Pad Rally To Demand Govt Rid Disputed Territory Near Temple Of Cambodians

[LomSak27]

Interesting - Plus you think the PADs are going to ask the military why the KR were allowed to occupy that land for a couple decades ... or is that something that shouldn't be discussed

[Plus]

"We Thai patriots want to declare our intent to form a people's network to restore Thai sovereignty to the surrounding areas of Prasat Phra Wiharn," Veera said.

He pledged to pursue every legal means to reclaim Thai territory. He also warned officials that they would be penalised if they were caught involved in the territorial violations.

He went on to complain against the Cambodian government for allowing Cambodian villagers and soldiers to settle and build a road on Thai soil.

He called for an immediate withdrawal by Cambodia from Thai property. He urged the Thai military to take action under martial law to repel the transgression."

[tig28]

For umpteenth time - it wasn't PAD who provoked the fight, PAD had every right to demonstrate.

Plus is right on again!!

Those stupid locals of his lured the PAD to come all the way up to Si Saket so they could trick them into defending themselves. "Those bloody invisible hands, or invisible bloody hands" obviously forced PAD into violence. If that is not evident to all then you are just not trying!!

The fact that the stupid locals so strongly resented the wisdom that PAD was bringing to the region merely underlines their stupidity. PAD knows best just how to resolve this dispute --- and woe betide anyone who tries to prevent them from doing whatever they wish.

What is wrong with PAD, or anyone else, asking the govt why that was allowed to happen and what they govt is going to do about it. Democrat's response that it is a sensitive issue that shouldn't be brought in public is reasonable, now they have to explain what they are doing to PAD leaders who would in turn convey it to the people.

That's a good question PLUS --- but perhaps there is a better one. Why did they simply not do just that ?

Why did they choose instead to travel to a region that has seen more than its fair share of tension, violence and death to stage this ?? ---- that is a perfectly reasonable course of action --- and one that shall no doubt contribute greatly to the efforts to actually resolve the dispute.

Those stupid locals have no right to try to prevent what they see as a deliberate attempt to increase tensions in a region they must live in --- long after the just, right-minded,non-violent bringers of wisdom of PAD have stirred as much trouble as possible --- then returned home to leave we who live here to reap the fruits of their efforts.

The total blame for this violence obviously rests with:

1 "Those bloody invisible hands, or invisible bloody hands"

2 The oh so obvious "provocation if not outright setup"

3 Poor training/preparation of the police/army.

4 The stupid locals.

5 The transport companies who brought the peaceful PAD protesters to Si Saket.

6 Bad/biased press reporting.

7 Agent provocateurs paid to cause trouble within the peaceful PAD ranks.

Oh.... and by the way the real leaders of PAD wish to distance themselves from this --- it was all really down to ..... eh.... you know.... whats his name? .....

Anyway not us!!

[hammered]

PAD lost loads of sympathisers after airport and when Dems became government.

PAD lost support when the party was formed.

PAD split over the temple thingy and likely to lose more support.

PAD will become resurgent and untied again only if it looks likely Thaksin will come back either through ammendments or street action or.....

In the meantime the PAD need to keep their small core together and hence need an issue or two. Nationalism always works well in Thailand. There are also larger boundary issues with Cambodia that will become important int eh future as they involve potantial resources off coast.

It was easy for the PAD when they had Thaksin around. It easy to unite people of disparate backgrounds and politics against something but not easy to unite such disparate groups for something. Funnily enough the reds find that too.

[Plus]

That's a good question PLUS --- but perhaps there is a better one. Why did they simply not do just that ?

Saw this on Bangkok Pundit:

Thai Post reports Key PAD leader Chamlong as saying he knows nothing about what went on and that if the PM wants to send someone to negotiate then that negotiator should speak with Veera, the leader in Srisaket.

Suriyasai is quoted as saying that he wants the government to be sincere and to give importance to solving the Preah Vihear issue which is creating a confrontation between those live there and the Movement for the return of Preah Vihear as up until now the government didn't place importance of the true facts and let the confrontation develop. Suriyasai believes that villager in the area do not have the correct facts and the truth of the problem as the government conceals the information all the time and instigates conflict between villagers and the movement.

Panthep, a PAD spokesman, is of the view that last year Veera went to the area and found out the truth about what the Cambodians were doing and that they had encroached onto Thai territory. Veera has previously called for the PM to do three things. First, for Abhisit to do something by September 19. Second, if not meet the first condition, the government must give an answer on removing the Cambodians from the territory. Third, Veera has requested to go on national TV with the government on whether there has been encroachment on Thai territory or not.

