Thai Troops Enter Disputed Territory On Thai-cambodian Border

[Meerkat]

Better surely to present the case to a neutral third party who can make an impartial decision based on the facts and arguments presented by both sides?

Cambodia would certainly be willing to go back to the ICJ.

What about Thailand?

I'd guess no.

The last time Thailand went to the ICJ it lost actual, real territory. I don't think they'd want to risk it a second time. It's also for that reason that I don't believe either of the countries went back to the ICJ for a clarification of the original judgement, just in case they lose anything (and the Temple having been adjudged to be on Cambodian soil, I'd also guess that any review could do more damage to Thailand than Cambodia).

Also, and more importantly, any government that does go to the ICJ could legitimately be seen as ceding territory (to the ICJ to dispense with as it sees fit) - something as we have just seen that is too sensitive domestically (even though Noppadom's plan didn't cede territory).

[Plus]

Thailand won't go to ICJ, it's plain and simple.

The temple issue, however, doesn't have to do with territorial claims in principle, it can be listed and managed regardless of who holds the actual rights over the land. For now it's just a part of negotiation process, to see how territorial claims can be used to advance one's agenda.

[Don Aleman]

An obivious Cambodian lie as Thailand does not have 40 troops !

[jimbob]

I don't think they are on the same level of understanding and Thailand should deal with them on different terms.

What kind of terms?

[Old Man River]

While the international community recognizes Cambodia's interest in the temple and surrounding areas, few in Thailand care about this. This is an issue for Thailand and Cambodia to work out, not any other country. This concerns Thailand and Cambodia only.

Well in terms of the heritage listing UNESCO is an international body so the ball is out there already.

As for bilateral negotiations they have been without success for many decades so clearly the two countries cannot work it out on their own.

Better surely to present the case to a neutral third party who can make an impartial decision based on the facts and arguments presented by both sides?

Cambodia would certainly be willing to go back to the ICJ.

What about Thailand?

I think this is easier to understand if you think of your own country (whatever country it is). Would your government want a third party making decisions for it on where its borders should be? The UK went to war with The Falklands over territorial issues and the US has gone to war for far less. Why should Thailand role over?

[sriracha john]

Samran mentioned this earlier, but the linked article and below map made things a lot clearer and certainly adds a whole new jumble to the on-going mess... 27,000 square kilometers of "jumble"....

The scrap of land on which our future lies

The implications of the Thai-Cambodian border dispute reach far beyond the 4.6 sq km of scrub around Preah Vihear

The disputed area adjacent to Preah Vihear covers only 4.6 square kilometres - a very small area when compared to the total size of the countries of Thailand and Cambodia. But neither of the countries can afford to lose any of this land. This is not only because the area carries with it the issue of territorial sovereignty, which no modern state can bear to lose, but also because the final fate of the area could signify the future of other overlapping areas still to be demarcated, particularly those in the sea, military analysts say. While a lot of people are concerned about the possible loss of territorial sovereignty over the disputed land to Cambodia, Vice-Admiral Pratheep Chuen-arom (retired) has been pondering what will happen to the disputed areas in the Gulf of Thailand, which cover about 20,000 square kilometres. For months, the vice-admiral has reviewed the information to hand and applied the lessons he learned when commander of a patrol fleet in the Gulf. He has decided to make public his concerns. "If we lose the claimed land again, there is very much more at stake to be lost." Over a hundred years ago, Thailand was forced to demarcate its borders with two imperial powers, Britain and France, which had colonised Indo-China, including Cambodia. Some maps helping define the borders between Thailand and states under protection of those imperial countries were drawn up. However, these were not officially accepted by Bangkok, especially those covering the border between Thailand and Cambodia.While Cambodia continues to use the French maps, Thailand has its own versions and has used them as its border references. And because they use different maps, the two countries claim different borderlines. So, if the French-drawn maps were accepted, much of the area containing oil and gas deposits would go to Cambodia, Vice-Admiral Pratheep said. Last year, Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, who is chairman of the Cambodian National Petroleum Authority (CNPA), declared a "breakthrough" regarding the petroleum exploration by Chevron Overseas Petroleum (Cambodia) Ltd, which obtained permission from Cambodia to explore petroleum resources in 2002. He said, "The overlapping area covers around 27,000 sq km that is thought to be highly prospective for petroleum accumulations."

