Noppadon Announces Resignation

[Plus]

Even if it was too late to stop it wasn't a reason for Noppadon not to try.

"the move must benefit both countries." - I don't see any benefits coming to Thailand from Noppadon's agreement, and there could have been many.

[A_Traveller]

^^ Forgive me but you missed the word mutuality, in the TNA element and I stated that UNESCO implied a joint listing after rejecting the listing in '07. There was no evidence for sole listing support by the previous government, in fact quite the reverse, with discussions focused on how to move for mutual listing and long term management of the site for the benefit of both countries.

The new government decided in a key change of the country's long held position, to offer support for a sole listing by Cambodia.

Regards

/edit add chevrons//

Edited July 11, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Plus]

Speaking of chevrons - where can we get are nice icons to refer to the post directly above? A little red arrow would suffice, but it's not in the icon list.

[Meerkat]

^^ Forgive me but you missed the word mutuality, in the TNA element and I stated that UNESCO implied a joint listing after rejecting the listing in '07. There was no evidence for sole listing support by the previous government, in fact quite the reverse, with discussions focused on how to move for mutual listing and long term management of the site for the benefit of both countries.

The new government decided in a key change of the country's long held position, to offer support for a sole listing by Cambodia.

I don't see it that way at all. The UNESCO summary specifically states:

"Accordingly, Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand."

I don't think it could really be much clearer than that as to who the governments had decided was going to propose the site this year, nor that Thailand would support their proposal. The mutuality IMO is that Thailand would co-host/actively support/co-manage the site - the "win-win" situation Surayud has talked about. With the injunction, that mutuality has gone down the pan sadly. For mutuality to mean a joint-listing rather than a co-hosting, Surayud's comment about not insisting the temple is partly owned by Thailand doesn't make sense. I agree that UNESCO would have prefered a joint listing, but Cambodia have refused to go that way because it would imply Thailand had (part) sovereignty over the temple in contradiction to the ICJ ruling.

[A_Traveller]

Forgive me could you point me to the referenced UNESCO summary since that doesn't match the data I have from UNESCO statements in '07 after the NZ meeting nor the various discussions through to April '08. One UN problem is the welter of paper albeit electronic that gets produced during this process.

Regards

/edit add referenced//

Edited July 11, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Meerkat]

Apologies for not linking it this time; I had done so but on a different thread. It's in the UNESCO archives here (large pdf - pp 153-154). Agreed about the amount of documents flying around...

[Tony Clifton]

I'm curious, are these cretins rewarded with a state pension later on because they served Thaksin and then their country for a few months only? Is that what maybe Chalerm is also trying to do for his sons?

[A_Traveller]

^^ Thanks, after fighting Adobe {or is it the new style links in the forum software?} I was able to read it. I have to say that those whom I know who were there {NZ} came away with a different perspective, {which the text provides for} partly owing to the background documents which concentrated on the 'buffer zone' and therefore a view that reconciliation of the management of this would be critical to supporting any application going forward.

This perspective is further shown by the subsequent UNESCO meetings {with the parties and the appointment of Francesco Caruso as representative} on the subject which became intractable until the relatively sudden change of heart. By the by I wouldn't view non signature as a constitutional issue since the background had been potential support provided issues were resolved, and by UNESCO's action this position was understood.

Regards

Edited July 11, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Tony Clifton]

Still , wasn't this conducted in a rush and secretely through cabinet instead of parliament? A popular method under Thaksin and one of the reasons why practically no minutes of Thaksin cabinet meetings exist today, secrecy was a must with all the scams they had going on.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Tony Clifton

[marshbags]

Not a bad windfall for a couple of month's "work."

Petty cash in comparison with his loyalty payments from the " surrogate one " during his continued employment for the obvious vested interests and objectives, which are not Thailands that,s for sure.

You what !!!!!!

marshbags

Possibly all non taxable if their lugubrious past on this is anything to go by.

Edited July 11, 2008 by marshbags

[Meerkat]

Still , wasn't this conducted in a rush and secretely through cabinet instead of parliament? A popular method under Thaksin and one of the reasons why practically no minutes of Thaksin cabinet meetings exist today, secrecy was a must with all the scams they had going on.

Yes I think it was done in a rush, but it was a rush of Cambodia's choosing, not Thailand's. Whilst the junta's assurance to Cambodia last year that they would be allowed to list the Temple this year was in itself non-binding IMO, the Cambodians would certainly have taken it as the green light they were looking for (and that assurance is big ammo for canvassing support from the other delegates - that's why the junta had star billing in their proposal.)

