Thai Yellow-Shirt Group Comment On Border Clashes

[webfact]

Yellow-shirt Group Comment on Clashes

The yellow-shirt group has proposed a number of ways to protect Thai territory after Thai troops clashed with Cambodian troops at the border over the weekend.

It is urging everyone to vote "no" during the upcoming election.

One of the leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy, or PAD, also known as the yellow-shirt group, Major General Chamlong Srimuang said that it is unacceptable for the government to allow Cambodian troops to set-up their army base on top of the cliff along the disputed area, as it gives Cambodia the advantage during battle.

Chamlong is upset that the government has allowed damages to be incurred on Thai territory, while opting to take a passive approach to respond to Cambodian troops.

He said the government should have opted to close down border gates immediately, as an example, but instead were too worried about border trade being affected.

Chamlong said that if the government continues to overlook the problem, tensions there will escalate.

He accused the government of not taking the Thai-Cambodian problem seriously while saying that Thailand cannot always use peaceful means, such as sending open letters, to solve this dispute.

The former soldier said that Thailand should also consider military retaliation since Cambodia is using military force against Thailand.

The PAD's spokesperson, Panthep Puapongpan said that Cambodia intentionally trespassed onto Thailand's territory and established an army base on Thai soil.

He said that previously, Cambodia's military base was located on the lower part of the mountain, not at the top of the cliff as it is today.

Panthep added that Cambodia wants to draw the international community into the issue and is demanding that the United Nations Security Council, or UNSC, and Asean to order a permanent ceasefire between the two countries.

Panthep proposed ways to protect Thai territory, suggesting that we need to remove Cambodian troops from the Phu Makuer area, the Preah Vihear temple, and the Prasat Ta Kwai.

Moreover, Cambodian troops need to move back to their original army base located at the base of the mountain.

He added that if Cambodia calls on help from the UNSC, Thailand needs to make it clear that Cambodia has violated the Memorandum of Understanding, or MoU 2000, by altering the disputed more than 125 times.

Therefore, Thailand has the right to cancel the agreement, since Cambodia has violated its terms.

Meanwhile, Panthep said that the PAD will continue promoting the “No-Vote” campaign for the upcoming election, while urging new political parties to step back from applying as candidates.

Chamlong said that new political parties should not field candidates, but should focus on helping the people.

-- Tan Network 2011-04-25

[geovalin]

PAD is 100 % right.

"Panthep added that Cambodia wants to draw the international community into the issue and is demanding that the United Nations Security Council, or UNSC, and Asean to order a permanent ceasefire between the two countries. "

This absolutely true. And Thailand refuses any ceasefire.

PAD is 100 % right. Either Thailand accepts to make concessions through honest negotiations under a third party and it will be the peace or Thailand still wants to have a few square centimeters back and the war is necessary (to follow Chamlong ideas = real big war). Now it's up to Abisith: peace as suggested by Cambodia or WAR as suggested by PAD but the current Thai attitude does not make any sense.

[rubl]

2011-04-24

"As usual in Thai-Cambodian disputes, each side accused the other of firing first, but witnesses said the heaviest artillery appeared to be fired from the Thai side. Regular intervals of Thai rocket-fire could be heard by Reuters' journalists.

The confrontation comes just a week before Abhisit is expected to dissolve parliament, paving the way for a close election expected by July. Some analysts say the government may be trying to flex its military muscle to score political points.

Others say hawkish Thai generals and their ultra-nationalist allies may be trying to create a pretext for a coup to cancel the elections.

Cambodia's government may also be trying to stir nationalist fervor by starting a conflict to show its army can stand up to its historic rival, or there may have been a simple breakdown in communications at a time of strained relations. There has been little official explanation for the fighting."

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wned/news.newsmain/article/0/13/1793406/TOPPING.THE.NEWS/Clashes.erupt.for.third.day.on.Thai-Cambodian.border

[Oberkommando]

^ revealing.

[elcent]

look at the time-frame, right after Songkran, Thailand's most important holidays. If they wanted seriously disturb Thailand they would have done so on Songkran. I don't think the Cambodian started otr the Thai Army but some war-mongers from Thailand for which one was caged in Cambodia and the rest roams free in Thailand.

Look not further when the answer is so near..

[mccw]

Send in the jets to bomb all Cambodian army positions in the area and destroy all supporting infrastructure. Job could be done in a couple of days. UN would call for a ceasefire and monitoring which could be agreed to as pbvectives already reached and secure they won't be back for a while.

That or just give it up.

