Thai PM Abhisit Demands Cambodians Leave Disputed Border Area

[Thai at Heart]

Nice little map.

But as I said, the **understanding** was that the border was the "watershed line of the mountain range".

Some of the maps (such as yours) veered of the watershed line ONLY at the temple. But there was no other discussion of whether the temple would be on Thai or Cambodian soil.

The watershed line puts the temple on Thai soil. SOME of the maps, including SOME of the official maps go away from the watershed line, putting the temple on Cambodian soil.

The fact that the Thais failed to pick up on this at that time is their problem now.

The 1962 decision was based on the "official" maps, although not everyone agreed. Some thought it should have been based on the understanding of using the watershed line, especially since nothing else mentioned anything about moving off the watershed line except SOME maps.

I only put it up, because whilst there are dozens of other maps available around, it seems to as clearly as possible put a decent context on what is being discussed. One can obviously see the potential absurdity of having a temple on a cliff with the entrance on the other side of the border.

Of course it can be claimed that it is absurd that the entrance is on the Thai side. Of course it can be claimed that it is absurd/disingenuous that the original map drawn by the French didn't appear to follow the watershed. That said, the definition of a watershed is also open to continual international debate when it comes to borders.

The issue is that it was basically accepted, and has subsequently been been ruled on that that is where the lines were as per 1907. This is a little more significant than "I didn't read the terms and conditions", but it appears that the Thai authorities didn't raise the issue at all and it was accepted. No one knows or dare to report the historical reason for why this happened, but to run around and complain 100 years later is more than a little disingenuous.

Is it correct for me to say that the areas that are in dispute now are only under dispute after Thailand re-took the temple in the 50's and returned it and then decided that the areas in green are now under dispute, when the accepted maps of 50 years previous mark the border at another point? If so, the maps should be accepted as in their 1907 state and Thailand should back down.

As a simple aside, it is worth remembering that the Cambodians didn't draw these borders in the 1900's the French and Thais did

[tig28]

The 1962 decision was based on the "official" maps, although not everyone agreed. Some thought it should have been based on the understanding of using the watershed line, especially since nothing else mentioned anything about moving off the watershed line except SOME maps.

Hi whybother

A very valid point. If this dispute were decided on "mapping common sense" then The Temple and grounds would obviously be placed within Thai borders. The early agreement to place borders along the edge of " the watershed " makes sense nowhere more than at the temple of Preah Vihear. It is a tiny parcel of land (within Thailand) on the edge of a vertical drop of 500M. down into Cambodia.

But it is worth noting that the ICJ ruling of 1962 was as result of an appeal by Thailand about sovereignty over Preah Vihear. The court in rendering its judgment made the point that it did not place much/any weight on the various maps nor was it attempting to be "fair" --- but rather emphasized the fact that over many decades the Bangkok government had not disputed the validity of the map drawn up by the French including the temple into Cambodian territory.

So it may not be fair -- It may not be right -- it certainly defies all common sense --- but as Bangkok accepted it for decades -- they had to live with it!! The Temple and immediate grounds are in Cambodia.

Edited August 11, 2010 by tig28

[robert00]

Poor Abhisit,

He looked clever and capable. The truth is that he is just one more puppet in the hands of PAD and army.

Thailand should really have an external look on the situation and see how its international image deteriorates everyday, not good for businnes, investments, tourism.... Time to wake up

Well, yeah, but what percentage of the potential tourists to Thailand do you think ever pay attention to

news stories about politics and international relations in S-East Asia ? Virtually zero - maybe 5% -

and most of them will be investment/business types, not your cheap-flight bar-boys etc. who make

up the overwhelming majority of visitors to Thailand. Bad news DOES make a difference, agreed, but

as long as Thailand carrys on serving up the hedonistic delights it is famous for, they'll keep coming,

border-disputes or no border-disputes.

No one pays attention, the planes are fully booked for the coming season,travel agencies are struggling to keep up with the bookings, esspecially from Uk, Australia, Sweden, Germany it is going to be a record season, BOMBS OR NOT, people are only sorry when it is to late.