They were going to apply this year whatever Thailand said even if it meant changing the proposal from a larger site to the smaller ICJ based one. On that basis the new government didn't have much time to try and get anything out of the deal. All I can see they did manage to get was co-management, better diplomatic relations, and perhaps Cambodia's support if Thailand decides to try and list the National Park on its side of the border but which includes some disputed area; part of the deal was that the disputed border would be settled by 2010 IIRC.

Regarding secrecy, yes it's smelly. Greater transparency in all branches of government has obviously got to be the way forward. If there's evidence of wrongdoing for personal gain though, I'm sure the NCCC will take the case up - it's not as if there aren't a ton of people out there looking for a link (and even more of them automatically assuming one.)

[Harpov]

With all the changes with the constitutions etc. I don't blame the guy making a mistake if he ever did it intentionally I really doubt it. Everything he has said is true and Thai soverignty is not breached as claimed by opponents. Everyone knows that the temple belonged to Cambodia and all the lies were made up discredit the governement. If you look at it its all just politics and its sad really. Its a shame that whatever decision has to be made even those necessary are all made into a political issue thesedays by PAD and its supporters. So much for progress..... PAD is just continuing to spread their lies and inciting dangerous disputes with neighbours to make the news nothing more.

True words. Whatever the motivation, it's in Cambodia and built by the Khmers. Only really occupied by the LOS when opportunity arrived..............

[Old Man River]

True words. Whatever the motivation, it's in Cambodia and built by the Khmers. Only really occupied by the LOS when opportunity arrived..............

I understand what you are trying to say, but the issue here is independent of whose property this is. Noppadon broke the law. He bypassed the approval process as set up in the Thai constitution. It is a legal issue.

[Plus]

Meerkat, if Noppadon was following the course set by the junta government (and a very experienced diplomat and negotiatior Nitya Pibulsongkram), he wouldn't have replaced Thai chief negotiator, there were warnings all over the media that it would end badly for Thailand, and it did. Noppadon has finally taken responsibility for this fiasco (and it IS a fiasco, simply by reactions it produced), when will you let it go and admit he screwed up? Even if he had best intentions in his heart (which is very very hard to believe).

Temple was build by Khmers long long time ago. Ancient would be worshippers lived in what is now Thai terrotory and worshippers on Cambodian side don't even have an access to it. It was ruled as Cambodian territory on technicalities (Thailand didn't object to French maps de facto recognising them).

For Thais the ruling fifty years ago was quite a shock.

Imagine a trip there - the grand staircase, build up anticipation, and when you get to the top - you are suddenly in a diffrent country. It just doesn't make any sense.

[plachon]

Even if it was too late to stop it wasn't a reason for Noppadon not to try.

"the move must benefit both countries." - I don't see any benefits coming to Thailand from Noppadon's agreement, and there could have been many.

Maybe he assumed that what's good for the Boss, is good for the country. Bit like PPP/TRT's policies.

[Meerkat]

Plus, I've already said (more than once) that he screwed up. He screwed up selling it to the Thai people and he screwed up constitutionally. But as far as the negotiations themselves go, what was he (or anyone for that matter) supposed to have done to derail the process - start military action? You maintained in our earlier debate on the subject that Cambodia couldn't do it without Thailand's support. Well they've done it. Once the map was reduced to one within the 1962 judgement Thailand could go and take a running jump as far as the sovereignty issues go. UNESCO would have preferred otherwise, but when it came down to it Cambodia's lobbying over more than a decade has been more effective than Thailand's. At that point it's just a question of trying to make the best of a bad deal.

If the junta's declaration last year was all smoke and mirrors and they never really meant that Thailand should support a sole Cambodian bid, then it was a monumental foul-up on behalf of the junta's team to put in down in writing at last year's conference, because lo and behold it's up there in bold italics in this year's Cambodian bid. Forget the new communique, the junta itself did more damage to any Thai claim to a joint-listing by letting itself use such a clear-cut expression of support for a sole Cambodian one - it doesn't matter if it's binding or not, only that it's good propaganda towards the selection committee. Played straight into their hands on that one, so why do you believe they were such competent negotiators?

