai Kingdom Thai? Should it be designated as Thai even though it was at war with Ayutthaya? It is not even an issue today, because we know that that it was part of the historical state-building process which produced the current Royal Thai Kingdom, from varying and ethnically diverse kingdoms which PRECEDED Thailand; but, there is no question that they are Thai. Are the Siamese Thai?; your point about Khmer/Cambodia as a state is about as ridiculous as that question. If you want to get into a discussion about the varying ethnic groups that still exist within SEA and China for that matter, including those who have been subsumed into current identities of "Thai" and "Khmer", that is a whole different matter, but right now we are talking about the boundaries of overlapping empires and modern states: Khmer/Cambodia and Ayutthaya/Siam/Thailand. The Khmer Empire is as Cambodian as Ayutthaya and Siam are Thai. The language of the state in Cambodia is Khmer, the dominant ethnic group of the state are Khmers, and the temple in question was built by the Khmer Empire. To even belabor this point on this issue is a ridiculous stampede toward imaginary wind mills.

However, I do agree that the boundary issue is not clear-cut. On that, I think there is a valid argument, that could go either way. There is really not one position that is wholly right or wrong on that one, so the decision and conclusion that you establish depends mostly on judgment. The fact that there are many other Khmer temples in Thailand isn't an issue, because they are not in a border area that was arbitrarily decided by a colonial map and a bi-lateral decision which excluded Cambodia. The fact that Preah Vihear is in fact in a border region with a contentious history, is a result either way of colonial map-making, and is of World Heritage Site caliber is what makes this an issue. At the end of the day, on both the history, the ICJ ruling, and current circumstances, I favor Cambodia. I think Thailand has the lesser claim.

Double I wasn't arguing that KPV was Thai. When KPV was built neither 'Thailand' nor 'Cambodia' existed. I was merely pointing out the gaping holes in your stance that KPV had always been 'Cambodian'. And you were conveniently ignoring the fact that over a thousand Khmer sites are within Thai borders already. So your original argument for giving KPV to Cambodia was baseless. The counter-argument isn't that it's Thai, but that French maps suggest that KPV was not part of the orignal concession. Moot point now unless Thailand wants to petition the ICJ, which it has every right to do, as the demarcations for the 700+ km Thai-Cambodian border are still incomplete.

Never said there was anything exclusive about the history, don't know where you got that idea. It's self-evident that very few people, Thai, Khmer or otherwise, know the basics, yourself included.

Whatever, SJ. It seems that Thailand and Cambodia are not the only ones fighting over empire.

No, you weren't arguing that Preah Vihear was Thai, and nor was I arguing about the former territorial scope or history of the Khmer Empire in SEA. Any historical map can show the extensive domain of the Khmers at their peak. I already know the history, so there would be no need for me to argue against such an obvious point. The Mon-Khmers were the first important civilizations on the SEA mainland way before Thailand existed, hence the existence and remnants of both cultures in Thailand and the royal court, and the Mon influence on teaching Pali and spreading Theravada in the region. You were attempting to counter things that I never said, with your straw man arguments about Khmers/Cambodians, hence my analogy to Siam/Thais. I already know the history of the Khmer Empire and the fact that Thailand didn't exist when KPV was built. You are the one who brings that up as though it was a point of contention so that you'd having something to attack - strawman. And I already addressed your related non-point about the Khmer temples inside Thailand, outside of a contentious border region.

My original argument for the ICJ decision is based on history, my opinion of it, the original joint commission and the bi-lateral way in which the demarcation decision was made, and the ICJ decision. Obviously, not baseless, and I've already stated it.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing over your straw man arguments and superimposed points. I think you drink way too much coffee.

Bye SJ.

*I still owe you a cup of coffee, btw.

Edited July 15, 2008 by kat

[sabaijai]

Whether you or the Thais like it or not, the temple is Khmer, and the temple is Cambodian. And that's a fact.

Khmer is a civilization they are not Cambodian, they were there before the Cambodian.

Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia even Burma could still be under Khmer land, Khmer was there even before all these country exist, who would say that the temple was Cambodia, it was Khmer architecture that is still standing, when the Khmer was gone land divided between country, the French out of no where decided to cut the land and said it belong to Cambodia. for all we know Thailand was part of the Khmer civilization. well you figure out the rest.

That's correct. 'Cambodian' is a political label, 'Khmer' ethnic. There are lots of Cambodians who aren't Khmer and vice versa.

Furthermore Cambodia and the Angkor Empire are not synonymous and their respective borders were never contiguous. Angkor once extended well into Thailand, and Ayuthaya once extended well into Angkor. When the Angkor Empire fell, all of Angkor was part of Thailand. The concession of this territory was to the French government, not a Cambodian government. After Cambodian independence a Thai-Cambodian border was mutually agreed to following French maps, not Cambodian maps. So the whole idea that current borders have very much to do with Angkor or Khmer history is fallacious to begin with.

In addition there are around a thousand Khmer-built Angkor-period temple sites in northeastern Thailand. So the argument that KPV is Khmer-built doesn't add much weight to the argument that the temple belongs to modern Cambodia. What about huge sites like Prasat Hin Phimai or Prasat Hin Khao Phanom Rung? Give them back to Cambodia?

Geographically there's a strong argument to site KPV within Thai borders as it sits on an escarpment that's the southeastern-most edge of a large land form that lies entirely within Thailand. Borders typically follow such land forms, rivers, and so on. Anyone who has actually visited KPV will see the obvious geographic divide. The fact that the main access is from Thailand demonstrates how the escarpment has until recently been an unreachable part of Cambodia, transport-wise. Obviously the temple was originally constructed from what is now the Thai side, not from the plains below the site in today's Cambodia. Epigraphically, KPV has been identifed as an Angkor satellite site on a pilgrimage route, just like many other Angkor-period sites in northeastern Thailand.

It's a valid debate, but it's frustrating that most people arguing on either side haven't got a clue about the history of the monument and the Thai-Cambodian border.

That said, a 1962 court decision gave KPV to Cambodia (ignoring French maps), and for the Thais to try and get around that decision isn't fair play. Like a lot of Thais, I personally disagree with that decision but it's a fait accompli.

Oh, please. There is nothing so mysterious or exclusive about this information because it is in a number of history books, that anyone can read, and articles can be download from a wire service. You can look and see the changes of the borders of SEA very well in a couple of history books available in Thailand. Wyatt's is very good. It is OBVIOUS that the borders were never contiguous, because each migration into SEA and successive empire changed the borders with the rise and fall of Kingdoms since before the 1st Century. The Thai nation was not contiguous for that matter, and there are multiple ethnic groups all over SEA for this reason, including modern Thailand. Is Lanna Thai? Was the Sukhothai Kingdom Thai? Should it be designated as Thai even though it was at war with Ayutthaya? It is not even an issue today, because we know that that it was part of the historical state-building process which produced the current Royal Thai Kingdom, from varying and ethnically diverse kingdoms which PRECEDED Thailand; but, there is no question that they are Thai. Are the Siamese Thai?; your point about Khmer/Cambodia as a state is about as ridiculous as that question. If you want to get into a discussion about the varying ethnic groups that still exist within SEA and China for that matter, including those who have been subsumed into current identities of "Thai" and "Khmer", that is a whole different matter, but right now we are talking about the boundaries of overlapping empires and modern states: Khmer/Cambodia and Ayutthaya/Siam/Thailand. The Khmer Empire is as Cambodian as Ayutthaya and Siam are Thai. The language of the state in Cambodia is Khmer, the dominant ethnic group of the state are Khmers, and the temple in question was built by the Khmer Empire. To even belabor this point on this issue is a ridiculous stampede toward imaginary wind mills.