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/290708_News/29Jul2008_news015.php

==================================================================

Cambodia's line was, to put it mildly, outrageously drawn by the French...

Edited July 29, 2008 by sriracha john

[ovenman]

Samran mentioned this earlier, but the linked article and below map made things a lot clearer and certainly adds a whole new jumble to the on-going mess... 27,000 square kilometers of "jumble"....

As always, follow the money. Or in this case, the potential for making money...

[Plus]

I don't think they are on the same level of understanding and Thailand should deal with them on different terms.

What kind of terms?

Stop being nice and neighbourly.

They encroached on the disputed land, arrested Thai "trespassers" there and claim it as its own, and that is beside snubbing Thailand's nose with unilateral listing. They haven't shown an ounce of goodwill - no joint listing, no value in buildings on Thai side, no value in ancient communities on Thai side, and they claim it all as theirs anyway.

And let's not forget 2003 embassy burning.

All the while they are riding "we a little nation just coming to grips with Khmer Rouge legacy, give us some slack" wave.

[jimbob]

I don't think they are on the same level of understanding and Thailand should deal with them on different terms.

What kind of terms?

Stop being nice and neighbourly.

Like with the Cambodian refugees the Thai Army forced at gunpoint back over the Preah Vihear border to their deaths, as previously noted on this thread?

You seem to be arguing for Thailand to act in an agressive manner yet criticizing Cambodia for allegedly acting in the same way.

I think with this sort of rationale a third party mediator would be the only way to sort this out fairly and without bias.

[Plus]

They are not being friendly now, that's what matters. Right now THEY are being bad neighbours.

If they want to pay back to Thailand for past atrocities, why should Thailand bend over?

It resembles a typical comedy fight with a midget, like Austin Powers with Mini Me. Mini Me might look small and demand special treatment from teh public, but he's vicious and gives Austin a good whipping.

[jimbob]

They are not being friendly now, that's what matters. Right now THEY are being bad neighbours.

And Thailand is a benevolent neighbour?

I think the historical context of the situation is very important.

Trying to make out that Thailand is a good and honest neighbour is fraudulant.

The country's attitude towards Cambodia is well known.

http://preah-vihear.com/thai's-unique-...and-history.htm

The term "contemptible Khmamen" lives on today. This prejudice was so strong that many of the successive Thai generations did not want to have any thing to do with the Khmer people, which has led to the propagation in Thailand of a uniquely Thai version of history relating to the Khmers. History as taught to Thai children has encouraged a terrible prejudicial stereotyping of Khmers which continues, in my experience, to this day.

[Meerkat]

Remind me again:

Which side publicly declared to a United Nations agency last year that they would actively support a Cambodian bid for this year's approval?

Which side then walked out of bilateral meetings/didn't even bother showing up only until they realised that their actions had caused the other side to change tactics (and thereby outmanoeuvre them)?

Who's the "bad neighbour"?

[Plus]

Remind me again:

Ok, Thailand supported Cambodia with their unilateral bid as long as historical value of ruins on Thai side was recognised and they were counted as part of the "Sacred site of Preah Vihear".

Thailand broke off negotiations when Cambodians declared that only what stands on Cambodian soil has any value, and land and communities on Thai side were useless addons not worth preserving.

That's what ticked Thais off.

These self-proclaimed descendants, keepers, and protectors of Khmer civilisation suddenly declared anything within Thai borders as non-Khmer. And, of course, it will become "Khmer" again if these areas fall under Cambodian jurisdiction.