[Just1Voice]

Poor Abhisit,

He looked clever and capable. The truth is that he is just one more puppet in the hands of PAD and army.

Thailand should really have an external look on the situation and see how its international image deteriorates everyday, not good for businnes, investments, tourism.... Time to wake up

Well, yeah, but what percentage of the potential tourists to Thailand do you think ever pay attention to

news stories about politics and international relations in S-East Asia ? Virtually zero - maybe 5% -

and most of them will be investment/business types, not your cheap-flight bar-boys etc. who make

up the overwhelming majority of visitors to Thailand. Bad news DOES make a difference, agreed, but

as long as Thailand carrys on serving up the hedonistic delights it is famous for, they'll keep coming,

border-disputes or no border-disputes.

No one pays attention, the planes are fully booked for the coming season,travel agencies are struggling to keep up with the bookings, esspecially from Uk, Australia, Sweden, Germany it is going to be a record season, BOMBS OR NOT, people are only sorry when it is to late.

Either you are writing "tongue in cheek" about the planes fully booked, agencies struggling to keep up and it going to be a record season", or you've been smoking something that is considered illegal, and believing everything coming out of the TAT. Or you work for TAT.

[tig28]

As a simple aside, it is worth remembering that the Cambodians didn't draw these borders in the 1900's the French and Thais did

Hi Thai at Heart

The Thais certainly did not have anything to do with the French mapping.The map was shoved down their throat. Thailand was at the time terrified that France would colonize it .... as she was doing everywhere else in the region. The Thai King played a very clever game of brinkmanship with the French by slowly allowing them to "claim" what was then various quite small pieces of Thai territory -- in exchange for not being colonized like all Thailand's neighbors. Thailand , unlike Cambodia and Vietnam, would have been a pretty big bite -- even for the French.

The British were at the same time nibbling away at Thailands southern borders -- It was not an easy time for the Kingdom.

It is also interesting to note that at the time The French took control of Cambodia in 1863 ---- Cambodia's territory did not then even include what is now the entire province of Siem Reap. This whole region (of what is now Cambodia) had been part of Thailand since 1794.

Also dont forget that Cambodia had not been an independent state for some 200 years prior to the French colonization -- but dominated by its powerful neighbor -- Siam (& to a lesser extent-- Vietnam.) At this time Siamese officials occupied senior positions within the Cambodian rulers' courts, determining which foreign representatives they were permitted to meet.

The "mapping" was French.

[Thai at Heart]

As a simple aside, it is worth remembering that the Cambodians didn't draw these borders in the 1900's the French and Thais did

Hi Thai at Heart

The Thais certainly did not have anything to do with the French mapping.The map was shoved down their throat. Thailand was at the time terrified that France would colonize it .... as she was doing everywhere else in the region. The Thai King played a very clever game of brinkmanship with the French by slowly allowing them to "claim" what was then various quite small pieces of Thai territory -- in exchange for not being colonized like all Thailand's neighbors. Thailand , unlike Cambodia and Vietnam, would have been a pretty big bite -- even for the French.

The British were at the same time nibbling away at Thailands southern borders -- It was not an easy time for the Kingdom.

It is also interesting to note that at the time The French took control of Cambodia in 1863 ---- Cambodia's territory did not then even include what is now the entire province of Siem Reap. This whole region (of what is now Cambodia) had been part of Thailand since 1794.

Also dont forget that Cambodia had not been an independent state for some 200 years prior to the French colonization -- but dominated by its powerful neighbor -- Siam (& to a lesser extent-- Vietnam.) At this time Siamese officials occupied senior positions within the Cambodian rulers' courts, determining which foreign representatives they were permitted to meet.

The "mapping" was French.

The French carried out the mapping process on behalf of both parties.

Weren't these initial maps drawn up in the process of a land swap deal? So was this a completely one sided deal? Seems Thailand should have raised this issue 100 years ago.

