Thai Troops Enter Disputed Territory On Thai-cambodian Border

[jimbob]

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

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

My point stands.

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

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

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

[Old Man River]

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

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

My point stands.

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

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

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

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

[slimdog]

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

The joint communique states no such thing.

Item 4 of the communique states:

Pending the results of the work of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary (JBC)

concerning the northern and western areas surrounding the Temple of Preah Vihear,

which are identified as N. 3 in the map mentioned in Paragraph 1 above, the

management plan of these areas will be prepapred in a concerted manner between the

Cambodian and Thai authorities in conformity with the international conservation

standards with a view to maintain the outstanding universal value of the property.

Such management plan will be included in the final management plan for the Temple

and it's surrounding areas to be submitted to the World heritage Centre by 1st February

2010 for the consideration of the World heritage Commitee at it's 34th session in

2010;

Item 5 states:

The inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage list shall be

without prejudice to the rights of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of

Thailand on the demarcation works of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary (JBC)

of the two countries

So a more accurate interpretation would be:

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

Full copy of the Joint communique can be found at:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/pdf/jointcommunique.pdf

[jimbob]

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

I am neither Cambodian nor Thai.

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

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

[jimbob]

So a more accurate interpretation would be:

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

Yes, I would agree with that.

[Old Man River]

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

I am neither Cambodian nor Thai.

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

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

The UN didn't want to discuss the dispute and neither does any other international body so how important can this ICJ ruling really be? This ruling had the country of France written all over it (it was even published in French), yet, the French Embassy's current view is that this is a bilateral issue or at best a regional issue. In today's world, that decision is a dead issue.

[jimbob]

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

They could not block UNESCO though could they?

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

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

[AlKing]

If PAD can occupy the PM office, why can't they just occupied the temple. The Khmer court may issue a warrent of arrest (just like the Thai court), just ignore it (like always).

I remember Sondhi once mentioned something like (not exact quote) "The Khumer do not have the guts to fight the Thai".

[Old Man River]

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

They could not block UNESCO though could they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sriracha john]

Cambodia, Thailand set for more border talks

Cambodia and Thailand will resume talks on the disputed border area on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Political representatives from both countries will meet next Monday at the UN for negotiations on disputed land near ancient temples along their border.

Much of the Cambodian-Thai border remains in dispute, and the slow pace of demining has delayed demarcation of it.

Tensions flared in July after the ancient Khmer temple of Preah Vihear was awarded world heritage status by UNESCO, angering nationalists in Thailand.

The International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 that the temple belongs to Cambodia, but surrounding land remains in dispute.

- Radio Australia / 2008-09-22

[Scott]

How about the first one to demine an area gets it. That should speed up the demining!

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AlKing]

How about the first one to demine an area gets it. That should speed up the demining!

I have a more relistic approach which reflect the acutal happenings. How about the first one to MINE an area gets it.

[wayfarer108]

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

I am neither Cambodian nor Thai.

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

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

The UN didn't want to discuss the dispute and neither does any other international body so how important can this ICJ ruling really be? This ruling had the country of France written all over it (it was even published in French), yet, the French Embassy's current view is that this is a bilateral issue or at best a regional issue. In today's world, that decision is a dead issue.

Well said, Old Man River. On top of which, Thailand is not disputing the ICJ ruling, so I cannot understand why jimbob keeps bringing it up. The ICJ ruling is 100% unrelated. Ditto for UNESCO, although the fact that Cambodia unilaterally applied and included areas *not* in the ICJ ruling means that it is Cambodia who are not abiding by that ruling. Not the Thais.

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

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

My point stands.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited September 23, 2008 by wayfarer108

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

How the hel_l can you people justify that?

[Old Man River]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In today's world, this is a local border issue, not an international crisis. It was not surprising in the least that the UN Security Council refused to get involved. As to the others you mentioned, where were they when Burma was shooting Buddhist monks and journalists in the street? Cambodia and Thailand will work their issues out themselves.

As for Thailand's continuing economic and political issues, this is what new politics is all about and based on your comments, I am happy to hear that you support it.

[wayfarer108]

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

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

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

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

How the hel_l can you people justify that?

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

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Plus]

The main problem lies in the Thai inability to negotiate due to political problems and also the actions and words of various political factions in the Thailand.

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

Thais can put Sondhi aside, he doesn't represent Thailand in this negotiations.

As I see it, the latest crisis was entirely of Cambodian making - they shouldn't have pushed Preah Vihear issue untilaterally over Thai objections, and it happened well before Noppadon messed everything up.

[Old Man River]

The main problem lies in the Thai inability to negotiate due to political problems and also the actions and words of various political factions in the Thailand.

Note, I got your point. I just don't think the diplomatic embarrassment over the constant changing of FM's and policies is as catastrophic as you do as it relates to this specific dispute. If a war between Thailand and Cambodia over this issue ever broke out, then I would completely agree with you as diplomatic negotiations would be of utmost importance. Just not now.

[jimbob]

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

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

[Plus]

Well, things are moving slowly forward, there is hope.

Wait until they start arguing over oil reserves in the Gulf. That would be fun.

[Old Man River]

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

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

The border issue won't be resolved soon. It has been going on for more than one hundred years.

Thailand is different from other countries in that it has different power groups. This makes it very difficult to understand that the military is separate from the government and its loyalty lies elsewhere (and thankfully so).

[dumball]

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

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

The border issue won't be resolved soon. It has been going on for more than one hundred years.

Thailand is different from other countries in that it has different power groups. This makes it very difficult to understand that the military is separate from the government and its loyalty lies elsewhere (and thankfully so).

Do not over estimate the power of the Thai army , they got routed by the rag-tag laos defenders , there is far more to Cambodia than you give credit for , a-la Mr Hun Sen , private army , what private army ? Thailand , beware the ides of whenever .

[jacksen]

I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies.Those are the words of satirist and serial complainer Pietro Aretino, who annoyed the great and not so good of the 16th Century with a flurry of public correspondence to the editors of his age.

A letter of appreciation from Professor Fred Brown of the Johns Hopkins University Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), here in Washington DC.

-----------------------

jacksen

word-of-mouth

[Richard W]

Just look at the temple and tell something straight from your heart. Does it look "Khmer" (e.g. Angkor Wat) or "Thai" (e.g. Wat Phra Kaew) to you?

You *could* say that the main object inside that temple was stolen from the Lao, the same applies to large parts of Issaan.

Actually, it comes from Lanna. King Setthathirath, a Lao prince who had inherited a claim to the kingdom of Lanna, took it with him when he abandoned Lanna.

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

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

[jimbob]

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

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

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

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

[sabaijai]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Old Man River]

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

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

The border issue won't be resolved soon. It has been going on for more than one hundred years.

Thailand is different from other countries in that it has different power groups. This makes it very difficult to understand that the military is separate from the government and its loyalty lies elsewhere (and thankfully so).

Do not over estimate the power of the Thai army , they got routed by the rag-tag laos defenders , there is far more to Cambodia than you give credit for , a-la Mr Hun Sen , private army , what private army ? Thailand , beware the ides of whenever .

You, obviously, didn't read what I wrote and simply responded with what you wanted to say. Do you do this often? If you read what I wrote more closely you will see my comments related to the Thai military's position internally in Thailand and had absolutely nothing to do with an external conflict.