However, I do agree that the boundary issue is not clear-cut. On that, I think there is a valid argument, that could go either way. There is really not one position that is wholly right or wrong on that one, so the decision and conclusion that you establish depends mostly on judgment. The fact that there are many other Khmer temples in Thailand isn't an issue, because they are not in a border area that was arbitrarily decided by a colonial map and a bi-lateral decision which excluded Cambodia. The fact that Preah Vihear is in fact in a border region with a contentious history, is a result either way of colonial map-making, and is of World Heritage Site caliber is what makes this an issue. At the end of the day, on both the history, the ICJ ruling, and current circumstances, I favor Cambodia. I think Thailand has the lesser claim.

Double I wasn't arguing that KPV was Thai. When KPV was built neither 'Thailand' nor 'Cambodia' existed. I was merely pointing out the gaping holes in your stance that KPV had always been 'Cambodian'. And you were conveniently ignoring the fact that over a thousand Khmer sites are within Thai borders already. So your original argument for giving KPV to Cambodia was baseless. The counter-argument isn't that it's Thai, but that French maps suggest that KPV was not part of the orignal concession. Moot point now unless Thailand wants to petition the ICJ, which it has every right to do, as the demarcations for the 700+ km Thai-Cambodian border are still incomplete.

Never said there was anything exclusive about the history, don't know where you got that idea. It's self-evident that very few people, Thai, Khmer or otherwise, know the basics, yourself included.

Whatever, SJ. It seems that Thailand and Cambodia are not the only ones fighting over empire.

No, you weren't arguing that Preah Vihear was Thai, and nor was I arguing about the former territorial scope or history of the Khmer Empire in SEA. Any historical map can show the extensive domain of the Khmers at their peak. I already know the history, so there would be no need for me to argue against such an obvious point. The Mon-Khmers were the first important civilizations on the SEA mainland way before Thailand existed, hence the existence and remnants of both cultures in Thailand and the royal court, and the Mon influence on teaching Pali and spreading Theravada in the region. You were attempting to counter things that I never said, with your straw man arguments about Khmers/Cambodians, hence my analogy to Siam/Thais. I already know the history of the Khmer Empire and the fact that Thailand didn't exist when KPV was built. You are the one who brings that up as though it was a point of contention so that you'd having something to attack - strawman. And I already addressed your related non-point about the Khmer temples inside Thailand, outside of a contentious border region.

My original argument for the ICJ decision is based on history, my opinion of it, the original joint commission and the bi-lateral way in which the demarcation decision was made, and the ICJ decision. Obviously, not baseless, and I've already stated it.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing over your straw man arguments and superimposed points. I think you drink way too much coffee.

Bye SJ.

*I still owe you a cup of coffee, btw.

I think you should go back and read your initial posts. 'Khmer = Cambodian,' 'the Cambodians built it, so it belongs to Cambodia'. Your arguments, no straw men in sight I'm afraid!

But I drink a lot of coffee.

[toptuan]

Post withdrawn

Edited July 15, 2008 by toptuan

[kat]

*SJ QUOTE: "I think you should go back and read your initial posts. 'Khmer = Cambodian,' 'the Cambodians built it, so it belongs to Cambodia'. Your arguments, no straw men in sight I'm afraid!

But I drink a lot of coffee. " END SJ quote.

SJ, One is a cultural fact, which I already argued with the Khmer/Cambodian and Siam/Thai analogy, and the other was my opinion, based on the history of the Khmer Empire. *I also based my argument on more than that one point, but nevermind. It seems that many people here have opinions, so I'm not sure why so much attention on my own. I have already shown that it was not "baseless" as you asserted. If that is the case, the ICJ case was also baseless since they used elements of the same historical arguments on which to base their decision, in addition to the demarcation border. Everything else that you brought in about the scope of territory and boundaries was a straw man, because you were arguing against something that I never said or contested.

However, as I alluded to previously, you make a good point about the demarcated territory. Thank you for bringing more clarity to the actual demarcation details of the border in question that influenced the ICJ decision.

Enough already. No one is questioning your authority on the subject, but I am sure that my opinions and knowledge of the history are not "baseless".

You now owe ME a cup of tea.