In 1867, Franco-Thai treaty renouncing Thai suzerainty over Cambodia, and leaving Siam for the control of Battambang, Siem Reap, Banteay Meanchey and Oddar Meancheay provinces ,[5] which officially became provinces of Thailand. In 1904, a map was made which showed the temple as being within Thailand's boundary. Later in 1907, the 4 provinces were ceded back to France in an exchange for regaining Thai sovereignty of Trat Province and Amphoe Dan Sai of Loei Province, in a border treaty between France and Thailand, during the state visit of King Rama V to France.[5] In 1907 the Thai-Cambodian border was mapped by the French on behalf of a bilateral border commission. However, the subsequent map showed Preah Vihear Temple as being in Cambodia, which is different from the 1904 map. Despite this, Thailand circulated the map for official use . The circulation significantly affects the current dispute.[6]

Wiki potted history on the standoff

Edited August 11, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[SamritT]

The old and unfair map is French, because there was no Thai (of Cambodian) who can draw map at that time. Maps is a western thing at that time. Not an Asian thing.

Edited August 11, 2010 by SamritT

[DickFarang]

As a simple aside, it is worth remembering that the Cambodians didn't draw these borders in the 1900's the French and Thais did

Hi Thai at Heart

The Thais certainly did not have anything to do with the French mapping.The map was shoved down their throat. Thailand was at the time terrified that France would colonize it .... as she was doing everywhere else in the region. The Thai King played a very clever game of brinkmanship with the French by slowly allowing them to "claim" what was then various quite small pieces of Thai territory -- in exchange for not being colonized like all Thailand's neighbors. Thailand , unlike Cambodia and Vietnam, would have been a pretty big bite -- even for the French.

The British were at the same time nibbling away at Thailands southern borders -- It was not an easy time for the Kingdom.

It is also interesting to note that at the time The French took control of Cambodia in 1863 ---- Cambodia's territory did not then even include what is now the entire province of Siem Reap. This whole region (of what is now Cambodia) had been part of Thailand since 1794.

Also dont forget that Cambodia had not been an independent state for some 200 years prior to the French colonization -- but dominated by its powerful neighbor -- Siam (& to a lesser extent-- Vietnam.) At this time Siamese officials occupied senior positions within the Cambodian rulers' courts, determining which foreign representatives they were permitted to meet.

The "mapping" was French.

“This whole region (of what is now Cambodia) had been part of Thailand since 1794.”

And where was the border before the expansion under King Taksin the Great ?

[rubl]

The old and unfair map is French, because there was no Thai (of Cambodian) who can draw map at that time. Maps is a western thing at that time. Not an Asian thing.

Really unfair, go complain with the U.N. even though they are not your father.

PS the Chinese were also good at drawing maps, The Indians started even earlier, so not really a western-only thing.

Edited August 11, 2010 by rubl

[henryalleman]

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.

[asiawatcher]

Judging from the comments by the ill informed in the earlier parts of this 'chat' I would say the most capable man to make the decision and retorts, already wears the hat and the buck stops with him. All the diatribe about PAD and yellow shirts are all irrelevant as even the kwai daeng will back anything that gives Cambodia a push! Thai's, as we are all aware, are very nationalistic. The majority, if not all Thai's, will back the PM on this and thugs like Hun Sen, despite his strong arm tactics locally would not want to test Thailand's military capability. I would also suggest no way would Laos, VN etc interfere as it has nothing to do with them as inferred by another ill informed member.

So maybe politics are behind this decision to draw all Thai's to a common goal (and support for the PM), and international ruling does not necessarily mean Thailand will take note especially as this part of Thailand and the area in dispute actually did belong to Thailand in times gone past (check your history). Similarly, Thai Law does not recognise much of any other international law - which is how the courts treated judgements by the Superior Court of Washington when gaining judgement on Thaksin by an American citizen and were in no uncertain terms, told - go away when presented the judgement! UN and UNESCO have proven time and time again to be ineffectual busy-bodies and in this particular instance - I would leave it up to the Thai's to make any decisions, political, civil or military. As also has already been clearly stated the issues over access - let the Cambodians figure that out - talk about cutting off their noses .... the only access is from within Thailand. What- they are going to spend a fortune on building roads and access up a mountain? What a load of.... !

