Lots Of Talking But Little In The Way Of Diplomacy; Thai-Cambodian Border

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Lots of talking but little in the way of diplomacy

By The Nation

Published on February 12, 2011

As the border conflict simmers, both Thailand and Cambodia should withdraw troops from the area and sit down at the negotiating table

All eyes will be on the UN Security Council this Monday when Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and his Cambodian counterpart Hor Nam Hong present their cases to the 15-member body. Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, in his capacity as chair of the Asean Standing Committee, will also make a statement.

Considering the microphone diplomacy, the Monday showdown could very well be a juicy event. Cambodian PM Hun Sen is accusing his Thai counterpart Abhisit Vejjajiva of committing war crimes, and accusing Thai troops of using cluster bombs against Cambodian civilians and damaging the historic Hindu temple of Preah Vihear. The Thai Army denies the accusations, saying their targets were military.

For a man who used to run with the Khmer Rogue, it appears that the Cambodian leader has gone soft when one takes into consideration his benchmark for what constitutes a war crime. Let's not forget that he has done just about every thing to obstruct the ongoing UN tribunal on former Khmer Rouge cadres charged with crimes against humanity.

At the heart of the problem is the overlapping claim along the Thai-Cambodian border near the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership the World Court decided three decades ago in favour of Phnom Penh. It can be said that a time bomb was also put in place because the overlapping disputed area was not ruled upon.

Bangkok has faulted Unesco for exacerbating the sovereignty spat when it declared the temple a World Heritage site in July 2008 despite Thai objections. Today, the two sides continue to claim ownership over the 4.6-square-kilometre areas surrounding the temple. As they beef up the border with soldiers, they also beat the nationalist drum for the ears of their supporters while paying lip service to the need to strengthen bilateral ties.

Sadly, politicians and political groups from both countries milk the situation for their own selfish gain, while at the same time heightening the political stakes and making it harder for either government to come up with any compromise without looking weak.

For the time being, both Thailand and Cambodia are behaving with the same degree of intransigence, stubbornly refusing to budge on how to move this forward. Bangkok wants to settle the dispute bilaterally while Phnom Penh took the matter to the UN Security Council. The two sides talk about settling the matter diplomatically but in fact they are equally as pigheaded when it comes to agreeing on the modality to settle the dispute. Perhaps they want to keep using military means to serve their political purposes but don't have the courage to say so because such talk is unacceptable in this day and age.

If this dispute becomes internationalised, Thailand stands to lose face in the long run, as the 1962 ruling will be amplified and make Thailand look as if it is still crying over spilled milk.

What is lacking is a game plan from the Thai side. Bangkok appears to be reacting to Phnom Penh's every move. At first, Thailand said it would deal with the issue bilaterally. But when Phnom Penh wrote to the Security Council, Bangkok began dancing to the Cambodian tune. And this Monday the two ministers, plus the Asean chair, will be in New York to state their positions.

First of all, Kasit didn't have to write to the Security Council. He should just have stayed the course. In 2008, during the administration of the late Samak Sundaravej, Thailand used diplomatic means to block Cambodia's attempt to reach the Security Council, in spite of the fact that at the time Cambodia's good friend Vietnam was the chair. It was the same issue involving armed clashes along the border.

The ironic thing is that the Samak administration was doing this on the run, as Government House had been taken over by the yellow shirts. The then-administration stood its ground. Kasit, on the other hand, is a retired diplomat, a top one at that. And in spite of the fact that the then-government was unable to even get into Government House, foreign minister Noppadon Patama had just resigned, and deputy premier Sahat Bunditkul was quickly rushed to the Asean ministerial meeting in Singapore, Thailand's message to, and tactics toward, Cambodia, were not confusing.

So what can Kasit tell the Security Council that will make any difference? That Cambodia shot first and fired artillery into civilian territory, forcing thousands to run for their lives? And then what?

Kasit can start by asking Cambodia to respect international norms and to pull its troops back from the border, especially in the disputed area around the temple. Thailand should do the same.

-- The Nation 2011-02-12

[sirchai]

At the heart of the problem is the overlapping claim along the Thai-Cambodian border near the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership the World Court decided three decades ago in favour of Phnom Penh

Three decades ago? 1962 makes it into five decades now. So, my question would be: "Who was the world court at this time?"

