Thai Govt Floundering On Cambodian Relations

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Floundering on Cambodian relations

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

The government seems to have run out of ideas for restoring ties with Cambodia, because once again the Foreign Ministry has rolled out old stuff re-packaged as a so-called "new plan".

The first meeting between Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his Cambodian counterpart Hun Sen after months of diplomatic rows produced nothing useful either.

The latest plan announced a few days ago encourages local civilian and military authorities as well as central government agencies to come up with activities that will boost ties with Cambodia. The activities such as cultural events, sports competitions, media and academic exchanges and economic assistance is really old wine in new bottle and does not address the actual reason for the breakdown of relations.

Frankly speaking, the poor relations between Thailand and Cambodia over the past years mostly was caused by the government and its political supporters.

Ordinary citizens living on either side of the border, local authorities and even the military have had no problems over the past few months. Relations at this end are normal, even though the two governments are at loggerheads.

The only two issues making relations with Cambodia sour are former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the controversial Hindu temple of Preah Vihear.

Thaksin's relationship with the Cambodian government seems to be a problem for Abhisit's government, not the country. The government was angered when the former PM was made economic adviser to the Cambodian government and Hun Sen last year. Abhisit used all his means, including the downgrading of diplomatic ties, to force Thaksin to step down.

Thaksin eventually relented and resigned as adviser to Cambodia in August. Then Abhisit agreed to reinstate the Thai ambassador to Phnom Penh and Hun Sen reciprocated.

However, the problem with the Preah Vihear Temple is a bit more complicated because Abhisit's government has been addressing the issue in quite the wrong way. With pressure from nationalist groups, the government mixed up the World Heritage Site inscription of Preah Vihear with boundary disputes in the area adjacent to the temple.

The government has used resources and great effort in opposing the inscription of Preah Vihear on grounds that it feared losing sovereignty over the surrounding areas.

Although there is no real implication, Phnom Penh is clearly dissatisfied with Thailand's moves to delay the World Heritage Committee's consideration of the Preah Vihear management plan.

Abhisit wants the dispute over the 4.6 square kilometres surrounding the temple to be settled before accepting a management deal for the site.

One of most effective ways to settle the boundary dispute, at least for now, would be to allow the joint boundary committee (JBC) to do its job of demarcation. The committee is merely waiting for a Parliament approval of its minutes from three previous meetings.

The last meeting was in April 2009, but the minutes of this meeting were not proposed to the Parliament. There should be no problems in making the proposal, but the government does not dare put it forward for fear of pressure from nationalist groups.

The group under the umbrella of the People's Alliance for Democracy, which helped install this government, demanded that the authorities scrap the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in 2000 on the boundary demarcation with Cambodia.

The MoU, a basic legal instrument for the JBC, signed when Democrat Chuan Leekpai was in power, recognised the French-made map that showed the Hindu temple as situated on Cambodian territory.

What the government will possibly do now is use delaying tactics to keep JBC's minutes from being read in Parliament. It could hold a series of public hearings on the document after sitting on it for a year and a half.

Obviously, this tactic will do nothing for the bilateral relations, when the government should really let the JBC to resume its job quickly.

A new plan is unnecessary.

-- The Nation 2010-09-30

[asiawatcher]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

[whybother]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

It was clearly Thailand's until about 1900 when the maps were redrawn, apparently putting it into Cambodia ... which is where the whole mess is now - arguing over whether the maps were done correctly.

But how many times has the land changed possession over the centuries? When did Thailand take possession? Who had possession before that ... and before that? Where do you want to draw the line?

[RedNIvar]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

It was clearly Thailand's until about 1900 when the maps were redrawn, apparently putting it into Cambodia ... which is where the whole mess is now - arguing over whether the maps were done correctly.

But how many times has the land changed possession over the centuries? When did Thailand take possession? Who had possession before that ... and before that? Where do you want to draw the line?

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

[Siripon]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

It was clearly Thailand's until about 1900 when the maps were redrawn, apparently putting it into Cambodia ... which is where the whole mess is now - arguing over whether the maps were done correctly.

But how many times has the land changed possession over the centuries? When did Thailand take possession? Who had possession before that ... and before that? Where do you want to draw the line?

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

Common sense tells me that a temple built on a cliff with the surrounding land all belonging to Thailand belongs to Thailand.

The Normans built many castles in England, does that mean the English should give that land back to France?

[RedNIvar]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

It was clearly Thailand's until about 1900 when the maps were redrawn, apparently putting it into Cambodia ... which is where the whole mess is now - arguing over whether the maps were done correctly.

But how many times has the land changed possession over the centuries? When did Thailand take possession? Who had possession before that ... and before that? Where do you want to draw the line?

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

Common sense tells me that a temple built on a cliff with the surrounding land all belonging to Thailand belongs to Thailand.

The Normans built many castles in England, does that mean the English should give that land back to France?

