No offer to 'mediate', say French

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

A French offer to provide maps of the disputed border area between Thailand and Cambodia has been misrepresented by some Thai media outlets that claimed France had offered to "mediate" between the two countries.

Some columnists even attacked France for poking its nose where it wasn't wanted, leading the French Embassy to clarify the proposal.

"There never was any French offer of 'mediation' in the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, as some media reported," said Alain Gavillet, press attache at the French Embassy.

Yesterday, elements of the Thai media continued to misreport the news and even obtained reaction from Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Some columnists wrote pieces attacking the French government for trying to interfere in Thai-Cambodia affairs.

"Pardon ... sorry but please do not poke your nose," wrote Post Today editor Nakarn Laohavilai in his column in the paper.

On Thursday, the Thai Foreign Ministry had already issued a correction regarding the "misunderstanding".

Thani Thongphakdi, director-general of the Department of Information and spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said, "There may have been some misunderstanding about the proposal as France had not offered to mediate between the two countries as some media had reported.

"Rather, France had expressed its readiness to provide access to maps of the region it had made in the early 20th Century should any country wish to study or make copies of them."

A press release from Thani added that Thailand welcomed the offer.

"In fact, Thailand had in the past received good cooperation from Quai d'Orsay, which had given Thai officials access to their archives several times before.

Should there be additional maps that Thailand has not yet examined, it would certainly consider examining such maps without prejudice to its boundary claims."

-- The Nation 2011-02-12

A French offer to provide maps of the disputed border area between Thailand and Cambodia has been misrepresented by some Thai media outlets that claimed France had offered to "mediate" between the two countries.

"Thai media outlets" like Agence France-Presse (AFP)

Well it does appear that the treaty says one thing and the map another.

Seems the french cartographers made a mistake, or one on purpose, for some reason. So 100 years later still a post-colonial cock up.

It's ok.... 100 years later, the French are now going to fix everything..... again.

The Preah Vhear temple in Preah Vihear province. France has offered to help resolve a festering border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia.

AFP - Feb. 9, 2011

]

You can LOL by yourself , but the fact is that AFP is an independent and respected Media agency .

Thai Medias are just the flunkies of the elite .

^ for those failing to grasp what I thought was a various simple and obvious concept...

My point is that AFP is a respected media agency and they were reporting on the French offer to mediate and that it wasn't just the Thai media doing so.

I wasn't laughing at AFP, I was laughing at the French Embassy pronouncements.

Next time, I'll draw you a picture and a diagram to assist you in following posts better.

My opinion is that the temple and all of the immediate area around it, to the edge of the escarpment, should be in Thailand; the border should follow the edge of the escarpment in that location. This is a more 'radical' point of view than that of some Thais, who do not have a problem with the border excluding the temple from Thai territory. All the various different views, and a history of the controversy, can be readily found on the internet.

I have less problem with the French actions of 100 years ago, than with the ICJ, (International Court of Justice), ruling in 1962. I think it possible that 100 years ago, in the prevailing attitudes and concerns of a different era for all parties involved, that border might have been moved in order to place the temple under the 'protection' of possibly the people who appreciated the value of it the most. Is it possible that the French did this with good intensions, albeit by using the superior power and influence they held over Siam at the time, because they thought it would be in the best interest of preserving a temple that was in the middle of nowhere? More than half a century later, in a very different era, the ICJ could have corrected this error in border placement, but instead perpetuated it.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia website at: http://en.wikipedia....h_Vihear_Temple regarding the opinion of an ICJ member on the ruling....

The minority on the court however wrote a scathing dissent, Australian justice Sir Percy Spender saying:

Whether the Mixed Commission did or did not delimit the Dangrek, the truth, in my opinion, is that the frontier line on that mountain range is today the line of the watershed.

The Court however has upheld a frontier line which is not the line of the watershed, one which in the critical area of the Temple is an entirely different one. This finds its justification in the application of the concepts of recognition or acquiescence.

With profound respect for the Court, I am obliged to Say that in my judgment, as a result of a misapplication of these concepts and an inadmissible extension of them, territory, the sovereignty in which, both by treaty and by the decision of the body appointed under treaty to determine the frontier line, is Thailand's, now becomes vested in Cambodia.