Thailand wanted to develop the site together, in a friendly neighbour manner, it even graciously allowed Cambodians to procede with unilateral listing when they refused to be friends and discuss joint application, Thailand even supported them in that endeavor, but that wasn't enough, they were determined to exclude anything not on their side of the border.

That's when the things turned ugly.

[A_Traveller]

^ Re your first 2 paragraphs, do you have some detail/links on this?

Regards

[Tod Daniels]

Do NOT be so easily duped by the thai media's spin about Khao Phra Viharn and the surrounding area. There is NO such thing as any disputed area; that was hashed out in 1962 with the IJC ruling.

I have previously pointed out, but will again for the thick, just because you disagree with the ruling from the ICJ doesn't mean it's not binding. While Thailand has had the open opportunity to show cause why the ruling is in error, since the ruling they have NEVER offered up a single shred of proof on why it should be modified, or changed. Then again they've only had 46 years to come up with a plausible argument; maybe they need more time.

If you read the decision, see the lackadaisical attitude the thai government exhibited, from 1904 until the ICJ ruling, you can clearly see that they never questioned the demarcation between the countries in that area. They never made changes to the maps from the 1904 survey which included both Thai and French people. Further Siam asked the French to make the maps from the resulting survey as there weren't adequate map making facilities in Siam at the time. Siam even ordered MORE maps and put them into distribution, as well as signed countless more treaties with what was then French Indochina and NEVER ONCE questioned the border in that area, although other areas of border were modified in various treaties.

ALL of the maps Siam used showed the border which the ICJ said was the legitimate border in their ruling, NONE showed any 'disputed area', that's a thai manifestation of a "sour grapes" attitude about losing the decision.

[Tod Daniels]

[A TOPIC OF INTEREST:

Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand

Tonite; The Mystery of Khao Phra Viharn

An Evening with Professor Sompong Sucharitkul

http://www.fccthai.com/Events2.html#PhraViharn

Excerpt about the speaker:

"Somebody who knows more than most about this convoluted legal - and in recent weeks political - story is Professor Sompong Sucharitkul. As a member of the Thai Legal Representation before the ICJ from 1959 to 1962, he was on the losing side of the controversial international ruling - though the decision in Cambodia's favor was by no means unanimous. Professor Sompong studied at Oxford, Paris and Harvard, and became a barrister at law at London's prestigious Middle Temple. As one of Thailand's leading legal minds, his career has taken him to The Hague, the International Law Commission, the United Nations, and a string of professorial chairs at universities in the US, Europe and Thailand. As a top diplomat, he has also served as Thailand's ambassador to the EEC, Japan, Greece, Israel, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal and Italy."

Book early for a fascinating personal insight into an extraordinary story.

Members: No cover charge, buffet dinner is 350 baht

Non-members: 300 baht cover charge without buffet dinner or 650 baht for buffet dinner including cover charge

FWIW: I have NO affiliation with the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, but they do put on interesting talks.

[Plus]

^ Re your first 2 paragraphs, do you have some detail/links on this?

Regards

It's in the first and second installments of Pridiyathorn series

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30078563

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30078674

[Payboy]

to read an interesting viewpoint click here

scroll down to the portion titled "the pad is behind it all"...

thats a letter to bangkok post on 26th july by dr. sumet jumsai....

[Old Man River]

If you read the decision, see the lackadaisical attitude the thai government exhibited, from 1904 until the ICJ ruling, you can clearly see that they never questioned the demarcation between the countries in that area.

What is the ICJ going to do, attack Thailand? How are they going to enforce this "binding" decision?

Comments that Thailand never once questioned ownership of the temple are groundless. Well, maybe it would be correct if one were to not count small things like going to war against France in 1941 over borders including specifically this one. I guess the fact that Thailand's Ministry of Information publicly proclaimed that Thailand had re-taken the temple means to some that they never cared about ownership of the temple. The fact that Thailand put its people in the temple as care takers never occurred to anyone that maybe they thought they owned it. I am sure it pissed the French off when Thailand didn't even see fit to answer France's many letters about ownership of the temple during the 1949 to 1950 period because there was already no question from the Thai side as to who owned the temple. Finally, I guess it appears to some that Thailand's having had troops in the temple area since 1954 also means they don't think they own it.