Panthep said there has been no resolution of the PAD leaders for Veera to go, but the people who went were PAD followers.

http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/...t-srisaket.html

[geriatrickid]

Mr. Plus, you certainly have some convoluted logic. Let's have a look at a few of your statements;;

1. Afaik, they are squatters, they were not born there, they moved in when tourism trade boomed.

What's your point? Many people that work in the tourist trade on Phuket were not born there either. Does that make them less human? How do you know they are squatters? I think they are locals born in the area. Even if they were not, not being born somewhere doesn't mean they are unworthy of human rights and due process. Maybe you should think that sentiment through again ok?

2. The police has no right to block a peaceful rally either. Also keep in mind that there was a stalemate for several hours during which provincial governor tried to persuade PAD to abandon their plan, and then hel_l broke lose.

Many riots often start out as "peaceful". It's peaceful as the crowds arrive. It's peaceful until the mob organizers let lose with their violent rhetoric. The police had an obligation and a duty to stop the illegal gathering. Considering that you are always bleating on about the need for Thaksin to be jailed, because it's the legal thing to do, how about you consider the fact that there was no meeting permit issued, the crowds were trespassing on land where they should not have been for part of their protest and the organizers were attempting to provoke conflict between two countries.

3. For umpteenth time - it wasn't PAD who provoked the fight, PAD had every right to demonstrate.

Who were those idiots who thought PAD had to be stopped by force?

What part about unlawful assembly to cause public disorder do you not understand? If they wanted to demonstrate, they could have had their event in Bangkok. Why was there a need to trespass in a village populated by impoverished people trying to eke out a living and to demand that martial law be imposed upon these people? What gives PAD the right to demand martial law be imposed? There was no conflict in the area until PAD showed up banging its war drums. Or are you calling the Prime Minister and his cabinet idiots because the PM directed the police to intervene and stop the attempt to provoke the Cambodians. Think about what you are defending. PAD wants Thailand to go to war over this place. The thing is that it won't be the PAD members or the families that will die in any war. They will have the money to buy their way out of service. It will be the poor rural kids sent to go and die. When arrogant people prone to displays of conspicuous consumption show up in a poor area and start telling the locals that they are stupid, weak and that there should be a war where these poor people stand to become refugees, don't you think the locals would be angry?

4. Now they have to explain what they are doing to PAD leaders who would in turn convey it to the people.

No they don't. Who are you or PAD to tell the government what to do? PAD represents a specific interest group. PAD is not the "people". Nor does the government need PAD to convey anything to the people. The government is supposed to represent the people. If PAD wants the role of dictating to the people, then let it get elected. Or are elections no longer necessary?

And what's up with PAD's obsession with martial law? Not everyone wants to live under overt military rule. what's next, a festival in honour of Benito Mussolini? BTW, people that clamour for wars are usually the ones that have never served in a war zone. Ever wonder why it's the toughest veterans of war that do their utmost to avoid war? Border disputes cause refugee crises. Is PAD prepared to take in the Thai refugees? Is PAD prepared its own to die in the war? I don't think so. Is PAD prepared to deal with the Vietnamese? Vietnam will help Cambodia if Cambodia is invaded. The khmer can tough out a war, Thailand cannot.

PAD didn't think this through and nor did you.

Edited September 21, 2009 by geriatrickid

[Plus]

Geriatrickid,

1. Being born somewhere doesn't give you the right to settle on any piece of land regardless of borders and ownership. Cambodian villagers in the disputed area are squatters.

2. People in this country are free to organize rallies anywhere they want, it's not illegal and they don't need to apply for "protest permits" and PAD wasn't trespassing on anything.

3. There was no "unlawful assembly" of any kind that needed to be stopped by force.

4. PAD does represent people, even if not all of them. The government should answer to people's concerns. If it doesn't want to talk to the public openly, it can explain the situation to PAD leaders first.

Your views on the right to assembly and govt relations with the people smack of totalitarianism and dictatorship.

[Credo]

Geriatrickid, thanks for an excellent post. As soon as some of the apologists are back on their meds, we hope to see a remission of their delusions of gradure.

It seems that since they have let the PAD do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want in Bangkok, they can do the same all over the country. They might be in for a rude awakening.

[Plus]

It seems that since they have let the PAD do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want in Bangkok, they can do the same all over the country. They might be in for a rude awakening.

It's people who haven't realized that this country has a freedom of assembly that are for rude awakening.

