Thai Army Will Retaliate And No Longer Talk With Cambodia: Sansern

[whybother]

I would think it is obvious that Hun Sen are ordering the shootings at Thailand. He decides what is happening in Cambodia.

LMAO

Are you suggesting that he doesn't?

[kuffki]

I would think it is obvious that Hun Sen are ordering the shootings at Thailand. He decides what is happening in Cambodia.

LMAO

Are you suggesting that he doesn't?

I am suggesting that he is NOT the only one. Did you want to dispute that?

[whybother]

I would think it is obvious that Hun Sen are ordering the shootings at Thailand. He decides what is happening in Cambodia.

LMAO

Are you suggesting that he doesn't?

I am suggesting that he is NOT the only one. Did you want to dispute that?

Yes.

[stepenwolf1958]

After all these years with the temple being on Thai soil, why does Cambodia NOW try to claim it as theirs?

The land won from the Cambodians hundreds of years ago belongs to Thailand no matter what is located on it.

You said land under the temple was taken at war with Cambodia a few hundred years ago.

I can not believe that anyone well educated would be able to say such nonsense.

You have to know that the internationally recognized borders are recognized first on the basis of agreement by both parties.

Based on the fact that Thailand has signed (not long ago) these borders, you have no right to call for something that has happened a few hundred years ago. It is ignoring of an international documents and to remind you it is an obligation for Thais now.

If you give a valid proof of your claims here, i would like to see it.

Or maybe you intent to go in the audit borders with all neighbouring countries? If this is the intention, why to consider only a few hundred years? Go to the revision of boundaries that were at the time of Lavo State or Sukhothai Kingdom. Why not? It would be also ridiculous as your words now.

I just hope you are not part of establishment in Thailand. I am sure Thais are not stupid to think way you do.

Of course it would be quite ignorant to look at the French map as you are doing , when there was a newer more precise Dutch map made in 1760...The French map which you are referring to was made in 1686 and was notoriously inaccurate.

An agreement is deemed invalid when the information presented therein is inaccurate or without the knowledge of the other, in the case of the French map it is exactly this case,

Of course unless either one of us go out and take an actual survey of the area neither of us will ever know the boundary lines.

You obviously do not want to realize it or you can not realize the facts. You should be impartial, rational so you would be able to understand.

Thais(in fact both sides) signed maps once.

Pointless is your try to give us here a clarification on the invalidity of the agreement. Your reasoning is silly.

Are you trying by your explanation about invalidity of that agreement to say that Thais in that time who signed it were retarded, incompetent, drunk, corrupted, not well informed, fools or just traitors so, they signed those agreement?(doesn't matter is it French or Dutch map).Is that what you are trying to say?

Or, maybe you are trying to say that every new Thai government can make revisions of boundaries any way they like if they disagree with agreement of previous government?

Very wrong, sorry.

[whybother]

You obviously do not want to realize it or you can not realize the facts. You should be impartial, rational so you would be able to understand.

Thais(in fact both sides) signed maps once.

Pointless is your try to give us here a clarification on the invalidity of the agreement. Your reasoning is silly.

Are you trying by your explanation about invalidity of that agreement to say that Thais in that time who signed it were retarded, incompetent, drunk, corrupted, not well informed, fools or just traitors so, they signed those agreement?(doesn't matter is it French or Dutch map).Is that what you are trying to say?

Or, maybe you are trying to say that every new Thai government can make revisions of boundaries any way they like if they disagree with agreement of previous government?

Very wrong, sorry.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.

[stepenwolf1958]

After all these years with the temple being on Thai soil, why does Cambodia NOW try to claim it as theirs?

The land won from the Cambodians hundreds of years ago belongs to Thailand no matter what is located on it.

You said land under the temple was taken at war with Cambodia a few hundred years ago.

I can not believe that anyone well educated would be able to say such nonsense.

You have to know that the internationally recognized borders are recognized first on the basis of agreement by both parties.

