World Heritage Committee Needs To Stop Fueling Thai-Cambodian Border Conflict

[webfact]

The World Heritage Committee Needs to Stop Fueling Border Conflict

The role and performance of the World Heritage Committee under the supervision of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) are currently under fire. The committee is being accused by Thailand of fueling the ongoing Thai-Cambodian cross border conflict.

The World Heritage Committee has been undermining the true purpose behind the creation of UNESCO, which is to promote world peace, by causing cross border disputes and the most violent clashes between both countries' armed forces in decades. The committee has endorsed the unilateral registration of the Preah Vihear Temple and the management plan for the disputed 4.6 square kilometer proposed by Cambodia.

UNESCO and its World Heritage Committee need to reconsider the unilateral registration of the temple by Cambodia. From the recent border clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces, there is staggering evidence showing that Cambodia has grossly violated the UN Charter and World Heritage Committee's regulations.

The Cambodian military force fortified and militarized the Preah Vihear Temple during the border clashes with Thailand. The Cambodian military has also violated the UN Charter by targeting populated areas in Thailand, destroying many houses and inflicting civilian casualties. It's attacks on Thailand resulted in a mass evacuation of more than 20,000 people.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has raised a question with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon about the attempt by the World Heritage Committee to manage the disputed area surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple before. Yet despite staunch protest from the Thai government, the committee has moved forward with the management plan which will eventually lead to more fatal clashes.

The UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee must review their roles and stop trying to meddle with the disputed area. They also need to seriously rethink the unilateral registration of the temple by Cambodia by looking at the Cambodian military occupation of the archeology site during the fighting. The act clearly demonstrates that Phnom Penh does not really care about the temple at all.

Taken from Editorial Section, Naewna Newspaper, Page 3, February 14, 2011

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan

Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network.

-- Tan Network 2011-02-15

[geovalin]

"Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network."

I hope so.

What a non sense!

If Thai people read such things, we understand easier some ridiculous attitude.

[RedNIvar]

I wonder how many other nations have accused the World Heritage Committee of undermining the true purpose behind the creation of UNESCO, which is to promote world peace?

[Felt 35]

The committee is being accused by Thailand of fueling the ongoing Thai-Cambodian cross border conflict.

Prathet Thai, Sabaidee mai?

[MengWan]

If Thai people read such things, we understand easier some ridiculous attitude.

So, freedom of expression is NOT for this people of idiots ?

I bet you are NOT Thai, but from a colonial -sorry- ex-colonial power ...

You forgot your colonial helmet all that time ... it is pityful

[NanLaew]

Non-news.

Thailand thumbing its nose at, or crying foul about any entity with an abbreviation that starts with UN really isn't anything new.

[slapout]

I was under the impression that the military of both countries were the ones who were exchanging fire. To blame anyone other than those directly involved for breach of peace could bring suspicion upon the qualification/intentions of the author of this article.

[Just1Voice]

Ok, I've got the solution to this problem.

Take Abhist and Hun Sen, strip them down to their underwear and put them in a boxing ring, with a "Winner Take All - No Crying About It Afterwards" prize stipulation.

My money would be on H.S., as Abhist would probably keep his hands up all the time to protect his "pretty face".

[eagleflyinghigh]

If Thai people read such things, we understand easier some ridiculous attitude.

So, freedom of expression is NOT for this people of idiots ?

I bet you are NOT Thai, but from a colonial -sorry- ex-colonial power ...

You forgot your colonial helmet all that time ... it is pityful

Better to be an ex colony than loosing ones culture and being corrupted and assimilating the worse the western world can offer. This is Thailand today - colonized de facto - so be less proud.

[tigermonkey]

" UNESCO and its World Heritage Committee need to reconsider the unilateral registration of the temple by Cambodia."

Why ???

The temple site belongs to Cambodia -- the World Court made thia decision 48 years ago -- Thailand had 10 years to appeal and did nothing .

It is time to move on !

[Steely Dan]

" UNESCO and its World Heritage Committee need to reconsider the unilateral registration of the temple by Cambodia."

Why ???

The temple site belongs to Cambodia -- the World Court made thia decision 48 years ago -- Thailand had 10 years to appeal and did nothing .

It is time to move on !

