Thai Troops Enter Disputed Territory On Thai-cambodian Border

[jimbob]

It will never be a fact that ethnicity equals nationality. Not by any authoritative English dictionary, nor by any political scientist. That sort of muddling --equating nationality with ethnicity -- was tried in Nazi Germany and at many other junctures in history, more recently in the lands of former Yugoslavia.

I think this comparison is not fair at all. This is about national heritage not racial supremacy.

There is a direct link of descendence between Angkorian Cambodia and modern day Cambodia but while Cambodia certainly has a ethnic claim on these border temples it is their legal claim that is strongest in terms of international law.

As I have said before Cambodia has a much stronger case than Thailand in terms of the border areas, if taken to an international court Thailand would be trounced.

[Plus]

What makes this Angkorian period so special to modern day Cambodia, it is an equal descendant of ALL the cultures and empires and kingdoms that came before and after Angkor? I sense it's simply because Angkor empire was the largest among many Cambodians want to lay claim on, it's a matter of growing appetite.

Why not stick to pre-Angkor Cambodia? Or post Angkor? Why not be content as a modern day country with whatever land France left them?

[jimbob]

What makes this Angkorian period so special to modern day Cambodia, it is an equal descendant of ALL the cultures and empires and kingdoms that came before and after Angkor? I sense it's simply because Angkor empire was the largest among many Cambodians want to lay claim on, it's a matter of growing appetite.

Why not stick to pre-Angkor Cambodia? Or post Angkor? Why not be content as a modern day country with whatever land France left them?

Many parts of the Angkor Wat complex were built both before and after the Angkorian Empire and Preah Vihear was started centuries beforehand so there goes your theory.

The Cambodians are more than happy to keep what "France left them" and are explicity willing to honour the 1907 border treaty, apparently Thailand is not.

[Plus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sriracha john]

Thai, Cambodian troops to end Ta Kwai row

Thai and Cambodian troops planned to negotiate and end the border dispute around Ta Kwai temple, also known as Ta Krabey in Cambodia, at the end of September, according to Thailand’s Suranaree Task Force commander, Maj-Gen Kanok Netrakhawesana. Maj-Gen Kanok said both sides agreed to reduce the number of soldiers to an equal amount, and they will be stationed at least 300 metres away from the site. Previously, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen accused Thai army officials of intruding the Khmer sanctuary of Ta Kwai as well as Ta Moan Thom. Ta Kwai temple is situated in the northeastern province of Surin, approximately 13 kilometres to the east of Ta Moan Thom temple and 150 kilometres to the

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=130807

[dumball]

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOW , someone who looks at both sides in an unbiased manner , probably read the history when Campuchea was ruled by the Khymer people and erected most of the temples , Cambodia , Thailand , Laos , part of burma and half of Vietnam . Thailand stole most of what was Siam , now Thailand , inherited much of what was Khymer , apsala dancing , language , religion , muay-thai boxing , Thailand is a shadow country of the once powerfull Campuchea , like it or not .

[Plus]

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

How about a source?

The US has a whole list of "rogue countries" and they don't use this term as derogatory. I don't recall Bush describing them as thieves with twisted minds.

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

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

That was a genuine rogue behavior, btw.

Without attitude adjustment on the part of Cambodians there will be no mutual agreement. They have to realise that they can't use this kind of language with their negotiation partner. French should have taught them some manners.

[jimbob]

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

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

Not under his supervision.

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

How about a source?

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

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

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

[sriracha john]

Hun Sen confident of resolution

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has expressed confidence that Thailand and Cambodia can settle their border disputes now Thailand has a new leader. In a message to new PM Somchai Wongsawat, Hun Sen extended his congratulations on the occasion of Somchai being voted by the House of Representatives as new premier. Hun Sen also touched on the possibility of improving ties between the two countries. ''I have strong confidence that under your wise leadership, Cambodia and Thailand will soon be able to peacefully and legally settle all the current border issues between our countries in the spirit of friendship and good neighbourliness,'' he said. *I wonder if he also added, Having the brother-in-law of one of our country's biggest casino investors will be mutually beneficial to both of our interests.* Earlier on Thursday, the two prime ministers also talked on the phone and reiterated their commitment to resolve border conflicts through existing bilateral mechanisms, according to the Foreign Ministry's Information Department. Both parties recalled their earlier meeting on May 14 during the opening ceremony of Route 48, a road linking the two countries and running through to the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh, at a time when Somchai was Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister. ***

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/210908_News/21Sep2008_news07.php

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

*** : An event detailed here:

it's the Thai FM working for the other side. Actually for Thaksin's investment in Koh Kong but we can't prove that at the moment, can we? Still, does anyone here really believe two deals are unconnected? I don't think so.

