Outcome Of Jakarta Forum Changes Thailand's Landscape

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Outcome of Jakarta forum changes the landscape

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

Asean, Thailand and Cambodia set a precedent when they came up with a resolution for the border dispute on Tuesday.

Boundary conflicts are not abnormal in this region, but each country employs different methods of resolving them. For instance, the Malaysia-Indonesia conflict over Sipadan and Ligitan islands, as well as the Singapore-Malaysia discord over the Batu Puteh island were taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which issued verdicts on the cases in 2002 and 2008 respectively.

In comparison, Thailand and Cambodia have been at loggerheads over the Preah Vihear Temple since last century, and even though the case was taken to the ICJ, Thailand has been resisting the verdict since 1962.

Violence has erupted from time to time, with the latest skirmish from February 4 to 7 claiming at least 10 lives, including three civilians on both sides.

Cambodia, referring to the 1962 ICJ ruling that "the temple is situated in the territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia", handed the case over to United Nations Security Council claiming that Thailand was invading its territory. Phnom Penh obviously hopes to have the UN enforce the ICJ ruling and keep Thai soldiers away from the areas surrounding the Hindu temple.

Thailand, on the other hand, has been arguing that the ICJ ruling only gave Cambodia the sandstone temple, not the surrounding areas.

However, common sense says that a temple cannot stand on Cambodian territory unless its surrounding land is also Cambodian.

Yet Bangkok has been maintaining its argument for nearly half a century now and wants to exercise its power and get Phnom Penh to accept it.

Unfortunately, Cambodia is not the same old Cambodia it was in the last century. The current set of leaders know how to seek international help and achieve their goals. They have managed to steer the country through turbulence to the Paris Accord and a UN-sponsored election and end up becoming a true member of the Asean - a grouping comprising former enemies. Nobody should underestimate these leaders.

Furthermore, the current conflict between Thailand and Cambodia is taking place at a time when Asean needs to exercise its charter to prove it is a legal organisation with the capacity of handling all sorts of problems, be they external or internal. The charter enhances the role of its chairman and secretary-general.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, in his role as chairman, and Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan are smart enough to know that this is a great opportunity for the grouping to show its capability in ending this conflict.

Natalegawa began his shuttle diplomacy as gunfire was being heard near Preah Vihear, while Surin worked hard behind the scenes to get things done. The latest resolution of sending Indonesian observers to the conflict area is a solid outcome.

Cambodia's strategy of taking the issue to the international arena via meetings in Jakarta and New York has clearly worked. Though it has not achieved its ultimate goal, at least it doesn't have to deal with Thailand on its own.

On the other hand, Thailand's traditional demand for a bilateral settlement came to a stop when it agreed to sit in the New York and Jakarta talks. It's very rare for Thailand to allow "outsiders" to monitor its border affairs, even more abnormal for it to get into "proper engagement" with the Asean chair Indonesia.

Obviously, Thailand's diplomatic landscape will never be the same.

-- The Nation 2011-02-24

[Thai at Heart]

However, common sense says that a temple cannot stand on Cambodian territory unless its surrounding land is also Cambodian.

Shock, gasp, horror. How did this get past the editor. But then again, it is overwhelmingly aimed at foreign readership.

[creck]

However, common sense says that a temple cannot stand on Cambodian territory unless its surrounding land is also Cambodian.

Shock, gasp, horror. How did this get past the editor. But then again, it is overwhelmingly aimed at foreign readership.

Understand your comment but I want to say:

Common sense and the treaty also says that a border cannot proceed along an escarpment then jump up and go round a chunk of Thailand and back down again. Clearly, this is an error, and the ICJ after an expert witness, accepted that the map was wrong.

Common sense does not prevail!

[NCFC]

However, common sense says that a temple cannot stand on Cambodian territory unless its surrounding land is also Cambodian.

Shock, gasp, horror. How did this get past the editor. But then again, it is overwhelmingly aimed at foreign readership.

Understand your comment but I want to say:

Common sense and the treaty also says that a border cannot proceed along an escarpment then jump up and go round a chunk of Thailand and back down again. Clearly, this is an error, and the ICJ after an expert witness, accepted that the map was wrong.

Common sense does not prevail!

Well a line drawn on a map can go anywhere. I would think it can even traverse stretches of water. The IJC has ruled, and it's time for Thailand to accept the ruling and stop acting like a sulking teenager.

[janverbeem]

However, common sense says that a temple cannot stand on Cambodian territory unless its surrounding land is also Cambodian.

Shock, gasp, horror. How did this get past the editor. But then again, it is overwhelmingly aimed at foreign readership.

Common sense and Thais have never fiited in the same sentence.

[asiawatcher]

However, common sense says that a temple cannot stand on Cambodian territory unless its surrounding land is also Cambodian.

Shock, gasp, horror. How did this get past the editor. But then again, it is overwhelmingly aimed at foreign readership.

Common sense and Thais have never fiited in the same sentence.

Absolutely! Never a truer statement was said.

[MaiChai]

In comparison, Thailand and Cambodia have been at loggerheads over the Preah Vihear Temple since last century, and even though the case was taken to the ICJ, Thailand has been resisting the verdict since 1962.

Wow, I make it 49 years since 1962. Why has it taken so long for Thailand to make an issue over it? Surely they should have seeked a clarification about the unusual demarcation back then?