As I mentioned elsewhere, whether or not ownership is disputed does not appear to be on UNESCO's radar judging by the Potala Palace in Lhasa being listed. And (if I may stray mildly off topic for a moment) judging by the completely arbitary and unaccountable nature of ALL of Thailand's regulatory organs (Customs being about the worst) I find it ironic that PAD nationalists seem quite happy to unilaterally overturn international or multinational rulings because they seem some perceived injustice when injustice is a part and parcel of everyday life here.

[Just1Voice]

It would seem that a lot of people are either "missing the boat", or are just blatantly defiant. If you take the time to read the ICJ ruling, it ruled that the 1907 map was the "official map", citing numerous opportunities in the previous 50 years for Thailand to object to it, which they didn't bother to do. Therefore, the ruling clearly states the French map is "official", and that the boundary line on it is ALSO OFFICIAL. The only ones "disputing" this is Thailand, but for some reason, in the 10 year time frame allowed for appeals to the ICJ ruling, Thailand never bothered to offer any form of appeal. If you think you're right, and have a legal case, you file an appeal. Why didn't Thailand? Oh, wait, I know. Losing 'face" TWICE over the same issue would have been too much for them to bear. So they didn't file an appeal, but want to sit and cry about it like a spoiled child who can't have his way.

For those of you who stick to the claim the ICJ ruled "only" on the temple.....GO READ THE RULING!!!!!

[ThiagoBras]

I wonder how many other nations have accused the World Heritage Committee of undermining the true purpose behind the creation of UNESCO, which is to promote world peace?

Haha good one!

This is Thailand!

[12DrinkMore]

It would seem that a lot of people are either "missing the boat", or are just blatantly defiant. If you take the time to read the ICJ ruling, it ruled that the 1907 map was the "official map", citing numerous opportunities in the previous 50 years for Thailand to object to it, which they didn't bother to do. Therefore, the ruling clearly states the French map is "official", and that the boundary line on it is ALSO OFFICIAL. The only ones "disputing" this is Thailand, but for some reason, in the 10 year time frame allowed for appeals to the ICJ ruling, Thailand never bothered to offer any form of appeal. If you think you're right, and have a legal case, you file an appeal. Why didn't Thailand? Oh, wait, I know. Losing 'face" TWICE over the same issue would have been too much for them to bear. So they didn't file an appeal, but want to sit and cry about it like a spoiled child who can't have his way.

For those of you who stick to the claim the ICJ ruled "only" on the temple.....GO READ THE RULING!!!!!

Agreed.

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

This should be translated and published in Thailand.

A couple of wealthy Thais are provoking this conflict, causing death, destruction, and forcing Thais out of their homes (which are then ransacked) to serve their own selfish purposes.

[whybother]

It would seem that a lot of people are either "missing the boat", or are just blatantly defiant. If you take the time to read the ICJ ruling, it ruled that the 1907 map was the "official map", citing numerous opportunities in the previous 50 years for Thailand to object to it, which they didn't bother to do. Therefore, the ruling clearly states the French map is "official", and that the boundary line on it is ALSO OFFICIAL. The only ones "disputing" this is Thailand, but for some reason, in the 10 year time frame allowed for appeals to the ICJ ruling, Thailand never bothered to offer any form of appeal. If you think you're right, and have a legal case, you file an appeal. Why didn't Thailand? Oh, wait, I know. Losing 'face" TWICE over the same issue would have been too much for them to bear. So they didn't file an appeal, but want to sit and cry about it like a spoiled child who can't have his way.

For those of you who stick to the claim the ICJ ruled "only" on the temple.....GO READ THE RULING!!!!!

I think I'm having deja vu (again). I could have sworn I already saw this.

But I'll ask again anyway ... please quote the sentences where it "ruled" that the map is official.

The Cambodians only asked the ICJ for a ruling on the ownership of the temple, so the ICJ couldn't have ruled on anything else.

Edited February 15, 2011 by whybother

[Anyse]

You wrote: "You forgot your colonial helmet all that time ... it is pityful"

Oh, you had such a great chance to do a bit of a pun here. You could have said "pithiful" (in the image of the English pith helmets that they wore) instead of "pitiful"! Darn!