Particularly in light of the new road that Thai taxpayers spent one Billion Baht on... that leads to the front door of

Thaksin's Golden Square-Head Casino and Resort... *available for bookings soon*

Noppadope was even the ribbon-cutter at the grand opening a month ago... oh, and look... even the brother-in-law was on hand...

He's STILL using the Thai taxpayer for his own personal financial gain.... :D

First.... build the road at taxpayer's expense...

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama cuts a large ribbon to mark the opening of Road 48 in Koh Kong while Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, left, and Thailand Deputy Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, right, look on. The road project was financed by the Thai government.

Then use that new road to facilitate....

Thaksin 'wants to open Koh Kong casino'

Thaksin Shinawatra is interested in developing another casino and entertainment complex in the Cambodian province of Koh Kong, Cambodian Defence Minister Teah Banh said yesterday. The Cambodian minister said in Koh Kong that talks about Mr Thaksin's plan were still unofficial. ''Prime Minister Hun Sen trusted and wanted Thaksin to advise on developing Koh Kong as a special economic zone,'' the general said. Koh Kong now has a casino complex operated by Koh Kong International, a firm owned by Pat Supapa, a senator representing the province and former governor. Gen Teah Banh was speaking as he joined Hun Sen and Cambodian Deputy PM Sok An in opening Road 48 and four new bridges. The road was built with one billion baht in financial assistance from Thailand. The Thai side was led by Deputy PM [and Thaksin brother-in-law] Somchai Wongsawat and Foreign Minister [and Thaksin lawyer/spokesman] Noppadon Pattama.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/15May2008_news05.php

[animatic]

Where better to launder your off shore sterling /euros /dollars into CASH baht,

than at the just cross border casinos?

Even add a new road, controled by Dr. T's. police class buddies no doubt,

to quickly speed the sheep to be fleeced of cash,

and then pick up trucks filled with cash right back to finance

political gerry mandering in Issan, and keep the Friends of Newin in line.

A perfect fit.

No doubt Hun Sens people have no problem taking

euro/$/Lbs for baht all day long in exchange.

Hard cash for political power for BOTH sides,

and gives Vatana something to do too.

[Plus]

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

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

Not under his supervision.

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

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

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

Sam Rainsy's Statement - February 1, 2003

...

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

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

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

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

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

How about a source?

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

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

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

Huns Sen's quote was all over the news last week. Why do you need a source now? Missed it?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../376674/1/.html

>>

"Guerilla tactcs" is not a derogatory term, I presume it was used as in "employing guerilla tactics". The usual diplomatic language when they rant about something.

I can't say for sure because I can't find a source and you haven't provided it, you might just made it up.

I'm surprised that "rogue" is the worst word from Sondhi's mouth he ever said about Cambodia. Whatever he said, he doesn't represent Thailand in these talks, and if he was speaking to Cambodians he'd probably used a different language.

Hun Sen, on the other hand, is a Prime Minister.

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

[animatic]

Most certainly when USA puts a country on the Rogue States List

it IS derogatory in the extreme. For a politician or goverentment spokesman

to use this word on the record, he KNOWS what it means in diplomatic circles.

Only worse is Axis of Evil rhetoric.

If some commentator or protester with no government position says it in public,

it is rhetorical and nothing more.

[Plus]

See, Thais have been nice to them - they didn't call then "Axis of Evil", only a "rogue state", and only by Sondhi, not officially.

[jimbob]

Sam Rainsy's Statement - February 1, 2003

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

Which country is facing allegations of mass democratic fraud?

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

[Plus]

I don't think Thailand accuses Cambodia of anything like that. Thais are too polite.

I did, in anonimous internet forum.

[sabaijai]

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

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

Below is the summary of the ICJ ruling.

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

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

(MERITS)

Judgment of 15 June 1962

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

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

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

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

*

* *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[slimdog]

A lot has been stated regarding the joint communique which former Foreign Minister Noppadol signed as part of the application for Cambodia's listing of Preah Vihear as a world heritage site, some have even suggested that Noppadol should be tried for treason..

It was therefore slightly interesting, (At least for me, to read the following), from a Cambodian blog:

CAMBODIA AND THAILAND JOINT COMMUNIQUE

Originally, Thailand was opposed to Cambodia’s proposal to UNESCO for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. Thailand objected to the languages and maps in the document that Cambodia submitted to UNESCO showing the contested areas surrounding Preah Vihear as belonging to Cambodia. In order to enlist Thailand’s support, Cambodia agreed to put aside her claim to the disputed areas around the Temple of Preah Vihear. A Joint Communiqué was signed on 18 June 2008 by H.E. Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, representing Cambodia, and by H.E. Minister of Foreign Affairs Noppadon Pattama, representing Thailand. The Representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Assistant Director-General for Culture Françoise Rivière, was the witness. The Joint Communiqué is presented herein.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JOINT COMMUNIQUE

After the Joint Communiqué was signed, the Thai Constitutional Court voted 8-1 on 8 July 2008 that the Joint Communiqué signed by Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama to endorse Cambodia’s application to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear as World Heritage List was unconstitutional. The ruling stated that "The government must consult and get approval from Parliament before signing treaties with foreign countries." As a result of this ruling, the Thai government withdrew her support for Cambodia in all matters related to the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In spite of Thailand’s objection, the UNESCO approved to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage List at the 32nd session meeting in Quebec, Canada, on 7 July 2008.

