Thai PM Abhisit Demands Cambodians Leave Disputed Border Area

[hawker9000]

Yes well, the Thai Prime minister is saying by peaceful means and the Cambodian leader saying it will lead to bloodshed.

Would you not defend any property belonging to you? because I certainly would.

the strip of land does not belong to thailand -- it is legally Cambodian = granted to it by the UN - so what is the point of fighting of something you dont own - this is a classic case of trying to save face in typical Thai fashion - for gods sake there are more important issues this govt should be focusing in on - but it seems that they are using this as a distraction to the ongoing event of the PAD (their real bosses) and ops the army also - and to further bolster national pride - if there were further clashes over this land we can rest assured who the rest of the world is going to back -- the legal owners of course - the reality is its like two school kids fighting over a used pencil - and as one poster said - maybe thailand should pull out of the UN and go it alone - ya and pigs fly also -

thailand would get a bucket load of brownie points if they just said ok - we finally accept the judgement of the court - and conceed this is cambodian land for what its worth.

The World court merely said the temple belongs to Cambodia. It said nothing about the surrounding land which is still disputed by Thailand and Cambodia.

Thailand offered to jointly administer the land with Cambodia but they refused.

Your thinking like a true thai. You can own the bricks but you can't own land. Generally when a court awards another a house, building whatever the dirt it's sitting on is normally part of the title. Yes I have an ex wife and she got the house and the land it is on.

Where does this cock-eyed logic come from? If you own a building on someone else's land, or your fence is someone else's land, you can either move it, or tear it down. If your tree so much as overhangs a neighbor's land, you can sue to have it cut back (or possibly even removed at the owner's expense if he refuses) No, owning just the building does NOT necessarily give you title to the land as well.

[DickFarang]

Creating a nationalistic pretext for armed conflict with a supposedly weaker neighbor when one is confronted with domestic troubles

is a time-honored diversion of last resort for many undemocratically selected governments around the world. For example, the Videla

regime of Argentina was contemplating a war against the rival Pinochet dictatorship of Chile for a wide variety of territorial issues until

some military genius decided the Falklands would be an easier target . And the rest, as they say, is history.. Today, most Argentines

recognize that the invasion of the the Falklands was a desperate attempt to create national unity by a government that had already lost

its grip...Deja vu??? Let's hope not!:jap:

Well, that should keep all this national division nonsense under the carpet where it belongs, eh? Let's have a war with our neighbours and turn our hatred on them - a rifle in one hand and a Thai flag in the other.

Mind you, the one thing they aren't taking into account is that Cambodia is likely to give Thailand a good solid drubbing given that the Thai military is trained only to turn guns on their own people and dream up new useless equipment to order.

Did you ever visit Argentina and talk to Argentineans (in Spanish) ? I did.

The Falklands War (Guerra de las Malvinas in Spanish) is a real national trauma and that did not change after the end of the military dictatorship.

In Ushuaia there is a big war memorial for the heroes of the Falklands War and I saw a lot of memorial plaques in such places as the post office in Córdoba.

To use an understatement, Britons are not very popular in Argentina.

On the other hand I have met British people (from Liverpool) who strongly condemned the Falklands War.

BTW it is "déjà vu".

[DickFarang]

Where does this cock-eyed logic come from? If you own a building on someone else's land, or your fence is someone else's land, you can either move it, or tear it down. If your tree so much as overhangs a neighbor's land, you can sue to have it cut back (or possibly even removed at the owner's expense if he refuses) No, owning just the building does NOT necessarily give you title to the land as well.

Most European laws say: "The building follows the land." which means that the owner of the land also owns the buildings on it.

If you build a house on land that belongs to somebody else (e.g. your wife) you will lose it.

[DickFarang]

If this was about oil or natural gas The USA would have bombed the shit out of Thailand and Cambodia by now and declared the temple as thier sacred site.

Are we really already in the 11th year of the 21st century?

No, we are in the 10^th year of the 21^st century.

The 21^st century started on 1^st January 2001, not 2000.

[DickFarang]

In the past 100 years dozens of borders and whole provinces and areas changed from one country to another be it by international agreemenst or forced by forune of wars. Not any country in Europe dispute this agreements. If Thailand was a civilized country they will do the same and accept an international ruling.

If they continue this dispute. So they must also accept the claims of the 4 provinces in the South who like to return to Malasya or given them independence.

Does Marc realize he is opening the box of Pandora.

These 4 provinces never belonged to Malaysia, so it's a bit hard to *return* them.