It was always going to end in a certain amount of tears with such a controversial site, but is that the fault of the government that's only been in power (if you can call it that) for 6 months, or the 4 decades' worth of governments who couldn't bring themselves to admit to the people that they lost the ruling - a ruling that even required a voluntary condition to make it binding? A ruling that was only accepted within the then Cabinet and to the UN directly to try and hide their shame.

As far as your questioning the ICJ ruling itself, I happen to agree that it's bizarre that Cambodia gets this outcrop that is all but impossible to mount but from the Thai side. Tough - take it up with 1962 government or the preceding ones that didn't protest at the proper time about the earlier maps. Take it up with the 1962-1972 governments who failed to produce new evidence during the period for appeal. The ruling was made, and the ruling is now final and without appeal.

We are finally starting to see some of the injustices of Thaksin and his cronies' governments come to court. Don't make the mistake of accepting only those court decisions that agree with your point of view, on technicalities or not.

[Shah Jahan]

A little off topic here as it probably doesnt have anything to do with the subject being discussed....

but has Dr. Thaksin recently been granted any important business concessions in Cambodia - I seem to remember something about him just being granted permission to develop a casino/mega-city on the Thai/Cam border.

Maybe someone with more information can bring light on the subject.

More info on the Thaksin Thai Taxpayer Highway in Cambodia that leads to the Golden Square Head Casino and Resort:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1982358

and also info on Thaksinville, Cambodia which seems to be near Sihanoukville:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-land...t&p=2000909

So is there any off-chance that the giving away of the temple by the lawyer of Dr. Thaksin would have anything to do with Dr. Thaksin having these simultaneous Cambodian business interests which would of course would have required high level Cambodian government approval?

I really have no idea - but the timing is quite coincidental.

[sriracha john]

A little off topic here as it probably doesnt have anything to do with the subject being discussed....

but has Dr. Thaksin recently been granted any important business concessions in Cambodia - I seem to remember something about him just being granted permission to develop a casino/mega-city on the Thai/Cam border.

Maybe someone with more information can bring light on the subject.

More info on the Thaksin Thai Taxpayer Highway in Cambodia that leads to the Golden Square Head Casino and Resort:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1982358

and also info on Thaksinville, Cambodia which seems to be near Sihanoukville:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-land...t&p=2000909

So is there any off-chance that the giving away of the temple by the lawyer of Dr. Thaksin would have anything to do with Dr. Thaksin having these simultaneous Cambodian business interests which would of course would have required high level Cambodian government approval?

I really have no idea - but the timing is quite coincidental.

Indeed, it's just purely coincidental that the same person that broke constitutional law with one hand used his other hand to perform the ribbon-cutting ceremony to open the Thaksin Highway in Cambodia in the first link.

[sriracha john]

a very suspicious situation??? nahhhh....

Joint communique has gone missing

The Democrat party's bid to impeach Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej over the Preah Vihear joint communique has hit a snag as the cabinet resolution related to the agreement can't be accessed. Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban said his party was not being allowed to see the June 17 cabinet resolution pledging support for the joint communique that Foreign Affairs Minister Noppadon Pattama had signed with Phnom Penh. The joint declaration backing Cambodia's bid to list the temple as a World Heritage site was found to be unconstitutional by the Constitution Court. The resolution has failed to appear on the government's website, where cabinet resolutions are usually posted, Mr Suthep said. He criticised the government for failing to keep such an important resolution in the file. He said the party could not invoke the Information Act to press for the release of the document as the law only covers requests for documents known to exist. The government earlier announced that the cabinet resolution on the issue had mistakenly not been filed.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/120708_News/12Jul2008_news16.php

[h90]

a very suspicious situation??? nahhhh....

Joint communique has gone missing

The Democrat party's bid to impeach Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej over the Preah Vihear joint communique has hit a snag as the cabinet resolution related to the agreement can't be accessed. Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban said his party was not being allowed to see the June 17 cabinet resolution pledging support for the joint communique that Foreign Affairs Minister Noppadon Pattama had signed with Phnom Penh. The joint declaration backing Cambodia's bid to list the temple as a World Heritage site was found to be unconstitutional by the Constitution Court. The resolution has failed to appear on the government's website, where cabinet resolutions are usually posted, Mr Suthep said. He criticised the government for failing to keep such an important resolution in the file. He said the party could not invoke the Information Act to press for the release of the document as the law only covers requests for documents known to exist. The government earlier announced that the cabinet resolution on the issue had mistakenly not been filed.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/120708_News/12Jul2008_news16.php

[Shah Jahan]

a very suspicious situation??? nahhhh....