[Anyse]

As I read about this decision, it was stated that decision of the World Court is that the temple is on the land of Cambodia AND that the access to it should be maintained at all times to those on the Thai side, as though it is a neutral border and the land and temple are in some ways just administered by the government of Cambodia. This, to me, makes a lot of sense. Also, the World Heritage Committee can only abide by the rulings of the World Court and is not there to contest them. Therefore, they rulled based upon the ruling of the World Court, what else could they do?

It would seem that the better choice of the World Court could be obtained were Thailand to go back and to ask that th land of the Temple area be considered "neutral territory" and not owned by anyone, yet administered by the Cambodian government. This way Thailand would not be responsible for the upkeep but have full access as the World Court ordered earlier.

My opionion is all this is. It makes sense to me to diffuse the arguments of this area as much as possible.

[dighambara]

If Thai people read such things, we understand easier some ridiculous attitude.

So, freedom of expression is NOT for this people of idiots ?

I bet you are NOT Thai, but from a colonial -sorry- ex-colonial power ...

You forgot your colonial helmet all that time ... it is pityful

Sounded like an American - not a colonial power...

However, why do people expect UN actions to make sense..??

The French shifted borders and created new countries, so now we have a mess.

Saigon was in Cambodia when the French landed and Preah Vihear was 100 miles inside Siam.

[MengWan]

Saigon was in Cambodia when the French landed and Preah Vihear was 100 miles inside Siam.

Right, and I "forgot" why HunSen is NOT sending troops there ...

Probably because Vietnam is such a democratic and non-nationalistic country ? 5555

[whybother]

As I read about this decision, it was stated that decision of the World Court is that the temple is on the land of Cambodia AND that the access to it should be maintained at all times to those on the Thai side, as though it is a neutral border and the land and temple are in some ways just administered by the government of Cambodia. This, to me, makes a lot of sense. Also, the World Heritage Committee can only abide by the rulings of the World Court and is not there to contest them. Therefore, they rulled based upon the ruling of the World Court, what else could they do?

It would seem that the better choice of the World Court could be obtained were Thailand to go back and to ask that th land of the Temple area be considered "neutral territory" and not owned by anyone, yet administered by the Cambodian government. This way Thailand would not be responsible for the upkeep but have full access as the World Court ordered earlier.

My opionion is all this is. It makes sense to me to diffuse the arguments of this area as much as possible.

The judgement says that Cambodia owns the temple, and that Thailand must give back some stuff. Nothing about access.

In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.

[KKK]

My opinion:

The temple and the land it sits on is Cambodian. Thailand lost any legal chance to claim it years ago. The only reason they are now doing so is because they have just realised how much money they can make from it.

For the last 50 years they have shown no interest in it...why now.....Baht/Dollar/Euro/Yen etc....

[SICHONSTEVE]

If Thai people read such things, we understand easier some ridiculous attitude.

So, freedom of expression is NOT for this people of idiots ?

I bet you are NOT Thai, but from a colonial -sorry- ex-colonial power ...

You forgot your colonial helmet all that time ... it is pityful

I say, old chap!! that's a bit below the belt don't you think!!

I personally think he's got a valid point, as wouldn't you agree that many Thai people are believers of the rumour mill - no matter how rediculous the story. I can see that this is the case where I live (rural town in Nakhonsithammarat called Sichon), I think they like to hear and read about "juicy scandals" as they appear to have a (sometimes) morbid fascination with death and issues of corruption and the such.

By the way, who's the one branding all Thai's as idiots???? The only thing that Geovalin mentions is that there is a risk that if a Thai read this article from local newspaper then there is the danger that they could act accordingly as if it was a-matter-of-fact and not just someone's reported opinion on events. The dangers are clearly evident about them possibly adopting a "rediculous attitude" about it and so IT IS both dangerous and unnecessary to report something that COULD be misconstrued, particularly at such an inflammatory time when feelings are running so high and troops on both sides are "trigger happy" which has already resulted in the loss of lives, both sides of the border, of civilians and soldiers.

Lastly, what is this rediculous attitude YOU have about colonialism and all that centuries old and forgotten history...... it is pityful!!!! I bet you still drag out from time to time that old and tired maxim "don't mention the war" line - and STILL find it funny. Be honest, do you????

[billd766]

You wrote: "You forgot your colonial helmet all that time ... it is pityful"

Oh, you had such a great chance to do a bit of a pun here. You could have said "pithiful" (in the image of the English pith helmets that they wore) instead of "pitiful"! Darn!

Did you mean one of these?