The legal issues can be discussed ad nauseum with nobody agreeing. What I can't understand is how some say that Thailand never questioned ownership of the temple. Certainly, since 1941, they have demonstrated nothing but ownership.

[hammered]

If you read the decision, see the lackadaisical attitude the thai government exhibited, from 1904 until the ICJ ruling, you can clearly see that they never questioned the demarcation between the countries in that area.

What is the ICJ going to do, attack Thailand? How are they going to enforce this "binding" decision?

Comments that Thailand never once questioned ownership of the temple are groundless. Well, maybe it would be correct if one were to not count small things like going to war against France in 1941 over borders including specifically this one. I guess the fact that Thailand's Ministry of Information publicly proclaimed that Thailand had re-taken the temple means to some that they never cared about ownership of the temple. The fact that Thailand put its people in the temple as care takers never occurred to anyone that maybe they thought they owned it. I am sure it pissed the French off when Thailand didn't even see fit to answer France's many letters about ownership of the temple during the 1949 to 1950 period because there was already no question from the Thai side as to who owned the temple. Finally, I guess it appears to some that Thailand's having had troops in the temple area since 1954 also means they don't think they own it.

The legal issues can be discussed ad nauseum with nobody agreeing. What I can't understand is how some say that Thailand never questioned ownership of the temple. Certainly, since 1941, they have demonstrated nothing but ownership.

Colonialism, colonial powers etc have had a hand in virtually every border dispute we can find today. This one seems no different.

OMR you have to rememeber that many cant let the facts or shall we say compelling evidence get in the way of supporting their politcal horse or in this case maybe favoured country on this site.

[Old Man River]

If you read the decision, see the lackadaisical attitude the thai government exhibited, from 1904 until the ICJ ruling, you can clearly see that they never questioned the demarcation between the countries in that area.

What is the ICJ going to do, attack Thailand? How are they going to enforce this "binding" decision?

Comments that Thailand never once questioned ownership of the temple are groundless. Well, maybe it would be correct if one were to not count small things like going to war against France in 1941 over borders including specifically this one. I guess the fact that Thailand's Ministry of Information publicly proclaimed that Thailand had re-taken the temple means to some that they never cared about ownership of the temple. The fact that Thailand put its people in the temple as care takers never occurred to anyone that maybe they thought they owned it. I am sure it pissed the French off when Thailand didn't even see fit to answer France's many letters about ownership of the temple during the 1949 to 1950 period because there was already no question from the Thai side as to who owned the temple. Finally, I guess it appears to some that Thailand's having had troops in the temple area since 1954 also means they don't think they own it.

The legal issues can be discussed ad nauseum with nobody agreeing. What I can't understand is how some say that Thailand never questioned ownership of the temple. Certainly, since 1941, they have demonstrated nothing but ownership.

Colonialism, colonial powers etc have had a hand in virtually every border dispute we can find today. This one seems no different.

OMR you have to rememeber that many cant let the facts or shall we say compelling evidence get in the way of supporting their politcal horse or in this case maybe favoured country on this site.

I didn't want to say it, but since you have, this is simply a case of a French map, published by the French Commission, leading to a decision by a court which publishes its decisions in French (and English) against a country which went to war against the French about land which was controlled by the French up until 1953.

[Plus]

Well, I try not to favor Thailand in this dispute, though I choose to ignore their nationalists rhetoric that doesn't do them any good. But then again, go to Cambodian forum and the amount of chovinism there is sickening. Neither deserves too much attention, I think.

ICJ ruled against Thailand because Thais didn't conform with ICJ recongised forms of protests. To satisfy ICJ needed to legally contest French maps, going to war with them occupying the land didn't matter.

