Peace Will Only Prevail If Thailand And Cambodia Compromise

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Peace will only prevail if both sides compromise

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

Unless Thailand and Cambodia come to a compromise on the management of the much-contested Preah Vihear, the border area near the temple will never be peaceful.

The international community, including the United Nations and Asean, is working hard to try and settle this boundary conflict.

Last week, Indonesia, in its capacity as the chair of Asean, called a meeting between both sides' Joint Boundary Committee (JBC) and General Border Committee (GBC) to discuss boundary demarcation and security arrangements at the border.

Jakarta is also preparing to send observers to assess the border situation and monitor a "permanent cease-fire" in the disputed area. However, it would take Asean a long while to bring this complicated conflict to an end.

Since the temple was named a World Heritage Site in 2008, Thailand has been doing its best to derail Cambodia's management plan, which will be considered by the World Heritage Committee this June.

Technically, Thailand should not have anything to do with Preah Vihear because a 1962 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) says the temple is situated on territory that is under the sovereignty of Cambodia. However, Bangkok fears that Phnom Penh will absorb some of the disputed area and use it as a buffer zone for the temple's management.

Conflicts over Preah Vihear have been going on since the last century. Even though Thailand accepted the ICJ verdict about the temple being under Cambodia's sovereignty, it has always had territorial claims over the area adjacent to it.

Legally, the boundary issue has nothing to do with the World Heritage Committee and should instead be dealt with by the JBC. Yet, Bangkok continues to mix it all up.

The 1972 Unesco Convention's Article 11 says: "The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one state shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute."

Indeed, Cambodia is not using any of the so-called disputed areas as a buffer zone for the temple. In its plan submitted to the World Heritage Committee in January last year, Phnom Penh confirmed that the disputed area was not included.

Yet, the Abhisit Vejjajiva government did not feel comfortable about Cambodia putting its plan of running Preah Vihear into action, and is doing what it can to block it. Prime Minister Abhisit used the February 4-7 border skirmish as a pretext to have Unesco further delay consideration of the plan.

Though the temple was partially damaged during the clash, the Thai government is stopping a Unesco team from inspecting it. Unesco's special envoy Koichiro Matsuura recently spent time shuttling between Bangkok and Phnom Penh, trying to seek a proper solution, but nothing concrete has been produced so far.

Unesco is meeting Cambodia and Thailand on May 25 in Paris to explore ways of safeguarding the Preah Vihear temple. Yet, ideas of safeguarding the temple are extremely different where the two parties are concerned.

Bangkok wants Unesco to suspend the management plan until the two countries are able to settle the boundary conflict, while Phnom Penh wants to go ahead with this management plan for the temple.

Neither side wants to compromise. At the border area, troops from both sides are prepared for a confrontation, and a military clash can break out any time if the differences are not solved.

-- The Nation 2011-03-16

[HAL9000]

In this day and age of satellite mapping and GPS, marking the boundary with precision should be an easy exercise, but this can only be an effective solution when there is goodwill and integrity on both sides.

I saw one article with a graphic that shows the differing border lines claimed by Thailand and Cambodia. The French created the boundary, and they have offered copies of their maps. If there is really a will to honestly resolve this, those maps should be accepted.

[housepainter]

There will be no peace then.

Let the little hot heads battle it out. Does anyone actually care about this little local difficulty?

[whybother]

In this day and age of satellite mapping and GPS, marking the boundary with precision should be an easy exercise, but this can only be an effective solution when there is goodwill and integrity on both sides.

I saw one article with a graphic that shows the differing border lines claimed by Thailand and Cambodia. The French created the boundary, and they have offered copies of their maps. If there is really a will to honestly resolve this, those maps should be accepted.

What if the maps are wrong? The original agreement (in 1904) puts the border on the watershed, but the maps (1907-08) don't follow the watershed. So it's not as simple as just "accepting the maps".

[asiawatcher]

The issue is not so much the temple, it is the land adjoining. If Thailand forgoes the land, there will be displaced land owners and businesses who have been there for decades. The temple is quite frankly, a non issue. If you had a piece of 'council' property adjoining yours, would you give up a percentage of your yard so they could have access? Would you be prepared to move your boundary bak? I don't think so. Joint management of the temple is easy enough but temple access is on land presently belonging to Thailand with Cambodia tying to claim that as a freebies per the UN and UNESCO, and al the others which will affect Thai's, thus the issue. If the land directly east of the temple allowed access in from Cambodia ...

[geovalin]

This not so bad article is very severe against Thailand. It's strange that it finishes by a "Neither side wants to compromise".

It's like they write "We are fully wrong but we would like Cambodia gives up." Thailand has no argument anymore.

[HAL9000]

What if the maps are wrong? The original agreement (in 1904) puts the border on the watershed, but the maps (1907-08) don't follow the watershed. So it's not as simple as just "accepting the maps".

You can't have a border defined by a terrain feature that is not fixed, but is rather dynamic and changing. This is the same problem on the Myanmar border where the boundary is the river, but the river is shifting. The boundary is what it was at the time of the agreement, so the French maps will be correct in an environment of changing geological features.

[whybother]

What if the maps are wrong? The original agreement (in 1904) puts the border on the watershed, but the maps (1907-08) don't follow the watershed. So it's not as simple as just "accepting the maps".

You can't have a border defined by a terrain feature that is not fixed, but is rather dynamic and changing. This is the same problem on the Myanmar border where the boundary is the river, but the river is shifting. The boundary is what it was at the time of the agreement, so the French maps will be correct in an environment of changing geological features.

The watershed hasn't moved so much that it is now, or has ever been, on the Thai side of the temple.

And most borders ARE defined by terrain features.

[simosiam]

Thailand should not have anything to do with Preah Vihear because a 1962 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) says the temple is situated on territory that is under the sovereignty of Cambodia.

[HAL9000]

Thailand should not have anything to do with Preah Vihear because a 1962 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) says the temple is situated on territory that is under the sovereignty of Cambodia.

The issue is that Thailand controls the access to the temple. They should just declare it a demilitarized zone and let the locals get on with their lives while the governments work this out.

[bangon04]

The issue is not so much the temple, it is the land adjoining. If Thailand forgoes the land, there will be displaced land owners and businesses who have been there for decades. The temple is quite frankly, a non issue. If you had a piece of 'council' property adjoining yours, would you give up a percentage of your yard so they could have access? Would you be prepared to move your boundary bak? I don't think so. Joint management of the temple is easy enough but temple access is on land presently belonging to Thailand with Cambodia tying to claim that as a freebies per the UN and UNESCO, and al the others which will affect Thai's, thus the issue. If the land directly east of the temple allowed access in from Cambodia ...

In the above "council" scenario, you would be obliged to accept a decision of a court on the subject, not start a local war to get your way......

Yet in the 21st century some people still think that sending the son of a poor citizen to die over a piece of land is acceptable behaviour.