Based on the fact that Thailand has signed (not long ago) these borders, you have no right to call for something that has happened a few hundred years ago. It is ignoring of an international documents and to remind you it is an obligation for Thais now.

If you give a valid proof of your claims here, i would like to see it.

Or maybe you intent to go in the audit borders with all neighbouring countries? If this is the intention, why to consider only a few hundred years? Go to the revision of boundaries that were at the time of Lavo State or Sukhothai Kingdom. Why not? It would be also ridiculous as your words now.

I just hope you are not part of establishment in Thailand. I am sure Thais are not stupid to think way you do.

Of course it would be quite ignorant to look at the French map as you are doing , when there was a newer more precise Dutch map made in 1760...The French map which you are referring to was made in 1686 and was notoriously inaccurate.

An agreement is deemed invalid when the information presented therein is inaccurate or without the knowledge of the other, in the case of the French map it is exactly this case,

Of course unless either one of us go out and take an actual survey of the area neither of us will ever know the boundary lines.

Red highlighted words i will use to ask you something. Maybe you do not know this or you pretend you do not know but listen to me now, please.

This is historical fact:

The Bayon temple, a World Heritage site in Siem Reap, has 54 towers each representing the 54 provinces of the ancient Khmer empire.

I bet you know Cambodia now has only 24 provinces, because 17 of the others are in Vietnam and 13 in Thailand.

Following your logic and arguments, what will be if now Cambodia want revision of status and boundaries according to that time and say in that time they signed agreement because they were not informed, presented informations were not accurate...etc

What will be if Cambodia wants those 13 provinces back, as it was a few centuries ago(as you said that land around the Pra Vinehar was taken in war hundreds years ago...Can you just imagine where that would go all?(if they follow your logic)

In case Thais have to complain about boundaries, they can do it but in legal and right way. They can apply to international community so to try to make revision of boundaries. They should ask the multilateral mechanism such as the International Court of Justice and that is the only way they have now. They should respect international institutions and to ask help so help will be given.

[whybother]

Red highlighted words i will use to ask you something. Maybe you do not know this or you pretend you do not know but listen to me now, please.

This is historical fact:

The Bayon temple, a World Heritage site in Siem Reap, has 54 towers each representing the 54 provinces of the ancient Khmer empire.

I bet you know Cambodia now has only 24 provinces, because 17 of the others are in Vietnam and 13 in Thailand.

Following your logic and arguments, what will be if now Cambodia want revision of status and boundaries according to that time and say in that time they signed agreement because they were not informed, presented informations were not accurate...etc

What will be if Cambodia wants those 13 provinces back, as it was a few centuries ago(as you said that land around the Pra Vinehar was taken in war hundreds years ago...Can you just imagine where that would go all?(if they follow your logic)

In case Thais have to complain about boundaries, they can do it but in legal and right way. They can apply to international community so to try to make revision of boundaries. They should ask the multilateral mechanism such as the International Court of Justice and that is the only way they have now. They should respect international institutions and to ask help so help will be given.

Except they signed an agreement saying that the border was to be the watershed. The maps came later (as I posted a couple of posts above).

The agreement and the maps do not match. The Thais didn't have the expertise in cartography at that time, so assumed that the map followed the watershed.

[stepenwolf1958]

You obviously do not want to realize it or you can not realize the facts. You should be impartial, rational so you would be able to understand.

Thais(in fact both sides) signed maps once.

Pointless is your try to give us here a clarification on the invalidity of the agreement. Your reasoning is silly.

Are you trying by your explanation about invalidity of that agreement to say that Thais in that time who signed it were retarded, incompetent, drunk, corrupted, not well informed, fools or just traitors so, they signed those agreement?(doesn't matter is it French or Dutch map).Is that what you are trying to say?

Or, maybe you are trying to say that every new Thai government can make revisions of boundaries any way they like if they disagree with agreement of previous government?

Very wrong, sorry.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.

Thanks Whybother for further clarification. I believe that this is a solid argument for international arbitration. It is the only way that Thailand has now. They should listen to you. A little bit of wisdom is now necessary.

P.S. You said "...that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line."