It seemed that Cambodia and Thailand had the same philosophy but two completely different objectives. The philosophy from both sides was to divide and conquer. Cambodia was interested in getting UNESCO to list the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site first and deal with the issue of the territorial dispute around Preah Vihear later. On the other hand, Thailand was mainly interested in Cambodia to exclude the territorial dispute from the application to UNESCO.

The objective from the Cambodian government was to expect that the UNESCO approval to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List was a tacit way of legitimizing Cambodia’s claim for the disputed areas around Preah Vihear. However, from the Thai government’s point of view, the signature of the Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister on the Joint Communiqué was considered a breakthrough that opened the door for Thailand to reclaim the disputed areas around Preah Vihear that she had lost at the International Court of Justice on 15 June 1962.

The first question now ensued.

Since the Thai government withdrew her support for Cambodia’s application to UNESCO for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List, would the Joint Communiqué that was signed by the Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama become null and void? It requires two persons to tango.

The second question ensued.

Was the Joint Communiqué signed by Deputy Prime Minister Sok, Un-Constitutional under Cambodian’s laws? Like Thailand, does the government of Cambodia require consultation and approval from the Parliament before any treaties can be signed with foreign governments? A treaty deals with the national security of the nation. Therefore, it is too important for the government alone to decide it without consultation and approval from the Parliament.

The third question ensued.

Even though Cambodia did not recognize the claim by Thailand concerning the disputed areas around the Temple of Preah Vihear, would the Joint Communiqué somewhat give credence to Thailand’s claim?

Paragraph 3 in the Joint Communiqué is very disturbing because it says that the map shown in Figure 14 supersedes other maps, specifically the “Schéma Directeur pour le Zonage de Preah Vihear” and all the “core zone” mentioned in all graphics.

Does this mean that the Cambodian government rejects the map from the French-Siamese Commission Frontier1907 Line?

Paragraph 4 is also disturbing because it conforms to the claim by Thailand concerning the disputed area, which is on the west and north of the Temple of Preah Vihear (Figure 15).

The Joint Communiqué cannot be left in its current format and understanding because it is more detrimental to Cambodia but more advantageous to Thailand. Like the Thai, The Cambodian Constitutional Court must declare that the Joint Communiqué was unconstitutional to avoid further challenges from Thailand. Cambodia territorial integrity is more important than the listing of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.

Note: I have slightly (2 instances) edited the original, but only for spelling.

Original can be found at:

http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2008/07/preah...r-heritage.html

[jimbob]

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

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

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

[slimdog]

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

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

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

Regardless of the Unesco side, Thailand's Constitutional court has ruled that the Joint Communique is an International Treaty between Thailand and Cambodia. The reason that I posted the piece was to question why would certain people within Thailand be so adament that the "Treaty" be torn up.

For the first time Cambodia has formally accepted there is a disputed area, and that the map used at the ICJ would/could be superceded. Considering the reasons for giving sovereignty of the Temple to Cambodia, it would at least give Thailand some ammunition if the matter was ever brought up either at the UN or ICJ, to actually demand that this "ammunition" is torn up seems almost unbelievable.

It certainly doesn't appear to me, to be in Thailand's best interest to do anything other than to formally introduce this "Treaty" to Parliament for ratification.

[wayfarer108]

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

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

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

Regardless of the Unesco side, Thailand's Constitutional court has ruled that the Joint Communique is an International Treaty between Thailand and Cambodia. The reason that I posted the piece was to question why would certain people within Thailand be so adament that the "Treaty" be torn up.

For the first time Cambodia has formally accepted there is a disputed area, and that the map used at the ICJ would/could be superceded. Considering the reasons for giving sovereignty of the Temple to Cambodia, it would at least give Thailand some ammunition if the matter was ever brought up either at the UN or ICJ, to actually demand that this "ammunition" is torn up seems almost unbelievable.

It certainly doesn't appear to me, to be in Thailand's best interest to do anything other than to formally introduce this "Treaty" to Parliament for ratification.

Good point.

[wayfarer108]

Below is the summary of the ICJ ruling.

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

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

(MERITS)

Judgment of 15 June 1962

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

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

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

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

*

* *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

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

[AlKing]

Has the war started already? If not, why not. We should settle this by force.

[wayfarer108]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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