Did the French decide in favor of Cambodia, because they occupied this country? :jap:

[whybother]

At the heart of the problem is the overlapping claim along the Thai-Cambodian border near the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership the World Court decided three decades ago in favour of Phnom Penh

Three decades ago? 1962 makes it into five decades now. So, my question would be: "Who was the world court at this time?"

Did the French decide in favor of Cambodia, because they occupied this country? :jap:

The question should be why did they move off the agreed watershed when they did the maps in the first place?

Edited February 12, 2011 by whybother

[Steely Dan]

At the heart of the problem is the overlapping claim along the Thai-Cambodian border near the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership the World Court decided three decades ago in favour of Phnom Penh

Three decades ago? 1962 makes it into five decades now. So, my question would be: "Who was the world court at this time?"

Did the French decide in favor of Cambodia, because they occupied this country? :jap:

The question should be why did they move off the agreed watershed when they did the maps in the first place?

If you carefully read the 1962 judgement it quite clearly concludes that the watershed was of no particular importance compared to the operational considerations of having an open border and cooperating to keep it open. The stakes only got raised with the Unesco listing, but I fail to see how that would overturn the 1962 ruling. The editorial quite rightly comments on Thai policy seeming confused and reactive to what Cambodia do, I would suggest it is also reactive to PAD's rantings and therefore a tug of war between ultra-nationalist warmongering and realpolitik is playing out with the small issue of face causing further paralysis and making it difficult indeed to diffuse the whole mess.

[animatic]

At the heart of the problem is the overlapping claim along the Thai-Cambodian border near the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership the World Court decided three decades ago in favour of Phnom Penh

Three decades ago? 1962 makes it into five decades now. So, my question would be: "Who was the world court at this time?"

Did the French decide in favor of Cambodia, because they occupied this country? :jap:

The question should be why did they move off the agreed watershed when they did the maps in the first place?

If you carefully read the 1962 judgement it quite clearly concludes that the watershed was of no particular importance compared to the operational considerations of having an open border and cooperating to keep it open. The stakes only got raised with the Unesco listing, but I fail to see how that would overturn the 1962 ruling. The editorial quite rightly comments on Thai policy seeming confused and reactive to what Cambodia do, I would suggest it is also reactive to PAD's rantings and therefore a tug of war between ultra-nationalist warmongering and realpolitik is playing out with the small issue of face causing further paralysis and making it difficult indeed to diffuse the whole mess.

The UNESCO listing only brought it back up on the nationalists radar, it gave them one of the very few issues they had any possible traction with in their slow slide from power to obscurity.

[whybother]

If you carefully read the 1962 judgement it quite clearly concludes that the watershed was of no particular importance compared to the operational considerations of having an open border and cooperating to keep it open. The stakes only got raised with the Unesco listing, but I fail to see how that would overturn the 1962 ruling. The editorial quite rightly comments on Thai policy seeming confused and reactive to what Cambodia do, I would suggest it is also reactive to PAD's rantings and therefore a tug of war between ultra-nationalist warmongering and realpolitik is playing out with the small issue of face causing further paralysis and making it difficult indeed to diffuse the whole mess.

What relevance does an open border have to the temple?

The 1904 treaty said the border followed the watershed. The 1907 maps moved off the watershed. There are no specific references as to why that was the case.

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

The natural inference was that she [Thailand] had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line.

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

[Steely Dan]

If you carefully read the 1962 judgement it quite clearly concludes that the watershed was of no particular importance compared to the operational considerations of having an open border and cooperating to keep it open. The stakes only got raised with the Unesco listing, but I fail to see how that would overturn the 1962 ruling. The editorial quite rightly comments on Thai policy seeming confused and reactive to what Cambodia do, I would suggest it is also reactive to PAD's rantings and therefore a tug of war between ultra-nationalist warmongering and realpolitik is playing out with the small issue of face causing further paralysis and making it difficult indeed to diffuse the whole mess.

What relevance does an open border have to the temple?

The 1904 treaty said the border followed the watershed. The 1907 maps moved off the watershed. There are no specific references as to why that was the case.

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

The natural inference was that she [Thailand] had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line.