And that's one more stone over the fence, to Cambodian side - they claim these lands as their own but it was French who argued with Thais about them, not Cambodians. Who knows how it would have been settled if Cambodians slugged it out with Thailand themselves.

Basically, they don't have as much moral ground as they claim.

[jimbob]

And that's one more stone over the fence, to Cambodian side - they claim these lands as their own but it was French who argued with Thais about them, not Cambodians. Who knows how it would have been settled if Cambodians slugged it out with Thailand themselves.

I think it is pretty clear what would have happened if Cambodia was not a protectorate.

Look what happened during WW2 when Thailand annexed Siem Reap and Battambang.

Had this situation remained then the country would have continued to be further encroached upon by Thailand and Vietnam.

One only has to look at the the expansion of Thailand and Vietnam over the last 400 years to see that this has been at the expense of their smaller neighbours.

The Cambodians are well aware of this which is why sentiment is so raised over border issues.

[Plus]

If they can't defend their lands, why scream that they are theirs at every opportunity? You don't hear them saying "French gave them to us", but it's "Thais are stealing our lands" all the time instead.

Anyhow, it's just a background noise - to see where two sides are coming from and what their general sentiments are. Diplomats are far more restrained, usually.

[jimbob]

If they can't defend their lands, why scream that they are theirs at every opportunity?

That is a ridiculous statement.

If somebody robs your house and you cannot defend yourself then of course you should scream for help.

And if your neighbours cannot help you then it is your right to contact the authorities.

Just because a robber is stronger than you does not give them the right to take what is lawfully yours.

[Tod Daniels]

I don't know if any of the Thai Visa "resident international law pundits" made it to the FCCT last nite for the talk about Prasat Preah Vihear (sorry used the Cambodian spelling).

The person who gave the talk; Professor Sompong Sucharitkul, while now boasting a genuinely impressive resume was probably at the age where he was a file clerk when the ICJ's ruling was handed down in 1962.

They had a hand-out touting the merits of only the dissenting judges' opinions, which didn't bode well for the impartiality of the up-coming talk.

Predictably and sadly it was nothing but thai sour-grapes rhetoric, referencing the 3 dissenting (out of a total of 11) judges opinions, didn't quote a single line from the ICJ ruling or its findings, whined about the invalidity of the 1904 treaty due to "gun-boat diplomacy", and the subsequent border survey/map which has come to be known as "Annex 1".

After the talk during the audience question portion of the program the speaker did little to answer questions directly. He wouldn't comment about whether this entire charade was a convenient smoke screen used by the two countries to stir up rampant nationalism while focusing attention away from both governments' dismal record at addressing real domestic issues or problems facing either nation.

He also skirted whether a non-unanimous decision invalidated the ICJ's ruling (which FYI; it doesn't), whether in the intervening 26 years if Thailand had ever shown a shred of further documentation to prove their allegations that the survey was wrong (which FYI; they haven't), or to address the fact that in 1934-35 the newly created "Thai Survey Division" re-surveyed EVERY border of Thailand with neighboring countries and produced their own map showing the SAME exact boundary (which FYI; they did), or why in subsequent treaties with French Indo-China in 1925, 1937 (just two years after the thai only re-survey) that the area of Prasat Preah Vihear was not brought into contention (which FYI; it wasn't) even though several other areas were disputed and subsequently re-mapped. He also went on about how if you went far enough back in history that parts of Cambodia were Thailand, a fact rebutted by going even further back in history which shows Thailand was only the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya areas with the entire rest of the country belonging mostly to the Khmer.

All in all a predictable display of the mythical "thai logic" and an endless droning on about the injustice of it all, made even more tedious by the fact that the speaker in addition to being thai was also a lawyer who evidently liked to hear himself talk.

It would have been good to have a Cambodian representative there to give a more equal perspective on it all, but this being thailand, I guess we can't have everything.

Still a good nite though.

[Old Man River]

I don't know if any of the Thai Visa "resident international law pundits" made it to the FCCT last nite for the talk about Prasat Preah Vihear (sorry used the Cambodian spelling).