Niether will happen as politicaly dangerous.

So the sporadic 'clashes' will continue on and off indefinitely.

The smart thing to do would be declare it a joint admisterred historical sight and share management and park entry fees, but that would be far too sensible.

Option 1 i think would be better for Thailand and gov than opt 2 or 3 which only benifit cambodia. Opt 4 would b good for both.

[zzaa09]

PAD is 100 % right.

"Panthep added that Cambodia wants to draw the international community into the issue and is demanding that the United Nations Security Council, or UNSC, and Asean to order a permanent ceasefire between the two countries. "

This absolutely true. And Thailand refuses any ceasefire.

PAD is 100 % right. Either Thailand accepts to make concessions through honest negotiations under a third party and it will be the peace or Thailand still wants to have a few square centimeters back and the war is necessary (to follow Chamlong ideas = real big war). Now it's up to Abisith: peace as suggested by Cambodia or WAR as suggested by PAD but the current Thai attitude does not make any sense.

Oh...it surely makes sense to those throughout the ruling-controlling class. Some circles might be suggesting that this little border skirmish is nothing but a useful distraction to drum up "national" dogma stimulation. Frankly, I believe that foreigners and outsiders have taken the bait, more so than Thais have.

[zzaa09]

Send in the jets to bomb all Cambodian army positions in the area and destroy all supporting infrastructure. Job could be done in a couple of days. UN would call for a ceasefire and monitoring which could be agreed to as pbvectives already reached and secure they won't be back for a while.

That or just give it up.

Niether will happen as politicaly dangerous.

So the sporadic 'clashes' will continue on and off indefinitely.

The smart thing to do would be declare it a joint admisterred historical sight and share management and park entry fees, but that would be far too sensible.

Option 1 i think would be better for Thailand and gov than opt 2 or 3 which only benifit cambodia. Opt 4 would b good for both.

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

[IvanDobsky]

look at the time-frame, right after Songkran, Thailand's most important holidays. If they wanted seriously disturb Thailand they would have done so on Songkran. I don't think the Cambodian started otr the Thai Army but some war-mongers from Thailand for which one was caged in Cambodia and the rest roams free in Thailand.

Look not further when the answer is so near..

I think you're half right. It takes two to tango, why would Cambodia suddenly decide to send troops into the area? Hun Sen and his mate from Monty would both benefit from this farce. Hun Sen to his domestic audience and the man from Monty by making the Thai PM/government appear weak.

[whybother]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

[BuckarooBanzai]

What is with you people. The Thai Khmer and the Cambodian Khmer have been getting along just fine. Why not let sleeping dogs lie. The answer is obvious. The people do not matter.

[RedNIvar]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

Look at the current borders between countries around the world, and compare it to where they were 6-700 years ago. I really don't think that logic works.

[whybother]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

Look at the current borders between countries around the world, and compare it to where they were 6-700 years ago. I really don't think that logic works.

But that's the logic you are trying to use? If you bring "historical claim" into it, where do you want to draw the line in time?

[zzaa09]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

I believe you might readjusted your historical concepts and fancy a wee bit. How embarrassing that you actually wrote this for public consumption.

[zzaa09]

I'm truly confounded towards those whom haven't a clue regarding history of any sort, less confined to a particular world regional historical matter. Redundant and perpetually indoctrinated historical models tend to shed a reflective pattern of how folks are easily taken in by the historiographical establishment and convention......

[whybother]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

I believe you might readjusted your historical concepts and fancy a wee bit. How embarrassing that you actually wrote this for public consumption.

From what I understand the Khmer empire lasted from about 800 AD to 1350 AD. The Thais controlled the area to Angkor from then until about 1900 when the Thais made an agreement with the French to move the border back to the current (approximate) boundaries.

The agreement put the border along the watershed of the Dangrek mountain range (putting the temple inside Thailand), but the subsequent maps moved off the watershed around the temple, putting the temple inside Cambodia. The Thais "never officially accepted the maps", hence the current problems.

That's the information I have. Do you want to correct it? Maybe provide some links so I can work out what you're talking about.

[rubl]

I'm truly confounded towards those whom haven't a clue regarding history of any sort, less confined to a particular world regional historical matter. Redundant and perpetually indoctrinated historical models tend to shed a reflective pattern of how folks are easily taken in by the historiographical establishment and convention......

Nice statement! Can you do this again, but with less ideology and words of two or less syllables so that us lesser mortals might at least try to grasp what it is you are trying to say ?