Be interesting to see if USA also gives Texas back to Mexico! History is history, wars have redefined the maps. We can all go back and say that belonged to us once, so you should return it. Crikey most of Europe would have to be given back to Italy as the 'places' the Romans conquered didn't become countries until after they left - or do we hunt around looking for descendants of ancient kings to give them back Essex? India back to England? USA to who? Spain? England? Let sleeping dogs lie - Thailand could make more money of temples if they actually did something with them. Ayuttaya is full of them, but most are little more than ruins. A little bit of tidying up and restoration, a few amusements a lot of advertising and the difference is?

“Let sleeping dogs lie ...”

I could not agree more.

[rubl]

If this was about oil or natural gas The USA would have bombed the shit out of Thailand and Cambodia by now and declared the temple as thier sacred site.

Are we really already in the 11th year of the 21st century?

No, we are in the 10^th year of the 21^st century.

The 21^st century started on 1^st January 2001, not 2000.

That depends on whether you follow the Gregorian calendar or the Astronomical year numbering. Some may even call this the 26th century with equal rights.

[djayz]

"Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Tuesday demanded Cambodian citizens leave a disputed border area that has been the focus of deadly clashes in recent years." Is the Thai PM demand in Thai language or Cambodian?

Many Cambodians understand Thai and I am sure they have competent translators as they are far better English and French speakers than Thais.

Your language is descended from Khmer after all. As is your culture, your religion, your martial arts, your... sorry, going off topic a tad.

Khmer language influenced Thai to some extent, ie tamruat=truat ตำรวจ =ตรวจ but a much bigger influence came from India with Pali and Sanskrit.

Regarding present day language skills, the Khmers have a big disadvantage as all intellectuals were killed by their fellow Khmers, the Khmer Rouge, and few can match the eloquence and articulate English of Khun Aphisit.

I assure you the average Cambodian speaks much better English than the aveage Thai... it has nothing to do with intellectuals.

[Chunky1]

Just a distraction from the Red Shirt stuff.

[Piengrudee]

The problem is easy to solve. Next time at the temple, bring a bottle of drink water. Pour the water. If it flow into one of Thailand's river, the Temple is Thai. If it did not, it is Cambodian.

[ableguy]

Bunch of clowns on both sides.

[seri thai]

The problem is easy to solve. Next time at the temple, bring a bottle of drink water. Pour the water. If it flow into one of Thailand's river, the Temple is Thai. If it did not, it is Cambodian.

There are a few thais here who keep trotting out this little piece of folk wisdom about watersheds and the effects of gravity so I guess this is the general thai argument in scholastic indoctrination. It's sad that the posters do not seem comfortable or willing to look at historical evidence outside their eagerly accepted sources.

Few would dispute the logical view that the temple and land around it "ought" to be in Thailand, however Thailand requested international judgement on the issue in 1962 and didn't like the result (though the government and kingdom formally accepted it).

There are two ways to change a countries borders if you don't like them:

1) Diplomacy

2) Clausewitz' "diplomacy by other means" (War)

Thailand lost the diplomacy battle in 1962 and made a few grabs "by other means" during the following cold war conflict.

This is purely internal political posturing and extremely embarrassing for the PM as the factions that bought him to power begin to jockey for it themselves. He certainly won't be keen to explain his position on the international stage this time around.

The military certainly doesn't want the inconvenience of a war interfering with their day to day business activities, and imagine the fun that could be had by insurrectionists in Pattani, Isan and Bangkok in the meantime with the police running the show??

As I've pointed out elsewhere the "sensible" solution would be joint custody of this ancient khmer sanctuary dedicated to the god Shiva (south- facing)by the two countries that share a common heritage. however too many politicians and nationalists on both sides have queered the pitch there.

I would humbly offer the solution that the monarchies of both nations should de-politicise the issue, bypass the politicians and present an agreement for the peoples of both nations. As such it should be declared either common heritage or put aside as an independent historical artefact.

A revealing exercise would be to apply the judgement of solomon and poll thais and cambodians to discover if they would rather see it destroyed than owned by their neighbour?

[seri thai]

The problem is easy to solve. Next time at the temple, bring a bottle of drink water. Pour the water. If it flow into one of Thailand's river, the Temple is Thai. If it did not, it is Cambodian.

From the International Court of Justice 1962 ruling, (requested by Thailand and probably not taught in Thai schools?):

"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.

The Annex 1 map shows the boundary presented by the French, produced from the joint French/Thai commission. Thailand received other valuable coastal land too which HRH Rama V deemed desirable at the time.

If Thailand wants it, it will have to go against international law and steal it (back again)

But remember-"The UN is not your father!"