[Credo]

Wow, Dorothy, were not in Kansas in anymore.

It seems that that freedom only extends to the PAD. It also seems that they think it extends into Cambodia.

They might do better staying in their own little ethnic enclaves because they aren't welcome where the real Thais live.

[Plus]

The blockade was set on Thai public road.

they aren't welcome where the real Thais live.

<deleted>???

[Credo]

And who granted permission for them to close the roads down to hold a rally?

The military? The police? The local authorities? Or was it just their unilateral decision?

[hammered]

Wow, Dorothy, were not in Kansas in anymore.

It seems that that freedom only extends to the PAD. It also seems that they think it extends into Cambodia.

They might do better staying in their own little ethnic enclaves because they aren't welcome where the real Thais live.

This sounds like a racist comment

[Samuian]

Wow, Dorothy, were not in Kansas in anymore.

It seems that that freedom only extends to the PAD. It also seems that they think it extends into Cambodia.

They might do better staying in their own little ethnic enclaves because they aren't welcome where the real Thais live.

This sounds like a racist comment

Hugely ignorant, rant!

Is it about this "devide", the Thai divide people love to talk about,

between the "real Thai" who live up country and the others who live

in cities and happen to be a bit better off, are the "lesser Thai"?

How thicker this can get - I wonder!

[eggomaniac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preah_Vihear_Temple#Location

Seems Thailand had chances to claim and defend Preah Vihear, in the long ago Past but, more or less, legally let the Site slip through their hands, especially now that Cambodia built an access road.

Probably the biggest hurdle to a claim was this >>> """Following this both Cambodia and Thailand were in full agreement that Preah Vihear Temple had "Outstanding Universal Value" and should be inscribed on the World Heritage List as soon as possible. The two nations agreed that Cambodia should propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand. This led to a redrawing of the map of the area for proposed inscription, removing the 4.2sq kilometres of border territory awarded to Cambodia but still occupied by Thailand and leaving only the temple and its immediate environs.""" <<< This was an excellent solution for Thailand, with the 4.2 sq kms returned to Thailand. Thailand would have land for lodgings and amenities, while Cambodia would not. They would both benefit from 'pass through' tourism. Thailand gained valuable land!

But then; flop and flip>>> Thailand's political opposition launched an attack on this revised plan claiming the inclusion of Preah Vihear could "consume" the overlapping area of the dispute lands. In response to the political pressure at home, Thailand withdrew its formal support for the listing of Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage site.

Right or wrong, Thailand has lost any legal standing. While it is my personal opinion Thailand was robbed of the land, they never filed a timely complaint.

In 1904, Siam and the French colonial authorities ruling Cambodia formed a joint commission to demarcate their mutual border. In the vicinity of the temple, the group was tasked by the two governments to work under the principle that the border would follow the watershed line of the Dângrêk mountain range, which places nearly all of Preah Vihear temple itself on Thailand's side. In 1907, after survey work, French officers drew up a map to show the border’s location. However, the resulting topographic map, which was sent to Siamese authorities and used in the 1962 (ICJ) ruling, showed the line deviating from the watershed in the Preah Vihear area, placing all of the temple on the Cambodian side.

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

If Thailand was smart, they would 'give' Cambodia the administrative costs of the Site and concentrate on lodgings and restraunts. Cambodia would have no land for these amenities on top of the cliff, short of bull dozing a temple or two.

Now, if it came to a battle, Cambodia would not stand a chance. They are perched on a cliff with a skinny dirt road as a lone supply line. It's easily defensible from the South, but not so from the North, but the better option was agreed to in 2007/2008, above. That would be the 'happy ending' to that massage.

[Plus]

And who granted permission for them to close the roads down to hold a rally?

The military? The police? The local authorities? Or was it just their unilateral decision?

PAD didn't close any roads, they were stopped on the way to their rally place. Their buses were shown on TV, with cracks in the windows after slingshot attacks.

"4.2sq kilometres of border territory awarded to Cambodia but still occupied by Thailand and leaving only the temple and its immediate environs" - that's just nonsense.

The court didn't rule on the status of adjacent land, it remains in dispute, and it is NOT occupied by Thailand, most of it is jungle and there's a small Cambodian settlement there I referred to earlier.

[hammered]

There is a decison this afternoon opn whether to prosecute the cabinet of the time (Samak) for signing an international agreement backing the listing of the temple as a world heritage site without seeking parliamentary approval.