[IvanDobsky]

I'm truly confounded towards those whom haven't a clue regarding history of any sort, less confined to a particular world regional historical matter. Redundant and perpetually indoctrinated historical models tend to shed a reflective pattern of how folks are easily taken in by the historiographical establishment and convention......

Nice statement! Can you do this again, but with less ideology and words of two or less syllables so that us lesser mortals might at least try to grasp what it is you are trying to say ?

Ridicule of someone's opinion, without providing any evidence to the contrary, in flowery language tends to take attention away from your own grammatical errors i.e. "confounded by" "particular regional" "tend to show a reflective pattern"

The Thais were there for approximately 300 years but this is extremely difficult to prove, one way or the other, as almost no written records survive. The decline of the Khmer kingdom didn't happen overnight and arguing if the Thais were there in the 15th or 16th century is irrelevant.

Possible solution (please feel free to ridicule):

1) withdraw troops

2) talk

3) declare the disputed area a Bi-national Park / Wildlife refuge / open area...whatever

4) temples accessible from both nations

5) unarmed (!) park staff recruited from both nations to care for the ruins, collect entrance money etc.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[stepenwolf1958]

2011-04-24

"As usual in Thai-Cambodian disputes, each side accused the other of firing first, but witnesses said the heaviest artillery appeared to be fired from the Thai side. Regular intervals of Thai rocket-fire could be heard by Reuters' journalists.

The confrontation comes just a week before Abhisit is expected to dissolve parliament, paving the way for a close election expected by July. Some analysts say the government may be trying to flex its military muscle to score political points.

Others say hawkish Thai generals and their ultra-nationalist allies may be trying to create a pretext for a coup to cancel the elections.

Cambodia's government may also be trying to stir nationalist fervor by starting a conflict to show its army can stand up to its historic rival, or there may have been a simple breakdown in communications at a time of strained relations. There has been little official explanation for the fighting."

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wned/news.newsmain/article/0/13/1793406/TOPPING.THE.NEWS/Clashes.erupt.for.third.day.on.Thai-Cambodian.border

Raise the tension within the country, make a few situation in the manner of Goebbels to respond so to create conditions for declaring a state of emergency due to a conflict with Cambodia and then there is no election until the state of emergency. Only one of the options. Possible scenario. Deja Vu.

[stepenwolf1958]

Just thoughts. Thailand should to build some more mental hospitals. Some statements in media, public, told me so.

Some are for serious professional observation.

BTW, those cliffs possessed by Cambo troops, is that Thai territory as in OP is told or Cambodian?

I thought Cambodians are not retarded to invade any meter of Thai territory and Thais are not cowards to tolerate occupation of any single meter of their territory.

So, what is the truth now about those cliffs? Cliffs belongs to who?

[yoshiwara]

2011-04-24

"As usual in Thai-Cambodian disputes, each side accused the other of firing first, but witnesses said the heaviest artillery appeared to be fired from the Thai side. Regular intervals of Thai rocket-fire could be heard by Reuters' journalists.

The confrontation comes just a week before Abhisit is expected to dissolve parliament, paving the way for a close election expected by July. Some analysts say the government may be trying to flex its military muscle to score political points.

Others say hawkish Thai generals and their ultra-nationalist allies may be trying to create a pretext for a coup to cancel the elections.

Cambodia's government may also be trying to stir nationalist fervor by starting a conflict to show its army can stand up to its historic rival, or there may have been a simple breakdown in communications at a time of strained relations. There has been little official explanation for the fighting."

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wned/news.newsmain/article/0/13/1793406/TOPPING.THE.NEWS/Clashes.erupt.for.third.day.on.Thai-Cambodian.border

Raise the tension within the country, make a few situation in the manner of Goebbels to respond so to create conditions for declaring a state of emergency due to a conflict with Cambodia and then there is no election until the state of emergency. Only one of the options. Possible scenario. Deja Vu.

At least a little understanding of history should tend one to avoid cheap comparisons with Nazi Germany, but then that is often the intention in the first place.

Full of maybe conjecture: 'Some analysts say...', 'Others say...', 'may also be...', 'there may have been...'.

Just light-weight really.

[Richard W]

BTW, those cliffs possessed by Cambo troops, is that Thai territory as in OP is told or Cambodian?

I thought Cambodians are not retarded to invade any meter of Thai territory and Thais are not cowards to tolerate occupation of any single meter of their territory.

So, what is the truth now about those cliffs? Cliffs belongs to who?

There are cliffs between Phra Wihan and the rest of Cambodia. The World Court ruled that apparently accepted and belatedly challenged dishonest French maps gave the temple and thus the cliffs to Cambodia.