Firstly, it is not surrounded by land belonging to Thailand as you claim. Please get your facts straight. It is bordering Thailand.

"The temple sits atop Pey Tadi, a cliff in the Dângrêk Mountains which straddle the border between Thailand and Cambodia. During different periods it has been located in Cambodia and Thailand in turn. Following Cambodian independence and the Thai occupation of the temple, it was listed as being in Bhumsrol village of Bueng Malu sub-district (now merged with Sao Thong Chai sub-district), in Kantharalak district of the Sisaket province of eastern Thailand. It is 110 km from theMueang Si Sa Ket district, the center of Si Sa Ket province.

After the 1962 ICJ majority ruled that it belonged to Cambodia, it was listed as being in Svay Chrum Village, Kan Tout Commune, in Choam Khsant District ofPreah Vihear province of northern Cambodia."

Secondly, the Norman Castles in England no longer sit on French soil. Neither does it have a land border to France. I fail to see the relevance here.

I seriously question your common sense.

[Buchholz]

Abhisit used all his means, including the downgrading of diplomatic ties, to force Thaksin to step down.

Thaksin eventually relented and resigned as adviser to Cambodia in August.

I thought he quit his economic adviser position because he was too busy with his African diamond and gold mines.

Noppadon Pattama, a legal adviser to ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, confirmed reports that his client was resigning as Cambodia's economic adviser.

He said it was Thaksin's own wish to give up the post, as he had difficulties fulfilling his advisory position.

Noppadon noted that the ex-premier has a lot of businesses to deal with and has to travel frequently.

[chantorn]

I trust in mark. In no time Thai & Cambodia will be kissing and hugging again.

[souvenirdeparis]

Secondly, the Norman Castles in England no longer sit on French soil

% they never ! William took the land for himself,out of his own family ties , not for the Kingdom of France ( hence the 100 -year-war later on ).

As a matter of fact the Queen of GB does have a right on the French throne if you look soberly at the matter, not the other way round.

[souvenirdeparis]

great head of states and diplomats have a knack for resolving such trifling matters ( yes, soùmetimes it results in a war 50 years down the road, but at least the matter is quiet fot a while and life can go on ).

Solution would be a small village-state, no taxes, several casinos on the temple theme, immediate success, big graft for politicians of both countries.

[samjaidee]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

It was clearly Thailand's until about 1900 when the maps were redrawn, apparently putting it into Cambodia ... which is where the whole mess is now - arguing over whether the maps were done correctly.

But how many times has the land changed possession over the centuries? When did Thailand take possession? Who had possession before that ... and before that? Where do you want to draw the line?

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

Common sense tells me that a temple built on a cliff with the surrounding land all belonging to Thailand belongs to Thailand.

The Normans built many castles in England, does that mean the English should give that land back to France?

I guess you thought that was a clever answer. Wrong!

The Normans weren't French; they were Norman.

The Normans were the people who gave their name to Normandy, a region in northern France. They were descended from Viking conquerors of the territory and the native population of mostly Frankish and Gallo-Roman stock. The name "Normans" derives from Nortmanni (Northmen), after the Vikings who founded Normandy.

Is that clear?

[Siripon]

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

Common sense tells me that a temple built on a cliff with the surrounding land all belonging to Thailand belongs to Thailand.

The Normans built many castles in England, does that mean the English should give that land back to France?

Firstly, it is not surrounded by land belonging to Thailand as you claim. Please get your facts straight. It is bordering Thailand.

"The temple sits atop Pey Tadi, a cliff in the Dângrêk Mountains which straddle the border between Thailand and Cambodia. During different periods it has been located in Cambodia and Thailand in turn. Following Cambodian independence and the Thai occupation of the temple, it was listed as being in Bhumsrol village of Bueng Malu sub-district (now merged with Sao Thong Chai sub-district), in Kantharalak district of the Sisaket province of eastern Thailand. It is 110 km from theMueang Si Sa Ket district, the center of Si Sa Ket province.

After the 1962 ICJ majority ruled that it belonged to Cambodia, it was listed as being in Svay Chrum Village, Kan Tout Commune, in Choam Khsant District ofPreah Vihear province of northern Cambodia."

Secondly, the Norman Castles in England no longer sit on French soil. Neither does it have a land border to France. I fail to see the relevance here.

I seriously question your common sense.

The relevance lies in your own words- the Norman castles no longer sit on French soil- because the French lost its English territories in warfare, and as the Angkor empire collapsed, so did its territory, no longer resting on Cambodian soil.

The Thai- Cambodian border follows the watershed of the Dangrek mountains with the plains of Cambodia below and the mountains in Thailand,except for Khao Phra Wiharn- due to the French map.

It's a moot point as the World Court decided so long ago, but as watersheds define borders, the placing of Khao Phra Wiharn in Cambodia defies common sense.

[slapout]

Guess they could propose a trade, frozen chickens, rice, scrape iron (including undetonated bombs), labor, etc. Okay not such a good idea , I admit. How about high bidder gets the thing and forget it.