Edited February 12, 201115 yr by siamiam

For people interested in reading more on the 1962 judgment of this case, the links below will take you to the International Court of Justice website.

This will get you into the ICJ's website at the Merits location for this case.

http://www.icj-cij.o...5&code=ct&p3=90

This is the pdf download link for the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Moreno Quintana. I find myself in complete agreement with this judge.

The text of this pdf is in both French and English, scroll through it to find the lingo you like.

http://www.icj-cij.o...3ff60b6daafa658

My opinion is that the temple and all of the immediate area around it, to the edge of the escarpment, should be in Thailand; the border should follow the edge of the escarpment in that location. This is a more 'radical' point of view than that of some Thais, who do not have a problem with the border excluding the temple from Thai territory. All the various different views, and a history of the controversy, can be readily found on the internet.

I have less problem with the French actions of 100 years ago, than with the ICJ, (International Court of Justice), ruling in 1962. I think it possible that 100 years ago, in the prevailing attitudes and concerns of a different era for all parties involved, that border might have been moved in order to place the temple under the 'protection' of possibly the people who appreciated the value of it the most. Is it possible that the French did this with good intensions, albeit by using the superior power and influence they held over Siam at the time, because they thought it would be in the best interest of preserving a temple that was in the middle of nowhere? More than half a century later, in a very different era, the ICJ could have corrected this error in border placement, but instead perpetuated it.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia website at: http://en.wikipedia....h_Vihear_Temple regarding the opinion of an ICJ member on the ruling....

The minority on the court however wrote a scathing dissent, Australian justice Sir Percy Spender saying:

Whether the Mixed Commission did or did not delimit the Dangrek, the truth, in my opinion, is that the frontier line on that mountain range is today the line of the watershed.

The Court however has upheld a frontier line which is not the line of the watershed, one which in the critical area of the Temple is an entirely different one. This finds its justification in the application of the concepts of recognition or acquiescence.

With profound respect for the Court, I am obliged to Say that in my judgment, as a result of a misapplication of these concepts and an inadmissible extension of them, territory, the sovereignty in which, both by treaty and by the decision of the body appointed under treaty to determine the frontier line, is Thailand's, now becomes vested in Cambodia.

seems logical? I 'used' to think as above, too. Then a Thai professor, fluent in 8 languages, told me that if it ever goes back to IC the watershed line would be used, like everywhere else in the World. not the cliff edge.

He told me this in 2007 and said his very highly placed military friends were annoyed, back then, at PAD for trying to o/t the agreement which favoured Thailand. It was, also, tied into Ko Chang. He said geographically Thailand does not have much of a case, but the IC respects private land titles, which the Thai Govt was expropriating from the Ko Changers. He said the Govt should leave those lands in private hands.

FTR, he also told me, in 2007, Thailand will break up into 3 countries. His prediction has become more and more apparent over the past few years, it also included the situation in the South, and something which can not be talked about, though Privy Council members have been, recently, quoted on Wikileaks as saying the same as my friend about 'that'.

He is not what you would call an 'engaged Buddhist' as his Buddhist philosophy is a very cheerful, 'watch it happen' 'let it happen'.

^ for those failing to grasp what I thought was a various simple and obvious concept...

My point is that AFP is a respected media agency and they were reporting on the French offer to mediate and that it wasn't just the Thai media doing so.

I wasn't laughing at AFP, I was laughing at the French Embassy pronouncements.

Next time, I'll draw you a picture and a diagram to assist you in following posts better.

whoa up! the French offered access to their maps. The morons who turned that into 'an offer to mediate' should be larfed at! 55555

BUT,,,where does this 'myth' about fierce independence come from??? domination by China, Japan, Britain, France and since the 1930's the CIA in history should dispel;

>>>like 7/11 on every corner is 'purely thai???

tables, cutlery, suits and ties, DEMOCRACY,,,, ALL foreign 'influences'

Archive letters have shown that Anna Leonowens actually DID administer diplomatically like she said. she never 'made it all up;

Most countries, with tides of history rolling in and out have been doormats to foreign influences and invasions.