[whybother]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

I believe you might readjusted your historical concepts and fancy a wee bit. How embarrassing that you actually wrote this for public consumption.

How embarrassing that you can't actually back up your comments with some facts.

[dunkin2012]

I'm truly confounded towards those whom haven't a clue regarding history of any sort, less confined to a particular world regional historical matter. Redundant and perpetually indoctrinated historical models tend to shed a reflective pattern of how folks are easily taken in by the historiographical establishment and convention......

Ridicule of someone's opinion, without providing any evidence to the contrary, in flowery language tends to take attention away from your own grammatical errors i.e. "confounded by" "particular regional" "tend to show a reflective pattern"

The Thais were there for approximately 300 years but this is extremely difficult to prove, one way or the other, as almost no written records survive. The decline of the Khmer kingdom didn't happen overnight and arguing if the Thais were there in the 15th or 16th century is irrelevant.

Possible solution (please feel free to ridicule):

1) withdraw troops

2) talk

3) declare the disputed area a Bi-national Park / Wildlife refuge / open area...whatever

4) temples accessible from both nations

5) unarmed (!) park staff recruited from both nations to care for the ruins, collect entrance money etc.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

6) make it a buffered zone... no entry..... like the Korean.

and the world will be as one.........

How nice! I'm dreamin' too.... but let the Yellow back off first ....

Edited April 26, 2011 by dunkin2012

[dunkin2012]

Share? Why....?? The Thais have no historical claim to the broader that is factually Khmer - outside of the promoted Thai fantasy, of course.

The Thais were there for 6-700 years. Isn't that historical enough for you?

I believe you might readjusted your historical concepts and fancy a wee bit. How embarrassing that you actually wrote this for public consumption.

From what I understand the Khmer empire lasted from about 800 AD to 1350 AD. The Thais controlled the area to Angkor from then until about 1900 when the Thais made an agreement with the French to move the border back to the current (approximate) boundaries.

The agreement put the border along the watershed of the Dangrek mountain range (putting the temple inside Thailand), but the subsequent maps moved off the watershed around the temple, putting the temple inside Cambodia. The Thais "never officially accepted the maps", hence the current problems.

That's the information I have. Do you want to correct it? Maybe provide some links so I can work out what you're talking about.

if i'm not wrong........ S.E.Asia in 1300 CE ..........

Humm........ Red is Cambodia..

.

[whybother]

if i'm not wrong........ S.E.Asia in 1300 CE ..........

Humm........ Red is Cambodia..

.

Yep. That's my understanding too. The Khmer empire started declining after that, with the Thais taking control of the area across to Angkor around 1350.

[IvanDobsky]

Possible solution (please feel free to ridicule):

1) withdraw troops

2) talk

3) declare the disputed area a Bi-national Park / Wildlife refuge / open area...whatever

4) temples accessible from both nations

5) unarmed (!) park staff recruited from both nations to care for the ruins, collect entrance money etc.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

6) make it a buffered zone... no entry..... like the Korean.

and the world will be as one.........

How nice! I'm dreamin' too.... but let the Yellow back off first ....

let the Yellow back off first? Yes, absolutely and Let Hun Sen and his mates back off too. There are people rattling their sabres on both sides.

[IvanDobsky]

Yep. That's my understanding too. The Khmer empire started declining after that, with the Thais taking control of the area across to Angkor around 1350.

That date coincides with the final year of the initial Bubonic Plague (Black Death) in Europe, which had swept through SE Asia a few years before. Angkor is widely regarded to have collapsed in 1431, after it was sacked by the invading Thai kingdom of Ayuthaya. Most documentation, literature, archives etc from this period were lost when the Burmese destroyed Ayuthaya.

The following period was not one of continuous occupation by the Thais or Vietnamese. The Cambodians had brief periods of independence and subsequent vassalage to Siam and Vietnam before they received the 'protection' of France in the 1860s.

My point here is that the history of this entire region is fluid and nigh impossible to compartmentalise into convenient sections. The history of this region, as fascinating as it is, will not offer anyone a permanent solution to the disputed border areas.

[whybother]

<snip>

My point here is that the history of this entire region is fluid and nigh impossible to compartmentalise into convenient sections. The history of this region, as fascinating as it is, will not offer anyone a permanent solution to the disputed border areas.

Quite correct.

Which is why I questioned comments that it should be given back to the Cambodians "because it was Khmer".

It was occupied by lots of peoples. Where do you draw the line?

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.