Well, really nice, indeed. Another puzzle now? Accepted or not, after all?

[ballpoint]

Thanks Whybother for further clarification. I believe that this is a solid argument for international arbitration. It is the only way that Thailand has now. They should listen to you. A little bit of wisdom is now necessary.

P.S. You said "...that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line."

Well, really nice, indeed. Another puzzle now? Accepted or not, after all?

The map was not accepted by Thailand, hence the need for the 1962 ruling.

The ruling was purely to decide who owned the temple, and not to legally delineate the border. That is why the ruling states that Thailand must remove its army from "the temple and its vicinity" and not "to beyond the border set by the French map".

Thailand on the whole accepted that the temple belongs to Cambodia, but does not accept Cambodia's take on where its vicinity ends and Thailand begins. The 2000 MOU clearly shows that the land is disputed by both sides.

By allowing Thailand to effectively control the disputed land from the end of the Khmer Rouge era up to the World Heritage declaration, Cambodia seems to have fallen into the same trap that Thailand did when it never contested temple ownership following the drawing up of the French map. Using the same "possession is 9/10ths of the law" logic used in 1962, any new ruling would be obliged to hand the land to Thailand. A precedent has been set after all.

The fact that the temple was built by the Khmer empire has no relevance on the current dispute what so ever. What next, Italy to claim the UK south of Hadrian's Wall? Not to worry, the UK itself can claim some of the US, much of Canada, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Africa, Malaysia, Australia... After all, there are clearly numerous structures in all these countries that can be traced back to the days of empire.

Having Hun Sen's dear 33 year old General son leading the charge in a quest for personal glory further muddies the waters. At least we are spared what would happen if Chalerm were in charge here though. Mr Happy Toilet would have a chance to get his mojo back.

Edited February 8, 2011 by ballpoint

[Robby nz]

Cambodian FM Namhong said to be traveling to US to meet UN, affirms no negotiations with Thailand unless UN Security Council mediates /TAN_Network

Now tell me who it is who will not hold bylateral talks.

Whats the date on this one please? Just see the OP of this post.

things seem to change on daily basis.

Saying that, Thailand declined an offer from ASEAN or UN to mediate and i do not see a problem about Cambodia wanting to speak only through UN mediators, since all previous talks failed

It is in todays news clippings on this site.

Farther, todays news from the other paper:

The Thai-Cambodian border dispute must be resolved bilaterally, Indonesian Foreign Minister and current Asean chairman Marty Natalegawa said after meeting Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Tuesday

He also met the Cambodian Foreign Minister who has apparantly agreed.

And:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva will make a telephone call to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon tonight to explain the border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said on Tuesday.

If you want to read the rest of these stories you will have to go look yourself.

[kuffki]

Cambodian FM Namhong said to be traveling to US to meet UN, affirms no negotiations with Thailand unless UN Security Council mediates /TAN_Network

Now tell me who it is who will not hold bylateral talks.

Whats the date on this one please? Just see the OP of this post.

things seem to change on daily basis.

Saying that, Thailand declined an offer from ASEAN or UN to mediate and i do not see a problem about Cambodia wanting to speak only through UN mediators, since all previous talks failed

It is in todays news clippings on this site.

Farther, todays news from the other paper:

The Thai-Cambodian border dispute must be resolved bilaterally, Indonesian Foreign Minister and current Asean chairman Marty Natalegawa said after meeting Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Tuesday

He also met the Cambodian Foreign Minister who has apparantly agreed.

And:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva will make a telephone call to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon tonight to explain the border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said on Tuesday.

If you want to read the rest of these stories you will have to go look yourself.

Because it would kill you or strain your hand to post the links?

[whybother]

^ as much as it would strain you to read.

"in todays news clippings" meaning today's news thread.

and "in the other paper" meaning the Bangkok Post.

[Robby nz]

Because it would kill you or strain your hand to post the links?

I believe it is against forum rules to post links to papers other than The Nation.

[metisdead]

The topic of this thread is old news, please continue discussion on this thread:

//Closed//