At any rate, I can't believe an international incidence over (yet) another temple! I thought the last count was somewhere about 100,000 in Thailand. <deleted>. Much to do about nothing really!

Edited August 11, 2010 by asiawatcher

[whybother]

I only put it up, because whilst there are dozens of other maps available around, it seems to as clearly as possible put a decent context on what is being discussed. One can obviously see the potential absurdity of having a temple on a cliff with the entrance on the other side of the border.

Of course it can be claimed that it is absurd that the entrance is on the Thai side. Of course it can be claimed that it is absurd/disingenuous that the original map drawn by the French didn't appear to follow the watershed. That said, the definition of a watershed is also open to continual international debate when it comes to borders.

The issue is that it was basically accepted, and has subsequently been been ruled on that that is where the lines were as per 1907. This is a little more significant than "I didn't read the terms and conditions", but it appears that the Thai authorities didn't raise the issue at all and it was accepted. No one knows or dare to report the historical reason for why this happened, but to run around and complain 100 years later is more than a little disingenuous.

Is it correct for me to say that the areas that are in dispute now are only under dispute after Thailand re-took the temple in the 50's and returned it and then decided that the areas in green are now under dispute, when the accepted maps of 50 years previous mark the border at another point? If so, the maps should be accepted as in their 1907 state and Thailand should back down.

As a simple aside, it is worth remembering that the Cambodians didn't draw these borders in the 1900's the French and Thais did

I basically agree with what you are saying ... except the watershed bit.

The watershed is basically a mountain range where the 2 sides have different characteristics ... in this case, the temple is clearly on the Thai side of that watershed, being at the top of the cliffs.

But, as you say, and I have said, many (but not all) maps show the temple in Cambodian territory. The Thais have often disputed this, and the world court has ruled against them.

I don't believe they are currently disputing the ownership of the temple itself or the land *immediately* around it. My understanding is that they are disputing the ownership of other land around the immediate temple grounds. And I don't believe that area was ruled on by the world court.

Ofcourse, the PAD want it all back, but they want Angkor Wat as well ... enough said.

[rubl]

I basically agree with what you are saying ... except the watershed bit.

The watershed is basically a mountain range where the 2 sides have different characteristics ... in this case, the temple is clearly on the Thai side of that watershed, being at the top of the cliffs.

Watershed or drainage divide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_divide )

According to this definition the temple on top of the cliffs may be ON the watershed depending on the lay of land under the temple. Is it flat, leans to the Thai side, leans to the Cambodian side ?

[SamritT]

<br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Does Marc realize he is opening the box of Pandora.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think it is the other way round. The current Northern Malaysia, including Penang, should be return to Thailand. There is even a Thai temple in Penang as territorial proof.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1699830

[rubl]

<br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Does Marc realize he is opening the box of Pandora.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think it is the other way round. The current Northern Malaysia, including Penang, should be return to Thailand. There is even a Thai temple in Penang as territorial proof.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1699830

We have Thai temples in America and Europe, when do you want us to hand them back ?

[DickFarang]

<br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Does Marc realize he is opening the box of Pandora.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think it is the other way round. The current Northern Malaysia, including Penang, should be return to Thailand. There is even a Thai temple in Penang as territorial proof.

http://www.lonelypla...hreadID=1699830

We have Thai temples in America and Europe, when do you want us to hand them back ?

5 5 5

[whybother]

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.

[seri thai]

Only fools want war. K. Abhisit is aware he's got a few of them in powerfull positions and he needs to maneuver carefully to avoid a war and bloodshed. To use this Preah Vihear issue as method to distract from other internal problems is old-fashioned, used many times in many countries. Thailand is fortunate in a PM who has a bit more education and knowledge of the outside world than most others here. And yes, IMHO!

