Facing Reality Beats Playing Politics Over Preah Vihear

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Facing reality beats playing politics over Preah Vihear

By The Nation

Talks with Phnom Penh may be hard but it's the only way to resolve dispute

It was a close call as far as Thailand is concerned. On the other hand, the decision by the World Heritage Committee of Unesco to delay considering Cambodia's management plan for the Preah Vihear Temple to next year must have felt to Phnom Penh like a sucker punch. A diplomatic time bomb has been defused, but barely just, and the most important question is: What's next?

Blame took place in Brazil. Thailand was accused of trying to rock the boat and cling to something that no longer belongs to it. But to the Bangkok government, although the World Court ruled more than four decades and a half ago that the temple was on Cambodia's territory, things are not as simple as it looks. The management plan, the Thai delegation in Brazil insisted, would at least refuel territorial claims around the temple because the plan incorporated some information that Bangkok did not agree on.

Unesco must have been worried. This is not the first time a World Heritage site has become a source of neighbourly conflict. But given the on-and-off military tension at the Thai-Cambodian border and the stormy ties between the two countries, the international organisation must have felt it was best to postpone the Preah Vihear issue to next year.

But can everyone hope things will have calmed down by then? Nationalism aside, the issue has been complicated by the fact that Thailand's two main political parties have different stances on Preah Vihear. In fact, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been forced to resort to uncharacteristically belligerent diplomacy because he used to take a very tough stand against his political rivals' perceived compromise toward Cambodia over the temple.

So whatever will happen next year in Bahrain when the World Heritage Committee meets again to consider the management plan will depend largely on who's in power in Thailand at the time. The Pheu Thai Party's stand, as shown by the Samak Sundaravej government, is that Thailand should lend full cooperation to Cambodia in its promotion and management of the site because the 1962 World Court ruling means any resistance will be futile. The Democrats, on the other hand, as demonstrated in Abhisit's scathing speech in Parliament in 2008, are against any move that will embolden Cambodia about its rights over the temple and claims over surrounding disputed areas.

Some academics have proposed handing over the whole matter to some sort of an independent commission so that domestic politics will have the least impact on where the country stands regarding the Preah Vihear Temple, its listing as a World Heritage site and its management plan. The proposal may be rejected outright, as the issue involves sensitive matters like bilateral ties, national sovereignty and so on. However, some things have to change because otherwise the Bahrain meeting will be a repeat of the Brasilia one.

Most importantly, both countries must talk more and play less politics. Thai officials claimed they had been kept in the dark over what information was in Phnom Penh's management plan submitted to Unesco until the Brasilia meeting was about to take place. Whether the claims are true or not, obviously there has not been a communications line between the two countries over this sensitive and potentially explosive issue, and this has to change.

Territorial disputes can last years, or even decades. They sometimes encompass generations. This, however, should never be used as an excuse for not trying enough to find a common solution, or for not talking to each other when we can. This is not an issue that can be solved through passing messages through a third or fourth party or lobbying. Of course, direct talks will be hard and possibly acrimonious, but if Thailand and Cambodia are sincere about ending the conflict, there's nothing else they can do but try.

-- The Nation 2010-08-01

[badgerbailey]

Does this newspaper actually print news anymore or does it just boil down to crappy opinion pieces mostly stating the obvious. They should get rid of the whole dam_n team of reporters and replace them with school newspaper journalists, i'm almost certain they could do a better job!

[whybother]

Does this newspaper actually print news anymore or does it just boil down to crappy opinion pieces mostly stating the obvious. They should get rid of the whole dam_n team of reporters and replace them with school newspaper journalists, i'm almost certain they could do a better job!

It's amazing how often it boils down to crappy opinion pieces that are just plain crappy opinion pieces. At least this one has a good amount of sense to it.

[jayjay0]

My limited understanding is that the temple is Khmer [Cambodian] architecture. If it is in Thailand why did they not build it themselves?

Personally I believe it is just a political thing. If the population didn't care Abhist would drop the issue like a hot potato.

Like it or not he has real issues to deal with here in Thailand.

[whybother]

My limited understanding is that the temple is Khmer [Cambodian] architecture. If it is in Thailand why did they not build it themselves?

Personally I believe it is just a political thing. If the population didn't care Abhist would drop the issue like a hot potato.

Like it or not he has real issues to deal with here in Thailand.

The problem with most land disputes is the "We were here first" argument.

At the time of the building of the temple there probably wasn't a "Cambodia" or a "Thailand". There were very fluid borders depending on who was in power at the time.

The Khmer even once ruled over parts of Malaysia. Should they be making claims for that as well?

[seri thai]

My limited understanding is that the temple is Khmer [Cambodian] architecture. If it is in Thailand why did they not build it themselves?

Personally I believe it is just a political thing. If the population didn't care Abhist would drop the issue like a hot potato.

Like it or not he has real issues to deal with here in Thailand.

The problem with most land disputes is the "We were here first" argument.

At the time of the building of the temple there probably wasn't a "Cambodia" or a "Thailand". There were very fluid borders depending on who was in power at the time.

The Khmer even once ruled over parts of Malaysia. Should they be making claims for that as well?

As stated "Khmerland" once stretched throughout what is now Thailand and Cambodia, though originally controlled from Angkor it evolved into a series of principalities. The current sovereign nations both claim descent from these ancient kings and therefore rights to the remaining temples. There is deep nationalistic, religious and sovereign interest in this. The modern monarchs of both nations are deemed "Dhammarajahs" or "holy rulers" and this is not lost on unscrupulous politicians either side of the modern border. Indeed Angkor itself was in Thai territory until annexed by French colonial pressure in 1908 (When the contentious map was redrawn)

As the P.M points out a sensible, mature modern solution would be found in joint "custody" (not ownership) however

1) nationalistist sentiment has been stirred up on both sides for short-term political gain which prevents this.

2) As Thailand has easier topographical access it would stand to gain a lot more financially in shared ownership of a UNESCO site

As someone elsewhere has written however looking at the pigs ear they have made of current UNESCO sites in Thailand (Ayutthaya/Khao Yai...)Could they be expected to improve their game at Preah Vihear? However with Thai business interests in Cambodia and plans for a multi-million dollar casino at Angkor the situation gets murkier. All that is clear is that popular appeals to nationalism in both nations are being manipulated by the rich and greedy for their own designs.

"Twas ever thus"....

[SamritT]

Veera Somkwamkid plan to gather 10,000 people in front of Government House this Saturday, demanding the government explain Cambodia's claim that Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti had signed a document related to Cambodia's management plan for Preah Vihear temple during the World Heritage Committee meeting in Brazil last week. Is the SOE still on?