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

Sigh. I suppose the Thais and Cambodians were operationally treating the border as if it had moved off the watershed due to how they were dealing with cross border traffic, which certainly didn't involve diplomatic protests let alone shelling each other, ergo the 1908 Map reflected this. It is a point of issue whether or not the Thais were intimidated into not complaining, but the majority ruling of the ICJ was that Thailand did not demonstrate their considering the watershed important due to the action (or inaction) of Thai authorities at the border.

[whybother]

Sigh. I suppose the Thais and Cambodians were operationally treating the border as if it had moved off the watershed due to how they were dealing with cross border traffic, which certainly didn't involve diplomatic protests let alone shelling each other, ergo the 1908 Map reflected this. It is a point of issue whether or not the Thais were intimidated into not complaining, but the majority ruling of the ICJ was that Thailand did not demonstrate their considering the watershed important due to the action (or inaction) of Thai authorities at the border.

But the border crossing is not at the temple, so what relevance does the border crossing have to the temple.

I doubt they had much in the way of cross border traffic in 1908 considering that the border wasn't even defined then.

Initially, IMO, the Thais didn't even realise that the map was wrong (as far as the 1904 treaty was concerned). Also, the maps were presented after the border commission were disbanded, so there is a question as to whether they were actually officially accepted. The Thais were pretty much in control of the temple until 1962, since the Cambodians couldn't get to it anyway.

[stepenwolf1958]

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

PM this should read this article before breakfast tomorrow, to all turtles among cabinet members, government and parliament. To learn something.

It would certainly be to read to all turtles on the street, calling themselves patriots but they are nothing but senile nationalists.

In the end, this should be given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, before his trip, to try to get some advantage upon Khmers, at last.

We all wish every success to Thailand on Monday session in UN. On behalf of ordinary people good people of this country.

[Steely Dan]

But the border crossing is not at the temple, so what relevance does the border crossing have to the temple.

I doubt they had much in the way of cross border traffic in 1908 considering that the border wasn't even defined then.

Initially, IMO, the Thais didn't even realise that the map was wrong (as far as the 1904 treaty was concerned). Also, the maps were presented after the border commission were disbanded, so there is a question as to whether they were actually officially accepted. The Thais were pretty much in control of the temple until 1962, since the Cambodians couldn't get to it anyway.

I can see we are in danger of getting caught in an infinite loop. The only things clear to me are that the ICJ ruled the temple to be in Cambodia and as a part of their deliberations concluded the 1908 map was accepted by both sides (rightly or wrongly). The ICJ were aware of the wording of the 1904 agreement and still came to this conclusion. I have not seen the 1908 map but I suspect if it were used to demarcate the border today the result would not suit Thailand, though I admit to not being certain how great a discrepency is possible given the scale of the map and the thickness of the line drawn upon it.

However all of the inconsistencies between the 1904 agreement and the 1908 map were considered in 1962 and Thailand did not appeal the decision so all that's left to do is formally demarcate the border on either side of the temple - a process which Thailand seem to want to avoid judging by their rejection of 'internationalism' when it comes to mediation.

[whybother]

But the border crossing is not at the temple, so what relevance does the border crossing have to the temple.

I doubt they had much in the way of cross border traffic in 1908 considering that the border wasn't even defined then.

Initially, IMO, the Thais didn't even realise that the map was wrong (as far as the 1904 treaty was concerned). Also, the maps were presented after the border commission were disbanded, so there is a question as to whether they were actually officially accepted. The Thais were pretty much in control of the temple until 1962, since the Cambodians couldn't get to it anyway.

I can see we are in danger of getting caught in an infinite loop. The only things clear to me are that the ICJ ruled the temple to be in Cambodia and as a part of their deliberations concluded the 1908 map was accepted by both sides (rightly or wrongly). The ICJ were aware of the wording of the 1904 agreement and still came to this conclusion. I have not seen the 1908 map but I suspect if it were used to demarcate the border today the result would not suit Thailand, though I admit to not being certain how great a discrepency is possible given the scale of the map and the thickness of the line drawn upon it.

However all of the inconsistencies between the 1904 agreement and the 1908 map were considered in 1962 and Thailand did not appeal the decision so all that's left to do is formally demarcate the border on either side of the temple - a process which Thailand seem to want to avoid judging by their rejection of 'internationalism' when it comes to mediation.