Joint communique has gone missing

The Democrat party's bid to impeach Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej over the Preah Vihear joint communique has hit a snag as the cabinet resolution related to the agreement can't be accessed. Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban said his party was not being allowed to see the June 17 cabinet resolution pledging support for the joint communique that Foreign Affairs Minister Noppadon Pattama had signed with Phnom Penh. The joint declaration backing Cambodia's bid to list the temple as a World Heritage site was found to be unconstitutional by the Constitution Court. The resolution has failed to appear on the government's website, where cabinet resolutions are usually posted, Mr Suthep said. He criticised the government for failing to keep such an important resolution in the file. He said the party could not invoke the Information Act to press for the release of the document as the law only covers requests for documents known to exist. The government earlier announced that the cabinet resolution on the issue had mistakenly not been filed.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/120708_News/12Jul2008_news16.php

so since he is already a downed man - are they just going to say they never supported it and Nopeadope acted on his own without cabinet approval?

[geriatrickid]

The Constitutional court ruled treaties are defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which states: "treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments andwhatever its particular designation; Fair enough but you need to put it in context.

My understanding of this definition is that any agreement which Thailand makes with another country, regardless of what it is about, e.g Territorial, Jusidictional, Economic, Commercial etc is regarded as a treaty, and as such will have to in future go before Parliament and if voted in favour of, presented to the King for signature.

I disagree with your interpretation and apply the criteria as set out in the definition.

In order to speak of a "treaty" in the generic sense, an instrument has to meet various criteria. First of all, it has to be a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties. Secondly, the instrument must be concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power. Thirdly, it has to be governed by international law. Finally the engagement has to be in writing. Even before the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the word "treaty" in its generic sense had been generally reserved for engagements concluded in written form. Treaty as a specific term: There are no consistent rules when state practice employs the terms "treaty" as a title for an international instrument. Usually the term "treaty" is reserved for matters of some gravity that require more solemn agreements. Their signatures are usually sealed and they normally require ratification. Typical examples of international instruments designated as "treaties" are Peace Treaties, Border Treaties, Delimitation Treaties, Extradition Treaties and Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Cooperation. The use of the term "treaty" for international instruments has considerably declined in the last decades in favor of other terms.

Source UN Treaty Collections definitions.

I disagree with your interpretation;

1. It was an agreement of support of a request to UNESCO. Important yes, but hardly a grave issue of solemn concerm.

2. Was the support binding where the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties? I don't think in anyone's wildest dreams it could be interpreted as such.

3. The instrument was not concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power. There was no formal signing and exchange of agreements. In essence, it was merely an acknowledgement of an undertaking.

4. The agreement did touch upon international law, but I do not believe that such agreements are governed by International Treaty Law. Even as a basic contract, it fails the test. In order to have a contract there must "consideration". I see no mention of a consideration.

5. I would hardly describe this timid position as an engagement.

No argument from me on your other points.

I fully accept that I could be wrong on my interpretation as did not study International Law and have never pleaded a case. However, as a member of the unwashed masses, that's my take on it.

[Shah Jahan]

The Constitutional court ruled treaties are defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which states: "treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments andwhatever its particular designation; Fair enough but you need to put it in context.

My understanding of this definition is that any agreement which Thailand makes with another country, regardless of what it is about, e.g Territorial, Jusidictional, Economic, Commercial etc is regarded as a treaty, and as such will have to in future go before Parliament and if voted in favour of, presented to the King for signature.

I disagree with your interpretation and apply the criteria as set out in the definition.

In order to speak of a "treaty" in the generic sense, an instrument has to meet various criteria. First of all, it has to be a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties. Secondly, the instrument must be concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power. Thirdly, it has to be governed by international law. Finally the engagement has to be in writing. Even before the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the word "treaty" in its generic sense had been generally reserved for engagements concluded in written form. Treaty as a specific term: There are no consistent rules when state practice employs the terms "treaty" as a title for an international instrument. Usually the term "treaty" is reserved for matters of some gravity that require more solemn agreements. Their signatures are usually sealed and they normally require ratification. Typical examples of international instruments designated as "treaties" are Peace Treaties, Border Treaties, Delimitation Treaties, Extradition Treaties and Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Cooperation. The use of the term "treaty" for international instruments has considerably declined in the last decades in favor of other terms.

Source UN Treaty Collections definitions.