Edited July 15, 2008 by kat

[Plus]

ICJ court ruling was not based on who built the temple, it was based on French drawn maps. So it wasn't because "is has always been Cambodian", or Khmer.

One thing that needs to be added - "Khmers" not only built the temple, they also abandoned it. They turned to Buddhism and moved the capital to Phnom Penh, and this is where modern Cambodians come from. Angkor Wat wasn't a national symbol until Frech rediscovered it for them (or at least that's when it was first put on their national flag - when they become French colony).

I'm saying this that their respect and admiration for the old temples is a relatively late thing, part of much needed national identity rebranding.

[kat]

Actually, you are right about the ICJ ruling. I was confusing that ruling with the UNESCO decision. The ICJ ruling was just about the demarcation boundaries. The aspect of the history of the temple in addition to the IJC ruling is my opinion.

[Plus]

If we can accuse Khmers of abandoning the temple, Thai nationalist feelings are a lot more shallow by comparison. For them it was just another trophy after a round of looting. They never seem to acknowledge that fact.

[sabaijai]

ICJ court ruling was not based on who built the temple, it was based on French drawn maps. So it wasn't because "is has always been Cambodian", or Khmer.

One thing that needs to be added - "Khmers" not only built the temple, they also abandoned it. They turned to Buddhism and moved the capital to Phnom Penh, and this is where modern Cambodians come from. Angkor Wat wasn't a national symbol until Frech rediscovered it for them (or at least that's when it was first put on their national flag - when they become French colony).

I'm saying this that their respect and admiration for the old temples is a relatively late thing, part of much needed national identity rebranding.

Yes, Henri Mouhot should be a national hero in Cambodia, for popularising Angkor Wat abroad.

But the ICJ ruling wasn't specific about the border delineation, as I understand it. Rather who had jurisidiction over the temple, hence the 4.6 sq km still in dispute. In fact there are other areas along the Thai-Cambodia border still as yet without mutual demarcation. Ditto for the Thai-Myanmar border, and, until 1991, the Thai-Lao border - remember the bloody 1988-1991 Thai-Lao border war?

Many foreign observers don't understand Thailand's objection to Cambodia's unilateral World Heritage application to UNESCO, but it's wound up with disputed territory.

From a June 26th BKK Post editorial:

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made a valid point during the censure debate on Tuesday that the government's endorsement of Cambodia's unilateral listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site could place Thailand at a disadvantage if, in the future, Phnom Penh contests Thailand's sovereignty over the contentious overlapping areas.

KPV is a sensitive and emotional issue for both countries, but arguably more so for Thailand, which enjoyed de facto jurisidiction over KPV for most of its history before the ICJ ruling.

[kat]

If we can accuse Khmers of abandoning the temple, Thai nationalist feelings are a lot more shallow by comparison. For them it was just another trophy after a round of looting. They never seem to acknowledge that fact.

I agree with you.

Yes, Henri Mouhot should be a national hero in Cambodia, for popularising Angkor Wat abroad.

But the ICJ ruling wasn't specific about the border delineation, as I understand it. Rather who had jurisidiction over the temple, hence the 4.6 sq km still in dispute. In fact there are other areas along the Thai-Cambodia border still as yet without mutual demarcation. Ditto for the Thai-Myanmar border, and, until 1991, the Thai-Lao border - remember the bloody 1988-1991 Thai-Lao border war?

Many foreign observers don't understand Thailand's objection to Cambodia's unilateral World Heritage application to UNESCO, but it's wound up with disputed territory.

From a June 26th BKK Post editorial:

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made a valid point during the censure debate on Tuesday that the government's endorsement of Cambodia's unilateral listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site could place Thailand at a disadvantage if, in the future, Phnom Penh contests Thailand's sovereignty over the contentious overlapping areas.

KPV is a sensitive and emotional issue for both countries, but arguably more so for Thailand, which enjoyed de facto jurisidiction over KPV for most of its history before the ICJ ruling.

Fair points, although I think it is just as sensitive if not more so for Cambodia.