[SpoliaOpima]

Guess we can expect a closure of the border.

Thailand's Government is two faced double standard with their Emergency decree policy, now they want to have enemies on all it's borders, drug smugglers running amuck , where is Thaksin when Thailand really needs him.

Compared to the double/triple/uncountable standards held by the Thaksin administration, I hardly think so.

[SpoliaOpima]

The problem is easy to solve. Next time at the temple, bring a bottle of drink water. Pour the water. If it flow into one of Thailand's river, the Temple is Thai. If it did not, it is Cambodian.

From the International Court of Justice 1962 ruling, (requested by Thailand and probably not taught in Thai schools?):

"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.

The Annex 1 map shows the boundary presented by the French, produced from the joint French/Thai commission. Thailand received other valuable coastal land too which HRH Rama V deemed desirable at the time.

If Thailand wants it, it will have to go against international law and steal it (back again)

But remember-"The UN is not your father!"

It seems you have missed the fact that the ICJ did not rule on the land currently in dispute.

[SpoliaOpima]

Thai script was modelled on Khmer and the language borrows many words and phonetics. It is at least 600 years older than Thai also, and was used extensively in the region due to the Khmer Empire. Thai being "Influenced to an extent" by Khmer is such an understatement I am not sure where to begin!

I also agree about misinformed opinions and personal bias, they can be so revealing sometimes. This temple dispute is bringing out those posters that have no knowledge of history or the region yet will side with Thailand purely because they have a misplaced loyalty in precedence of the facts of the matter.

The point I made remains though, that English is spoken better in Cambodia than in Thailand.

The Thai script was modelled on Mon script for the most part. Both Mon and Khmer were modelled on Pallava script from India. Historcial linguistics research indicates that Thai is an older spoken language than Khmer.

But what do these facts, or the proficiency of English in Cambodia, have to do with the topic at hand? The Thai government is not contesting ownership of the temple at all, so the it's Khmer-ness is not an issue - not to mention there are around a thousand Khmer temples sites in Thailand, two of which are grander than KPV. The issue surrounds a border dispute that has not been ruled upon by the ICJ. And it is not the only area along the Thai-Cambodian border in dispute.

No government in the world with give up sovereignty of even an inch of land in dispute unless they get something in return. It's called international diplomacny. Nothing to do with any agendas other than the usual geo-politics.

[Deeral]

"Historcial linguistics" - love that expression!Hasty googling comes up with some wonderful interpretations!

BTW - have you actually got an opinion on what you think Abhisit is doing?

I reckon that who actually "owns" that little piece of land is really not the issue any more than the "who was here fist" banter you seem to have got involved in.

If you want to get into the history of the Thai language and it's origins, you need to first decide what is "Thai" is it the result just one culture one location?THen compare the locations of what you consider to be "Thai" people and culture and relate that to the dates you are using as landmarks....but of course you'll need dto define "Thai people"

Edited August 14, 2010 by Deeral

[Deeral]

"Another story about countries, tribes, villages bickering and bloodletting over lines on a piece of paper. Isn't that what it's all about?" - No!

[seri thai]

The problem is easy to solve. Next time at the temple, bring a bottle of drink water. Pour the water. If it flow into one of Thailand's river, the Temple is Thai. If it did not, it is Cambodian.

From the International Court of Justice 1962 ruling, (requested by Thailand and probably not taught in Thai schools?):

"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.

The Annex 1 map shows the boundary presented by the French, produced from the joint French/Thai commission. Thailand received other valuable coastal land too which HRH Rama V deemed desirable at the time.

If Thailand wants it, it will have to go against international law and steal it (back again)

But remember-"The UN is not your father!"

It seems you have missed the fact that the ICJ did not rule on the land currently in dispute.

Please read the first line of the ICJ judgement again"

"The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of

the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area."

How do YOU interpret that?

Edited August 15, 2010 by seri thai

[dude007]

Let's be clear on this stuff:

1. the entrance of the pagoda (also named "Stone Castle") is NOT situated on Thai territory. The entire pagoda and its belongings (surrounding areas) is Khmer territory (court of Then Hague 1962) and Thais should stop their silly claim of the 4.7 Km2 surrounding areas. Think what should happen if anybody should claim the surrounding area of any of the 500,000 Thai pagoda's in the country...

2. The Cambodians have not moved out from their places: they have been evicted from the Thai Army who has burned their market, their houses and their belongings, and chased them out of their own land (see the DVD's which are available from this event).