Thailand, yes, technically, held onto 'independence', but gave up vast areas of territory and gave up control of how business was conducted http://en.wikipedia..../Bowring_Treaty "Officially a Treaty of Friendship and Commerce,^[4] it is nonetheless claimed to be an unequal bilateral contract as Siam was not in a position to negotiate, considering that Britain had demonstrated its military might"

Thailand is just another of the many many examples of countires that have been pushed and jostled by world upheavals.

edit>>> The Burney Treaty was a treaty signed between Siam and the British in 1826. The treaty was named after the head emissary from the East India Company, Henry Burney. It acknowledged Siamese claim over the four northern Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu. The treaty further guaranteed British ownership of Penang and their rights to trade in Kelantan and Terengganu without the Siamese interference. The four Malay states were not represented in the treaty negotiation. In 1909, the parties of the agreement signed a new treaty that superseded the 1826 treaty. The 1909 treaty, known as Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, also known as the Bangkok Treaty of 1909, transferred the four Malay states from Siamese to British dominion.

Edited February 12, 201115 yr by yellow1red1

seems logical? I 'used' to think as above, too. Then a Thai professor, fluent in 8 languages, told me that if it ever goes back to IC the watershed line would be used, like everywhere else in the World. not the cliff edge.

He told me this in 2007 and said his very highly placed military friends were annoyed, back then, at PAD for trying to o/t the agreement which favoured Thailand. It was, also, tied into Ko Chang. He said geographically Thailand does not have much of a case, but the IC respects private land titles, which the Thai Govt was expropriating from the Ko Changers. He said the Govt should leave those lands in private hands.

FTR, he also told me, in 2007, Thailand will break up into 3 countries. His prediction has become more and more apparent over the past few years, it also included the situation in the South, and something which can not be talked about, though Privy Council members have been, recently, quoted on Wikileaks as saying the same as my friend about 'that'.

He is not what you would call an 'engaged Buddhist' as his Buddhist philosophy is a very cheerful, 'watch it happen' 'let it happen'.

It's the watershed that puts the temple in Thailand. The cliff edge is irrelevant.

seems logical? I 'used' to think as above, too. Then a Thai professor, fluent in 8 languages, told me that if it ever goes back to IC the watershed line would be used, like everywhere else in the World. not the cliff edge.

He told me this in 2007 and said his very highly placed military friends were annoyed, back then, at PAD for trying to o/t the agreement which favoured Thailand. It was, also, tied into Ko Chang. He said geographically Thailand does not have much of a case, but the IC respects private land titles, which the Thai Govt was expropriating from the Ko Changers. He said the Govt should leave those lands in private hands.

FTR, he also told me, in 2007, Thailand will break up into 3 countries. His prediction has become more and more apparent over the past few years, it also included the situation in the South, and something which can not be talked about, though Privy Council members have been, recently, quoted on Wikileaks as saying the same as my friend about 'that'.

He is not what you would call an 'engaged Buddhist' as his Buddhist philosophy is a very cheerful, 'watch it happen' 'let it happen'.

It's the watershed that puts the temple in Thailand. The cliff edge is irrelevant.

the watershed line is to the North, along the foothills, not the cliff edge. I had 'trouble' accepting the facts at first, too, naturally favouring Thailand. Just go on Google Earth and use the little altitude thingy. IF, my friend is correct and he IS about a lot of things, that watersheds are an International standard, there 'could' come a day where the 'agreement', ratifying it that is, would look very pretty.

Personally, I think of it as a pile of rocks, anyway.

oh, look at the sliver of Thai land that goes along the Cambodian border near Ko Chang.

Remember, I don't know one Cambodian. These viewpoints came from a highly educated and well connected Thai.

What I really wish, sometimes, is I would take his 'let it happen' advice but I lean more towards trying to do something.

the watershed line is to the North, along the foothills, not the cliff edge. I had 'trouble' accepting the facts at first, too, naturally favouring Thailand. Just go on Google Earth and use the little altitude thingy. IF, my friend is correct and he IS about a lot of things, that watersheds are an International standard, there 'could' come a day where the 'agreement', ratifying it that is, would look very pretty.