...A fairly accurate assesment (IMHO)

For anyone interested in actualities not hearsay the 1962 ruling on the case bought to the International Court of Justice by Cambodia (AND THAILAND)for adjudication can be found here: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ct&case=45&k=46

Thailand lost the case and the present government does not accept the 50 year old verdict. It has very little to do with the UN unless Thailand invades Cambodia.(A dumb and unlikely move even with the current levels of rabid nationalism)

This is of course all to do with Thailands current political problems and Hun Sen may not be entirely innocent of adding fuel to the flames, tho whether it's Thaksin or Kasit whispering in his ear I really wouldn't like to say!

Abhisit now has to choose between losing face on the international stage or the domestic one. Which way will he jump, or will he be pushed?

We live in interesting times....

[rubl]

Only fools want war. K. Abhisit is aware he's got a few of them in powerfull positions and he needs to maneuver carefully to avoid a war and bloodshed. To use this Preah Vihear issue as method to distract from other internal problems is old-fashioned, used many times in many countries. Thailand is fortunate in a PM who has a bit more education and knowledge of the outside world than most others here. And yes, IMHO!

...A fairly accurate assesment (IMHO)

For anyone interested in actualities not hearsay the 1962 ruling on the case bought to the International Court of Justice by Cambodia (AND THAILAND)for adjudication can be found here: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ct&case=45&k=46

Thailand lost the case and the present government does not accept the 50 year old verdict. It has very little to do with the UN unless Thailand invades Cambodia.(A dumb and unlikely move even with the current levels of rabid nationalism)

This is of course all to do with Thailands current political problems and Hun Sen may not be entirely innocent of adding fuel to the flames, tho whether it's Thaksin or Kasit whispering in his ear I really wouldn't like to say!

Abhisit now has to choose between losing face on the international stage or the domestic one. Which way will he jump, or will he be pushed?

We live in interesting times....

My quote on K. Abhisit may be too vague. I wanted to make clear he's probably too educated to fall into the nationalistic trap. Not easy walking a tightrope.

[bunuel]

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:

quote name='zthyadat' timestamp='1281439319' post='3807205']

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.

[wolf5370]

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?

[IMA_FARANG]

Quote:

The Thai-Cambodia border has never been fully demarcated, partly because it is littered with landmines left over from decades of war in Cambodia.

The above is not true. Now the Thai governement may have refused to accept the findings of where the border lies but I was present in about 1980 (not completely certain when) at the time the then Thai government funded a team from the U.S. Government Mapping Agency to use transit time satellite measuring to determine the Cambodian border from the satellite measurements. They were able to determine the actual border, from old French and Thai records to within plus/minus 3 meters of the internationally accepted border. The team spent 6 months in Thailand, they were sponsored by the U.S. State Department, and they were paid (the cost of the mapping) by the Thai government. So the Thai government knows exactly where the real border is...based on international law amd documentation. Now the fact that the Thai government refuses to accept that finding...that is a different matter...based on politics and not international law and the internationally accepted demarcation of the Thai-Cambodian border. But don't say it is "unknown" because it has been measured to within plus or minus 3 meters...and Thailand has had the results of that team for at least 30 years.

Edited August 11, 2010 by IMA_FARANG

[moetownblues]

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.

[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?

[tig28]

I basically agree with what you are saying ... except the watershed bit.

The watershed is basically a mountain range where the 2 sides have different characteristics ... in this case, the temple is clearly on the Thai side of that watershed, being at the top of the cliffs.

Watershed or drainage divide ( http://en.wikipedia....Drainage_divide )

According to this definition the temple on top of the cliffs may be ON the watershed depending on the lay of land under the temple. Is it flat, leans to the Thai side, leans to the Cambodian side ?

Hi rubi

When you arrive at the "entry" or "starting point" to the temple complex it is actually the first of 3 (or4) sets of stone stairways each of maybe 100m in length.. At the top of each of these sets of steps there is some structure in various states of decay.

Each set of steps elevate some 40M or so -- so from the bottom of the Thai side there is a steady climb of perhaps 200m to the top where the Temple propper is perched on the edge of a vertical drop of about 500m into Cambodia. Once there the lay of the land is very evident.

Maybe these pics of a couple of the sets of steps shall help clarify. (left click to enlarge)

1- is looking back down into Thailand from the top of stage #1

2- is looking upwards from about halfway up a higher stage.