[Oberkommando]

There is a decison this afternoon opn whether to prosecute the cabinet of the time (Samak) for signing an international agreement backing the listing of the temple as a world heritage site without seeking parliamentary approval.

As the site is not historically, culturally or even demarcated as Thai then no-one should be prosecuted for allowing the U.N. to come to the correct and fair decision to grant the area World Heritage Status.

Just a bunch of sour grapes from the fascists, and really, their bullying and threats are getting awfully boring.

[morphem]

The real question is .. Why the PAD would care about a small piece of land & a temple ?

Possible answer:

The PAD, -unofficially- supported by the army & the current government, is basically the right arm of the most powerful businessmen in the country.

To successfully claim the temple lands is the first step.

Second step is to contest -for the same reasons- maritime territories awarded to cambodia -at the very same time- (by the UN/french).

Thailand and Cambodia indeed both assert claims over some 27,000 square kilometres of disputed maritime territory in the Gulf of Thailand that is now believed to contain one of the largest amount of oil and gas reserves in SE Asia.

Ok you now start to get the picture

[hammered]

Mr. Plus, you certainly have some convoluted logic. Let's have a look at a few of your statements;;

1. Afaik, they are squatters, they were not born there, they moved in when tourism trade boomed.

What's your point? Many people that work in the tourist trade on Phuket were not born there either. Does that make them less human? How do you know they are squatters? I think they are locals born in the area. Even if they were not, not being born somewhere doesn't mean they are unworthy of human rights and due process. Maybe you should think that sentiment through again ok?

2. The police has no right to block a peaceful rally either. Also keep in mind that there was a stalemate for several hours during which provincial governor tried to persuade PAD to abandon their plan, and then hel_l broke lose.

Many riots often start out as "peaceful". It's peaceful as the crowds arrive. It's peaceful until the mob organizers let lose with their violent rhetoric. The police had an obligation and a duty to stop the illegal gathering. Considering that you are always bleating on about the need for Thaksin to be jailed, because it's the legal thing to do, how about you consider the fact that there was no meeting permit issued, the crowds were trespassing on land where they should not have been for part of their protest and the organizers were attempting to provoke conflict between two countries.

3. For umpteenth time - it wasn't PAD who provoked the fight, PAD had every right to demonstrate.

Who were those idiots who thought PAD had to be stopped by force?

What part about unlawful assembly to cause public disorder do you not understand? If they wanted to demonstrate, they could have had their event in Bangkok. Why was there a need to trespass in a village populated by impoverished people trying to eke out a living and to demand that martial law be imposed upon these people? What gives PAD the right to demand martial law be imposed? There was no conflict in the area until PAD showed up banging its war drums. Or are you calling the Prime Minister and his cabinet idiots because the PM directed the police to intervene and stop the attempt to provoke the Cambodians. Think about what you are defending. PAD wants Thailand to go to war over this place. The thing is that it won't be the PAD members or the families that will die in any war. They will have the money to buy their way out of service. It will be the poor rural kids sent to go and die. When arrogant people prone to displays of conspicuous consumption show up in a poor area and start telling the locals that they are stupid, weak and that there should be a war where these poor people stand to become refugees, don't you think the locals would be angry?

4. Now they have to explain what they are doing to PAD leaders who would in turn convey it to the people.

No they don't. Who are you or PAD to tell the government what to do? PAD represents a specific interest group. PAD is not the "people". Nor does the government need PAD to convey anything to the people. The government is supposed to represent the people. If PAD wants the role of dictating to the people, then let it get elected. Or are elections no longer necessary?

And what's up with PAD's obsession with martial law? Not everyone wants to live under overt military rule. what's next, a festival in honour of Benito Mussolini? BTW, people that clamour for wars are usually the ones that have never served in a war zone. Ever wonder why it's the toughest veterans of war that do their utmost to avoid war? Border disputes cause refugee crises. Is PAD prepared to take in the Thai refugees? Is PAD prepared its own to die in the war? I don't think so. Is PAD prepared to deal with the Vietnamese? Vietnam will help Cambodia if Cambodia is invaded. The khmer can tough out a war, Thailand cannot.

PAD didn't think this through and nor did you.

The PAD seem pretty divided over this. Chamlong didnt seem happy at all. They are probably suffering from factionalism as much as the reds but less reported, and factions doing their own thing are probably going to be more extreme than a movement as a whole which tends en masse to head for lowest common denomiator although with many moderates having left the yellows they probably face extremist problems a lot more now.