[Siripon]

[

I

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

Common sense tells me that a temple built on a cliff with the surrounding land all belonging to Thailand belongs to Thailand.

The Normans built many castles in England, does that mean the English should give that land back to France?

I guess you thought that was a clever answer. Wrong!

The Normans weren't French; they were Norman.

The Normans were the people who gave their name to Normandy, a region in northern France. They were descended from Viking conquerors of the territory and the native population of mostly Frankish and Gallo-Roman stock. The name "Normans" derives from Nortmanni (Northmen), after the Vikings who founded Normandy.

Is that clear?

[/quote

My apologies,I realize some present day Normans may wish to separate from France, but I thought Normandy was located in France at the moment.

I must look at the map again.

[RedNIvar]

The relevance lies in your own words- the Norman castles no longer sit on French soil- because the French lost its English territories in warfare, and as the Angkor empire collapsed, so did its territory, no longer resting on Cambodian soil.

The Thai- Cambodian border follows the watershed of the Dangrek mountains with the plains of Cambodia below and the mountains in Thailand,except for Khao Phra Wiharn- due to the French map.

It's a moot point as the World Court decided so long ago, but as watersheds define borders, the placing of Khao Phra Wiharn in Cambodia defies common sense.

I was under the impression that the temple rests on Cambodian soil. I was also under the impression that the Thai ruler during the early 1900's had agreed to this French map. I was also under the impression that the world court had ruled in favor of the Cambodians. I was also under the impression from the attached article that your previous government was in agreement.

What defies common sense is why Thailand is still throwing a tantrum? That is the moot point. Today, the whole planet Earth, with exception of Thailand recognize this temple as being Cambodian on Cambodian soil.

http://en.wiktionary...wiki/sore_loser

[Siripon]

I was under the impression that the temple rests on Cambodian soil. I was also under the impression that the Thai ruler during the early 1900's had agreed to this French map. I was also under the impression that the world court had ruled in favor of the Cambodians. I was also under the impression from the attached article that your previous government was in agreement.

What defies common sense is why Thailand is still throwing a tantrum? That is the moot point. Today, the whole planet Earth, with exception of Thailand recognize this temple as being Cambodian on Cambodian soil.

http://en.wiktionary...wiki/sore_loser

The only person who has thrown a tantrum over Khao Phra Wiharn has been dear Hun Sen who has just had Sam Rainsy sentenced to 20 years in jail for moving a few border posts back to defend Cambodian territory from Vietnamese incursions supported by Hun Sen.

The World Court never ruled on the 4.6 kilometres surrounding the temple.

Btw, I suspect 99.9999% human members of planet Earth have never heard of Kha Phra Wiharn.

[RedNIvar]

The only person who has thrown a tantrum over Khao Phra Wiharn has been dear Hun Sen who has just had Sam Rainsy sentenced to 20 years in jail for moving a few border posts back to defend Cambodian territory from Vietnamese incursions supported by Hun Sen.

The World Court never ruled on the 4.6 kilometres surrounding the temple.

Btw, I suspect 99.9999% human members of planet Earth have never heard of Kha Phra Wiharn.

I still don't see the problem, you claim only 0.0001% of this world is aware of Prear Vihear. That is roughly about 6000 people or 0.01% of the Thai population. I say why bother.

I respectfully disagree and believe Thailand is making the bigger fuss. They are trying too hard to please PAD, calling in the favor.

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

[DickFarang]

On the issue of Thaksin being a 'financial advisor to Cambo I can understand and his demise accordingly was a good move. Thailand and Kampuchea should always maintain civility and having the red leader in their camp was a poor move and not very smart. Now at least that one is resolved.

The issue of the temple my school of thought is out. There are land boundaries in place and if the temple falls within the Thailand boundaries then maybe it should be a Thailand monument. If however it is actually on Cambodian land then give it over and let's all go home. But from an historical point I understand Thai boundaries were a long way further into Cambodia and Thailand reduced its boundaries in a gesture of goodwill thus putting the temple in a 'borderline' position. If history showed this was Thai land previously then I would think it still is Thailand's irrespective of the third party claims. Food for thought anyway.

It was clearly Thailand's until about 1900 when the maps were redrawn, apparently putting it into Cambodia ... which is where the whole mess is now - arguing over whether the maps were done correctly.

But how many times has the land changed possession over the centuries? When did Thailand take possession? Who had possession before that ... and before that? Where do you want to draw the line?

I agree. The temple was built by the Cambodians before the Thai empire was even formed, it sits on Cambodian soil. So, it's Cambodia's. It just takes a little bit of common sense to figure this one out. Now if only the Thai's can find this little common sense.

Common sense tells me that a temple built on a cliff with the surrounding land all belonging to Thailand belongs to Thailand.

The Normans built many castles in England, does that mean the English should give that land back to France?

IMO the Normans (Vikings) were of Scandinavian origin.