3- shows the Temple at the top.

The trudge up to the Temple proper is quite a haul in the heat.

[tig28]

I basically agree with what you are saying ... except the watershed bit.

The watershed is basically a mountain range where the 2 sides have different characteristics ... in this case, the temple is clearly on the Thai side of that watershed, being at the top of the cliffs.

Watershed or drainage divide ( http://en.wikipedia....Drainage_divide )

According to this definition the temple on top of the cliffs may be ON the watershed depending on the lay of land under the temple. Is it flat, leans to the Thai side, leans to the Cambodian side ?

Hi rubi

When you arrive at the "entry" or "starting point" to the temple complex it is actually the first of 3 (or4) sets of stone stairways each of maybe 100m in length.. At the top of each of these sets of steps there is some structure in various states of decay.

Each set of steps elevate some 40M or so -- so from the bottom of the Thai side there is a steady climb of perhaps 200m to the top where the Temple propper is perched on the edge of a vertical drop of about 500m into Cambodia. Once there the lay of the land is very evident.

Maybe these pics of a couple of the sets of steps shall help clarify. (left click to enlarge)

1- is looking back down into Thailand from the top of stage #1

2- is looking upwards from about halfway up a higher stage.

3- shows the Temple at the top -- complete with vendors.

The trudge up to the Temple proper is quite a haul in the heat.

[rubl]

I basically agree with what you are saying ... except the watershed bit.

The watershed is basically a mountain range where the 2 sides have different characteristics ... in this case, the temple is clearly on the Thai side of that watershed, being at the top of the cliffs.

Watershed or drainage divide ( http://en.wikipedia....Drainage_divide )

According to this definition the temple on top of the cliffs may be ON the watershed depending on the lay of land under the temple. Is it flat, leans to the Thai side, leans to the Cambodian side ?

Hi rubi

When you arrive at the "entry" or "starting point" to the temple complex it is actually the first of 3 (or4) sets of stone stairways each of maybe 100m in length.. At the top of each of these sets of steps there is some structure in various states of decay.

Each set of steps elevate some 40M or so -- so from the bottom of the Thai side there is a steady climb of perhaps 200m to the top where the Temple propper is perched on the edge of a vertical drop of about 500m into Cambodia. Once there the lay of the land is very evident.

Maybe these pics of a couple of the sets of steps shall help clarify. (left click to enlarge)

1- is looking back down into Thailand from the top of stage #1

2- is looking upwards from about halfway up a higher stage.

3- shows the Temple at the top.

The trudge up to the Temple proper is quite a haul in the heat.

This is not my area of expertise I must admit. To my idea a watershed separates different drainage basins. The fact that one side of the temple is a steep drop down doesn't matter, that side is a different drainage basin. I would guess that the upper part of the temple maybe in the 'Cambodian' basin, the lower part clearly in the 'Thai' basin. This without wanting to say anything about what belongs to who. We have many experts who are more than willing to tell that.

[Oberkommando]

"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.

Oh no we arent allowed to have facts brought to us about where Thai langauge influences came from;)

We have to listen to the Hun Sen appreciation and Khmers are superior to Thais posters all based on nothing but personal bias and ignoring a few facts. Quite entertaining though. Dont take them so seriously or let their misiniformed opinions wind you up though

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.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Oberkommando

[whybother]

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!

<snip>

The Thai script was probably modeled on Khmer, but is closer to Thai Dam script, both having southern Indian origins. Spoken Khmer and Thai have separate origins and have both influenced each other and both been influenced by Pali and Sanskrit.

[hawker9000]

Abhisit and his boss Sutheo are dangerous fools. That is also why they do not want to bring it to the World Court.  Abhisit will lose big time. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were all damaged by Thailand before and the help they gave to the Americans and the Khmer Rouge. No Asean country will support thailand. Let's hope that the court disband his party tomorrow, so he cannot damage the country more. We see now that the PAD is ruling Thailand.

Well, I think we can see what your agenda truly is, and it's got very little to do with this border dispute.