The person who gave the talk; Professor Sompong Sucharitkul, while now boasting a genuinely impressive resume was probably at the age where he was a file clerk when the ICJ's ruling was handed down in 1962.

They had a hand-out touting the merits of only the dissenting judges' opinions, which didn't bode well for the impartiality of the up-coming talk.

Predictably and sadly it was nothing but thai sour-grapes rhetoric, referencing the 3 dissenting (out of a total of 11) judges opinions, didn't quote a single line from the ICJ ruling or its findings, whined about the invalidity of the 1904 treaty due to "gun-boat diplomacy", and the subsequent border survey/map which has come to be known as "Annex 1".

After the talk during the audience question portion of the program the speaker did little to answer questions directly. He wouldn't comment about whether this entire charade was a convenient smoke screen used by the two countries to stir up rampant nationalism while focusing attention away from both governments' dismal record at addressing real domestic issues or problems facing either nation.

He also skirted whether a non-unanimous decision invalidated the ICJ's ruling (which FYI; it doesn't), whether in the intervening 26 years if Thailand had ever shown a shred of further documentation to prove their allegations that the survey was wrong (which FYI; they haven't), or to address the fact that in 1934-35 the newly created "Thai Survey Division" re-surveyed EVERY border of Thailand with neighboring countries and produced their own map showing the SAME exact boundary (which FYI; they did), or why in subsequent treaties with French Indo-China in 1925, 1937 (just two years after the thai only re-survey) that the area of Prasat Preah Vihear was not brought into contention (which FYI; it wasn't) even though several other areas were disputed and subsequently re-mapped. He also went on about how if you went far enough back in history that parts of Cambodia were Thailand, a fact rebutted by going even further back in history which shows Thailand was only the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya areas with the entire rest of the country belonging mostly to the Khmer.

All in all a predictable display of the mythical "thai logic" and an endless droning on about the injustice of it all, made even more tedious by the fact that the speaker in addition to being thai was also a lawyer who evidently liked to hear himself talk.

It would have been good to have a Cambodian representative there to give a more equal perspective on it all, but this being thailand, I guess we can't have everything.

Still a good nite though.

So, basically, someone else who you would call thick because they don't agree with you. Out of curiosity, if you feel so negative about Thai's why don't you leave the country?

[Chaimai]

So, basically, someone else who you would call thick because they don't agree with you. Out of curiosity, if you feel so negative about Thai's why don't you leave the country?

I think I must have read a different post - I didn't see anywhere that T-D referenced the speaker as being "thick" (I think 'an impressive resume was referred to'). Nor did I see any evidence of negativity towards Thais. I interpreted the post as a criticism of the biased nature of the presentation/presenter.

[Old Man River]

So, basically, someone else who you would call thick because they don't agree with you. Out of curiosity, if you feel so negative about Thai's why don't you leave the country?

I think I must have read a different post - I didn't see anywhere that T-D referenced the speaker as being "thick" (I think 'an impressive resume was referred to'). Nor did I see any evidence of negativity towards Thais. I interpreted the post as a criticism of the biased nature of the presentation/presenter.

The comments are on this page! To help you:

"I have previously pointed out, but will again for the thick, just because you disagree with the ruling from the ICJ doesn't mean it's not binding."

There are many in Thailand that don't see it this way so I guess they must all be thick. Certainly, the speaker last night didn't agree.

Chaimai, what is this mythical Thai logic that T-D said that Thai's have? Since you seem to support these comments, can you explain to me why someone would say Thai logic is mythical?

[A_Traveller]

^ So now no rule of international law for Thais {presumably, because they are culturally different} just like no rule of internal law.

You know the concept that you argue your case to the best of your ability and a panel of judges make a binding decision {you agreed to that when you went into the process}, you decide not to appeal during the period set aside for such an action, and then after all this, you, when it suits you, argue it's not binding.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited July 31, 2008 by A_Traveller