That pretty much sums it up. If the 1907/1908 map is used, the 4.6 sq kms would belong to Cambodia. The problem for Thailand is that they didn't complain (enough?) about the original maps, or about the 1962 decision. IMO, originally they didn't realise the maps were wrong, and later they were in possession of it anyway. I don't know why they didn't do anything after 1962.

But given the 1962 decision was a 9-3 decision

[stepenwolf1958]

But the border crossing is not at the temple, so what relevance does the border crossing have to the temple.

I doubt they had much in the way of cross border traffic in 1908 considering that the border wasn't even defined then.

Initially, IMO, the Thais didn't even realise that the map was wrong (as far as the 1904 treaty was concerned). Also, the maps were presented after the border commission were disbanded, so there is a question as to whether they were actually officially accepted. The Thais were pretty much in control of the temple until 1962, since the Cambodians couldn't get to it anyway.

I can see we are in danger of getting caught in an infinite loop. The only things clear to me are that the ICJ ruled the temple to be in Cambodia and as a part of their deliberations concluded the 1908 map was accepted by both sides (rightly or wrongly). The ICJ were aware of the wording of the 1904 agreement and still came to this conclusion. I have not seen the 1908 map but I suspect if it were used to demarcate the border today the result would not suit Thailand, though I admit to not being certain how great a discrepency is possible given the scale of the map and the thickness of the line drawn upon it.

However all of the inconsistencies between the 1904 agreement and the 1908 map were considered in 1962 and Thailand did not appeal the decision so all that's left to do is formally demarcate the border on either side of the temple - a process which Thailand seem to want to avoid judging by their rejection of 'internationalism' when it comes to mediation.

That pretty much sums it up. If the 1907/1908 map is used, the 4.6 sq kms would belong to Cambodia. The problem for Thailand is that they didn't complain (enough?) about the original maps, or about the 1962 decision. IMO, originally they didn't realise the maps were wrong, and later they were in possession of it anyway. I don't know why they didn't do anything after 1962.

But given the 1962 decision was a 9-3 decision

Exactly as you said, red highlighted your words are the key of all problem now. What is done is done and you can not, with every new government you install, to make revision what previous(your) government made. Simply, no argument for such acting. That tries always have consequences, very high price. That lead to total chaos and mess.

Last and painful example to make revision(from ancient times) of boundaries had as result bloody war in Serbian-Croat-Bosnian conflict.

Just as you said and as i told before, here.

[asiawatcher]

Agree with most of the posts. Thailand has had enough time to sort it out, had the opportunity to oppose and they signed off on it (twice) so in the interests of cessation of hostilities, why not put some logic forward - oh never mind - it was just a thought....

[jayboy]

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

It is a good article but the best I have seen is Shawn Crispin's from the Asia Times which analyses the links between the PAD and the military, and their reasons for stirring up trouble.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB08Ae01.html

[Steely Dan]

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

It is a good article but the best I have seen is Shawn Crispin's from the Asia Times which analyses the links between the PAD and the military, and their reasons for stirring up trouble.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB08Ae01.html

Very good article, thanks for posting. It is a classic magicians trick to have the audience focus their attention away from what the other hand is doing and what better diversion than a temple claimed by the historic enemy Cambodia. I'm sure many PAD supporters have not worked out the motivations driving their leaders, except perhaps for the 82 currently in jail. One thing stands out though and that's that both popular protest movements have democracy in their name but are anything but democratic.

[Insight]

Something tells me the massive build up of Thai troops at the border isn't just to watch over a bit of land covering an old temple. It'll be very interesting to see how long the troops remain there, even with or lack of aggression from either side.

My bets are they go home after Songkran

[stepenwolf1958]

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

It is a good article but the best I have seen is Shawn Crispin's from the Asia Times which analyses the links between the PAD and the military, and their reasons for stirring up trouble.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB08Ae01.html

Wow! This link is amazing. Thanks a lot.

[stepenwolf1958]

Something tells me the massive build up of Thai troops at the border isn't just to watch over a bit of land covering an old temple. It'll be very interesting to see how long the troops remain there, even with or lack of aggression from either side.

My bets are they go home after Songkran

I hope both sides will step back even earlier than you said. With the help of UN and without blue helmets as a buffer, i hope so.