[Yoshitaka]

"There is no overlapping area at the area and both countries have boundary line for over 100 years,"

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/...nt_12090711.htm

[Thai at Heart]

"There is no overlapping area at the area and both countries have boundary line for over 100 years,"

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/...nt_12090711.htm

Well there is the Chinese/Communist party take on it. If anyone can bash head together and get people to back down around here, it is probably the Chinese. They have no interest in seeing armies dragged into fighting in what they consider part of their back yard.

[sabaijai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preah_Vihear_Temple#Location

Seems Thailand had chances to claim and defend Preah Vihear, in the long ago Past but, more or less, legally let the Site slip through their hands, especially now that Cambodia built an access road.

Probably the biggest hurdle to a claim was this >>> """Following this both Cambodia and Thailand were in full agreement that Preah Vihear Temple had "Outstanding Universal Value" and should be inscribed on the World Heritage List as soon as possible. The two nations agreed that Cambodia should propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand. This led to a redrawing of the map of the area for proposed inscription, removing the 4.2sq kilometres of border territory awarded to Cambodia but still occupied by Thailand and leaving only the temple and its immediate environs.""" <<< This was an excellent solution for Thailand, with the 4.2 sq kms returned to Thailand. Thailand would have land for lodgings and amenities, while Cambodia would not. They would both benefit from 'pass through' tourism. Thailand gained valuable land!

But then; flop and flip>>> Thailand's political opposition launched an attack on this revised plan claiming the inclusion of Preah Vihear could "consume" the overlapping area of the dispute lands. In response to the political pressure at home, Thailand withdrew its formal support for the listing of Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage site.

Right or wrong, Thailand has lost any legal standing. While it is my personal opinion Thailand was robbed of the land, they never filed a timely complaint.

In 1904, Siam and the French colonial authorities ruling Cambodia formed a joint commission to demarcate their mutual border. In the vicinity of the temple, the group was tasked by the two governments to work under the principle that the border would follow the watershed line of the Dângrêk mountain range, which places nearly all of Preah Vihear temple itself on Thailand's side. In 1907, after survey work, French officers drew up a map to show the border’s location. However, the resulting topographic map, which was sent to Siamese authorities and used in the 1962 (ICJ) ruling, showed the line deviating from the watershed in the Preah Vihear area, placing all of the temple on the Cambodian side.

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

If Thailand was smart, they would 'give' Cambodia the administrative costs of the Site and concentrate on lodgings and restraunts. Cambodia would have no land for these amenities on top of the cliff, short of bull dozing a temple or two.

Now, if it came to a battle, Cambodia would not stand a chance. They are perched on a cliff with a skinny dirt road as a lone supply line. It's easily defensible from the South, but not so from the North, but the better option was agreed to in 2007/2008, above. That would be the 'happy ending' to that massage.

This is a good precis of the historical context, to which might be added that not only did the French not follow the agreement regarding using the watershed line, they also surveyed and drew the map unilaterally, contrary to the Franco-Thai agreement which provided for a bilateral mapping team.

[sabaijai]

The Contested Temple

A discussion on Phra Vihan/Preah Vihear

8pm Wed, September 23, 2009

Non-members: 300 baht

Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri and Ittiporn Boonpracong will discuss the issue of Phra Vihan/Preah Vihear, the spectacular 11th century Hindu temple perched on the Thai-Cambodia border, which has erupted and could boil over.

Thai nationalists last Saturday overwhelmed police and sparked clashes with angry local villagers as they approached the temple. Because of its implications for bilateral relations with Cambodia, the news overshadowed even the gathering of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) in Bangkok to mark the third anniversary of the September 19 coup.

The temple problem is one that traverses many underlying issues of culture, nationalism, and politics. Lives have been lost because of stoking the emotive issue of this temple to the Hindu god of destruction, Shiva.

Join us for a panel discussion on an issue that has deep roots and is unlikely to go away any time soon, and tests the limits of bilateral and by implication within the Asean framework, regional tolerance and willingness to compromise and accommodate.

Speakers:

- Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri, is a scholar and historian, former Rector of Thammasat University and an advisor to Thammasat University's Southeast Asia studies programme. He will speak on Phra Vihan/Preah Vihear and the larger historical context of Thai nationalism. Professor Charnvit. who in 1972 got his PhD in South East Asian history from Cornell University, has been a leading figure in Southeast Asia studies in the region.

He taught at Thammasat University since 1973 and has served as Vice Rector, Head of the History Department, Dean of the Faculty of Liberal Arts, and most recently, Rector.