Personally, I think of it as a pile of rocks, anyway.

oh, look at the sliver of Thai land that goes along the Cambodian border near Ko Chang.

Remember, I don't know one Cambodian. These viewpoints came from a highly educated and well connected Thai.

What I really wish, sometimes, is I would take his 'let it happen' advice but I lean more towards trying to do something.

"The watershed line is the the North" of what? The temple? Meaning the temple is in Cambodia if the watershed is used? Wrong!

The watershed isn't an "International standard", it's a geographical term - "a ridge of land that separates two adjacent river systems". The watershed is between the temple and the cliff. The 1962 ICJ ruling acknowledged that.

I don't know how they came up with the sliver of land near Koh Chang, but it's either something to do with the watershed, or some other agreement included in the 1904 treaty. I suppose if the Cambodians don't like the treaty, the borders could always be moved back to Angkor Wat, which is where they were for the previous 500 years before the French pushed it back to where it is now.

It's the watershed that puts the temple in Thailand. The cliff edge is irrelevant.

the watershed line is to the North, along the foothills, not the cliff edge.

I remain of the belief that at the location in question, the cliff edge and the watershed line are one and the same, or should be considered so. My belief in this is based on the investigative work of Dr. Schermerhorn and Mr. Ackermann, (see below). The information provided by these two men was not repudiated during the ICJ's adjudication of the case. If there is more recent information that brings the findings of Schermerhorn and Ackermann into question, please cite it.

This is the download link for the 'Counter-Memorial of the Royal Government of Thaïland' pdf on the International Court of Justice website. Below, I have provided excerpts from this document.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/45/9253.pdf?PHPSESSID=c6232742a7a38cfb23ff60b6daafa658

77. The expression "watershed" when used in treaties for the

definition of boundaries is so to be interpreted as to produce a

practical result, namely, that of having a physical boundary easy

to recognize, likely to be of enduring character and suitable to the

terrain in which the boundary line is to be drawn. ……..

80. The Thai Government accordingly consulted Prof. W. Schermerhorn,

whose report appears as Annex No. 49 to this Counter-

Memorial. Dr. Schermerhorn is a former director of the Geodetic

Institute of the Technical University of Delft, and present Dean

of the International Training Centre for Aerial Survey at Delft.

This report was produced after a most thorough investigation on

the spot, Dr. Schermerhorn's assistant, Mr. F. E. Ackermann, Dipl.

Ing., having spent some ten days at Phra Viharn, where he had the

advantage in the rainy season of observing for himself the actual

direction of the flow of rain water, an advantage which it is doubtful

whether Captain Oum enjoyed, as he at any rate began his work

in December, in the dry season.

The Court is respectfully referred to Dr. Schermerhorn's report,

which makes it clear that there are errors in the contours and the

tracing of rivers which make it impossible to regard the boundary

line drawn in "annex 1" as marking the real watershed. "Annex 1"

does not indicate the presence of a saddle on the west side of Phra

Viham, clearly shown on the map attached to Dr. Schermerhorn's

report, on which the contours are marked at 10-20 rnetre intervals.

The result is that the line drawn on "annex 1" apparently to represent

the watershed is wholly erroneous, being too far to the

north, and does not in any sense correspond to the watershed

boundary for which the Treaty of 1904 provides. The report and

map fully confirm that for al1 practical purposes the watershed on

the Phra Viharn plateau coincides with the cliff edge, so that the

temple is in Thai territory.

Edited February 13, 201115 yr by siamiam

This is the download link for the 'Counter-Memorial of the Royal Government of Thaïland' pdf on the International Court of Justice website. Below, I have provided excerpts from this document.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/45/9253.pdf?PHPSESSID=c6232742a7a38cfb23ff60b6daafa658

Professor Schermerhorn's report is contained in the above cited pdf. It appears at the end of the pdf as Annex 49 and it includes some of the maps from his original report.

Again, if there is more recent, credible information, that brings into question the findings of Schermerhorn and Ackermann, please cite it.