3. The best solution is to close the border at this place. No longer access from Thailand. If Thais want to visit the pagoda, they ware welcome (I went there with my own Thai registered jeep and can confirm) but they have to first travel to Phnom Penh and Siem Reap (by plane if wished) and then by car to Anlong Veng or directly to Preah Vihear. The road is brand new, comfortable and perfectly safe. One can rent a 4x4 pick up (with Khmer driver) to drive up the steep concrete road to the pagoda which ends at the parking at the second pagoda-level. Going down to the main entry of the pagoda (down the old stairs), is not safe because Thai soldiers shoot at you, as they also do to the stone castle itself (see multiple bullet holes). I compared the status of the pagoda with 10 years ago: it's now heavily damaged from warfare and everyone knows why and by who! :jap:

Edited August 15, 2010 by dude007

[naiharn]

Thai script was modelled on Khmer and the language borrows many words and phonetics. It is at least 600 years older than Thai also, and was used extensively in the region due to the Khmer Empire. Thai being "Influenced to an extent" by Khmer is such an understatement I am not sure where to begin!

I also agree about misinformed opinions and personal bias, they can be so revealing sometimes. This temple dispute is bringing out those posters that have no knowledge of history or the region yet will side with Thailand purely because they have a misplaced loyalty in precedence of the facts of the matter.

The point I made remains though, that English is spoken better in Cambodia than in Thailand.

The Thai script was modelled on Mon script for the most part. Both Mon and Khmer were modelled on Pallava script from India.

Are you sure?

Every Thai history and guide book I've ever read says that "King Ramkhamhaeng the Great" invented the Thai script. By himself. Alone. Are you suggesting he based it on something else?

That he copied?

[SamritT]

"King Ramkhamhaeng the Great" invented the Thai script. FULL STOP.

[Deeral]

"King Ramkhamhaeng the Great" invented the Thai script. FULL STOP.

I'm not sure the full stop was invented or even used in Thai script......then

Edited August 16, 2010 by Deeral

[Thai at Heart]

"King Ramkhamhaeng the Great" invented the Thai script. FULL STOP.

What did Thailand use for a written language before that?

[Deeral]

lao and Kmer

[SamritT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Khamhaeng_the_Great . . . He is credited with the creation of the Thai alphabet and the firm establishment of Theravada Buddhism as the state religion of the kingdom.

[Oberkommando]

"King Ramkhamhaeng the Great" invented the Thai script. FULL STOP.

Thai script is derived from Khmer.

This is also interesting,

Much of the above biographical information comes from a stone inscription in the Ramkhamhaeng stele, now in the National Museum in Bangkok.

This stone was allegedly discovered in 1833 by King Mongkut (then still a monk) in the Wat Mahathat. The authenticity of the stone – or at least portions of it – has been brought into question.^[3] Piriya Krairiksh, an academic at the Thai Khadi Research institute, notes that the stele's treatment of vowels suggests that its creators had been influenced by European alphabet systems; thus, he concludes that the stele was fabricated by someone during the reign of Rama IV himself, or shortly before. The matter is very controversial, since if the stone is in fact a fabrication, the entire history of the period will have to be re-written.^[4]

Scholars are still divided over the issue about the stele's authenticity.^[5] It remains an anomaly amongst contemporary writings, and in fact no other source refers to King Ramkhamhaeng by name. Some authors claim the inscription was completely a 19th-century fabrication, some claim that the first 17 lines are genuine, some that the inscription was fabricated by King Lithai (a later Sukhothai king), and some scholars still hold to the idea of the inscription's authenticity.^[6] The inscription and its image of a Sukhothai utopia remains central to Thai nationalism, and the suggestion that it may have been faked in the 1800s caused Michael Wright, a British scholar, to be threatened with deportation under Thailand's lese majeste laws .

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Khamhaeng_the_Great#cite_note-6][/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Khamhaeng_the_Great

[Deeral]

http://en.wikipedia....haeng_the_Great . . . He is credited with the creation of the Thai alphabet and the firm establishment of Theravada Buddhism as the state religion of the kingdom.

I think we all have google.

[SamritT]

Don't be such a skeptic on our great King. Please I beg you.

[Deeral]

Lets use a little common sense.

Firstly anything claiming to be "fact" from that long ago is going to be highly contentious.

also it is very unlikely that any one person just decided to come up with a writing system. It is much more likely that scholars or whathaveyou developed a writing system over a period of time.

...and they certainly didn't pull it in isolation out of thin air.

there has been an erroneous tendency amongst those who wrote Thai history to portray it as some long linear monoculture....this is not true thai history is very multicultural and contains very few one man efforts and full stops.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Deeral

[Deeral]

Dating a stele I would have thought would be quite easy