His numerous publications include: The Rise of Ayudhya: A History of Siam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (1976), Thai Politics 1932-1957 (1978), "Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period," (in Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, 1979), "Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand" (in Bibliography Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand, 1991), and "Teaching Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand" (in "Toward the Promotion of Southeast Asia, 1994).

- Ittiporn Boonpracong, Deputy Director-General, Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, will present the position of the Government and Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the legal perspective.

Mr Ittiporn studied at Thammasat and received his MA in international law at Tulane University, USA. He joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1981 as Attache, Legal Affairs Division, Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs by 1984 was Third Secretary in the Division.

After a stint at the Royal Thai Embassy in Nairobi, Mr Ittiporn returned to the Department as Second Secretary. Today, after more than two decades of experience including a stint in 2003 as Minister Counsellor at Thailand’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York, there are very few who could better present the facts as the government of Thailand sees them, than Mr Ittiporn.

Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand

Penthouse, Maneeya Center Building

518/5 Ploenchit Road (connected to the BTS Skytrain Chitlom station)

Patumwan, Bangkok 10330

Tel.: 02-652-0580-1

Fax: 02-652-0582

Web Site: http://www.fccthai.com

[Plus]

"There is no overlapping area at the area and both countries have boundary line for over 100 years,"

Yeah, but later in the same article:

The two neighboring countries share a nearly 800-kilometer-long common border and they have never fully demarcated their land border.

The court wasn't asked to rule on the status of the adjacent areas and it didn't rule on them.

The point of maritime borders and gas fields is a valid one, except that that nothing was awarded to Cambodia, ever.

[geriatrickid]

hammered I think your comment is a good assessment of the PAD predicament. Is it possible the event was used as an attempt to create a "rallying" moment? Or is it an internal power grab by the more extremist members of PAD?

This is a good precis of the historical context, to which might be added that not only did the French not follow the agreement regarding using the watershed line, they also surveyed and drew the map unilaterally, contrary to the Franco-Thai agreement which provided for a bilateral mapping team.

When did an "agreement" ever stop the French in Indochine from jockeying for position? At one time large swathes of Laos were part of the old Siam empire that the French simply sliced off, right? Not that I can argue your point because it is valid, but I think it has to be put in the context of colonial rule or occupation or whatever it was called. The bottom line though that there is an international understanding that border demarcations that arose during colonial times have to be respected or else chaos ensues. It isn't fair at times, just ask Canada which lost large tracts of land to the Americans courtesy of the British or African nations that were spliced and diced. Technically, most of Lebanon was part of Syria until the French decided otherwise. Where does it end?

[harpoon]

I read in today's Bangkok Post that Thaksin's lawyer, Noppadon, is getting indicted over his illegal acts on this issue while he was Foreign Minister.

[sabaijai]

hammered I think your comment is a good assessment of the PAD predicament. Is it possible the event was used as an attempt to create a "rallying" moment? Or is it an internal power grab by the more extremist members of PAD?

This is a good precis of the historical context, to which might be added that not only did the French not follow the agreement regarding using the watershed line, they also surveyed and drew the map unilaterally, contrary to the Franco-Thai agreement which provided for a bilateral mapping team.

When did an "agreement" ever stop the French in Indochine from jockeying for position? At one time large swathes of Laos were part of the old Siam empire that the French simply sliced off, right? Not that I can argue your point because it is valid, but I think it has to be put in the context of colonial rule or occupation or whatever it was called. The bottom line though that there is an international understanding that border demarcations that arose during colonial times have to be respected or else chaos ensues. It isn't fair at times, just ask Canada which lost large tracts of land to the Americans courtesy of the British or African nations that were spliced and diced. Technically, most of Lebanon was part of Syria until the French decided otherwise. Where does it end?

I agree, it's water under the bridge at this point. The history matters, however, in the sense that it reminds us of the arbitrariness or illegality with which borders are often formed, and because we so often hear the opposite, in the case of this particular stretch of border. The disputed area is all that remains, well, disputed.

[hughben]

Why not do us a favour. Arm the PAD with sligshots and have them invade Cambodia.

And I am not a Thaksin supporter either.

[321niti123]

Certainly going to make Saturday an interesting day - red shirts trying to take over Thailand, yellow shirts invading Cambodia. I wonder what the blue shirts have planned else they will feel left out!

555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555;D

On a serious note, just stupid really stupid. Yellows VS Red and a minor in between group of blue. They are just people with too much free times on their hands (they have nothing to do). To quote my sister ไม่มีอะไรทำกันหรือ?