I disagree with your interpretation;

1. It was an agreement of support of a request to UNESCO. Important yes, but hardly a grave issue of solemn concerm.

2. Was the support binding where the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties? I don't think in anyone's wildest dreams it could be interpreted as such.

3. The instrument was not concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power. There was no formal signing and exchange of agreements. In essence, it was merely an acknowledgement of an undertaking.

4. The agreement did touch upon international law, but I do not believe that such agreements are governed by International Treaty Law. Even as a basic contract, it fails the test. In order to have a contract there must "consideration". I see no mention of a consideration.

5. I would hardly describe this timid position as an engagement.

No argument from me on your other points.

I fully accept that I could be wrong on my interpretation as did not study International Law and have never pleaded a case. However, as a member of the unwashed masses, that's my take on it.

whatever... he traded a temple for a casino.

this nopeadope is not an idiot like those around him- he is actually very intelligent man with rational reasoning abilities - therefore he is able to clearly understand both sides and make logical decisions. because of having both left and right brain activity he also understand exactly what he did as a choice of his own free will and therefore will burn for it in the seven lower hells, being aware of the process the whole time. poor sisyphus.......

the point being that they will pick off every body around Dr. Thaksin until those remaining start to get the point that the 'boss' cannot protect them and they will go down too. then Dr. Thaksin closet will turn on him at the moment of truth in order to save their own skins in traditional fashion.

[A_Traveller]

1. It was an agreement of support of a request to UNESCO. Important yes, but hardly a grave issue of solemn concerm.(sic) There speaks someone who has little concept of this matter for a Thai perspective. Further, the court held that such a position undermined the oft stated position that this matter should be managed as a joint disposition, '07 summary {which has no legal traction, unlike the communiqué} notwithstanding.

2. Was the support binding where the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties? I don't think in anyone's wildest dreams it could be interpreted as such.For a government providing 'active support' within legal construct is a duty. In addition in this case the duty is being exercised for an action by another sovereign nation.

3. The instrument was not concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power. There was no formal signing and exchange of agreements. In essence, it was merely an acknowledgement of an undertaking. Yes the communiqué was entered into by those with the defined ability to represent sovereign nations, therefore such treaty making power existed. Please see above and try to appreciate the difference between a Government Undertaking, signed by the FM, as opposed to that by any individual, such an undertaking is viewed as both quantitatively and qualitatively different. I presume you don't mean to say that two sovereign nations are not capable of entering into agreements.

4. The agreement did touch upon international law, but I do not believe that such agreements are governed by International Treaty Law. Even as a basic contract, it fails the test. In order to have a contract there must "consideration". I see no mention of a consideration. A consideration in this form, though this is a specious mix of contact law, would by definition be the action of the government, which unlike the declaration in '07 becomes formal by the signature of this communiqué. Indeed the court held that such a decision was not within the purview of the FM {or Cabinet} alone because of its import {or if you prefer paralleling back to contact law 'value'}.

5. I would hardly describe this timid position as an engagement.See above

Regards

[Meerkat]

whatever... he traded a temple for a casino.

Fair point, except that he didn't have a temple to trade.

[Shah Jahan]

whatever... he traded a temple for a casino.

Fair point, except that he didn't have a temple to trade.

and thats why we are in this mess.

[Plus]

Meerkat, if all you are trying to do now is to lay the blame on junta no matter what, fine.

Noppadon has tried that, too, but no one bought it. Hypothetically speaking Thailand could have delayed the listing for another decade or so. At first they could have disagreed with the map, they could have spent another year just revising it. The fact that there's no legally accepted border demarkation plays nicely in Thailand's hand.

Then they could have come up with counter proposal for a joint management of the whole site again, under disguise of "active participation", especially after Cambodian elections - new ideas, new thinking, new era.

Not so difficult if you try.

The logic and reason are on Thai side - as an historic site the temple and it's surroundings, including things like access roads and hotels, are inseparable and should be under unified management. That would be a real win for the temple, for Cambodians, and for Thais.

>>>

The 'active pariticipation' clause is interesting. It could be argued that without it there would be no listing. Last minute reverse by Thai courts (not even the FM or the government) against all earlier pledges and signed communique didn't count as a serious objection. The panel just ignored it, and rightly so, from their perspective.

[h90]

whatever... he traded a temple for a casino.

Fair point, except that he didn't have a temple to trade.

But Cambodia didn't had a temple as well, specially no stairs to it. Why making it top secret in a rush if there is no trade?

[Meerkat]

Meerkat, if all you are trying to do now is to lay the blame on junta no matter what, fine.

Noppadon has tried that, too, but no one bought it. Hypothetically speaking Thailand could have delayed the listing for another decade or so. At first they could have disagreed with the map, they could have spent another year just revising it. The fact that there's no legally accepted border demarkation plays nicely in Thailand's hand.

Then they could have come up with counter proposal for a joint management of the whole site again, under disguise of "active participation", especially after Cambodian elections - new ideas, new thinking, new era.

Not so difficult if you try.

Disagree. You've stated before that Cambodia couldn't have done it without Thailand's approval of the map. As far as the original map went that included the listing of the disputed border I'd agree. But given that the new map is within the boundaries of the ICJ judgement, Cambodia in theory wouldn't have even needed any consultation with Thailand at all. Because there was consultation, we happen to know that the listing doesn't infringe on any Thai soil (approved by both the NSC and the Royal Thai Survey). If those two Thai bodies said as much, you're going to have a hard time persuading me that UNESCO or the ICJ would think differently had Cambodia just went for the application without any Thai input/map-checking whatsoever.

Blaming the junta? To an extent yes I do. It was on their watch that the biggest Thai policy shift was made, that of publicly supporting Cambodia's listing. As I said before, it matters not one jot whether this was the truth or just a delaying tactic. It played straight into Cambodia's hands for gaining yet more support with the WHC. I've read somewhere (can't remember now but I'll try and find it if necessary) that Cambodia had already mustered more than enough selectors to get listed this year anyway. You say that even if it can't be stopped, Noppadom should have tried. I say that given that it can't be stopped, Noppadom should have tried to get something. As to how much the negotiating team actually did manage to get, that's a difficult thing to quantify without being directly involved. In the eyes of Thailand it will never be enough, in the eyes of Cambodia etc etc... Don't forget there was a lot of bad feeling from the Cambodian public because they thought the communiqué gave Thailand too much.

On second thoughts "blaming" is the wrong word re the junta's role in this fiasco. I personally believe that they were begrudgingly for it as they knew they'd lost out to Cambodia anyway. I think they were trying to get some diplomatic Brownie points just as the present government was. Perhaps "applauding" the junta would be better for facing up to an uncomfortable truth (and believe me that grates to write).

The logic and reason are on Thai side - as an historic site the temple and it's surroundings, including things like access roads and hotels, are inseparable and should be under unified management. That would be a real win for the temple, for Cambodians, and for Thais.

Agree. The communiqué included such cooperation, but as it was ruled unconstitutional we have to go back to square one. From a weakened position IMO. Blame there goes solely with Noppadom and the MFA advisors who allegedly told him he didn't need parliamentary consultation. Prats the lot of 'em - that the communiqué was illegal did more damage to Thailand than the communiqué itself.

>>>

The 'active pariticipation' clause is interesting. It could be argued that without it there would be no listing. Last minute reverse by Thai courts (not even the FM or the government) against all earlier pledges and signed communique didn't count as a serious objection. The panel just ignored it, and rightly so, from their perspective.

Summing up, the two major factors IMO that helped Cambodia get support for the listing (actually made it inevitable) this year were:

1. The public announcement of a change in policy by the junta towards a sole application with Thai support (regardless of intent as to whether such policy shift were true or not), and

2. A change in policy from the Cambodian side this year to limit the listing to the undisputed map. Undisputed in this case obviously meaning in the eyes of international law, not the ravings of a bunch of nationalists with another agenda or a poorly educated public on the matter. On that note, Abhisit apparently denied trying to whip up nationalistic fervour issue at last night's FCC talk he gave. I haven't had a chance to hear the tapes myself yet, but if true, it's a case IMO of, "I believe you. Millions wouldn't..."

[Meerkat]

whatever... he traded a temple for a casino.

Fair point, except that he didn't have a temple to trade.

But Cambodia didn't had a temple as well, specially no stairs to it. Why making it top secret in a rush if there is no trade?

Cambodia has had the Temple since 1962. That the entrance is on the Thai side - whilst being strange - is irrelevent. A Japanese company has put forward a proposal to build a cable car up to the site from the Cambodian side.

No doubt in exchange for a casino.

Secrecy in diplomacy is the norm, not the exception. That the negotiations had to be done by this month has been explained countless times.

That there was secrecy with regards to Cabinet approval was undoubtedly wrong.