Thailand Won't Sign Indonesian Observer Document If Cambodian Troops Don't Withdraw: PM Abhisit

[webfact]

Thailand won't sign Indonesian observer document if Cambodian troops don't withdraw: PM

BANGKOK, May 5 - Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Thursday asserted he will not endorse the documents endorsing the presence of Indonesian observers at the disputed border of Thailand and Cambodia until its neighbour withdraws its troops and citizens from the contested area.

The Thai premier reaffirmed his stance again as Indonesia, as current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), proposed to send observers to the Thai-Cambodian borders following sporadic clashes of troops of the two neighbours, with both accusing the other of causing the clashes.

Mr Abhisit said there are written documents on the manning of Indonesian observers and the Thai foreign ministry has discussed with Indonesia that the observers will be allowed only if Cambodia first withdraws its troops and residents from the 4.6 square kilometre tract contested by the two countries.

The presence of the Cambodians in the disputed area breaches the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by both countries in 2000 and it is the duty of Indonesia to seek cooperation from Phnom Penh on the matter, Mr Abhisit said.

"I won’t endorse any document allowing the Indonesian observers if Thailand's request is not responded to," Mr Abhisit reasserted.

The content of the agreement is not the problem, Mr Abhisit emphasised. “Progress depends on the talks between Thailand and Indonesia, and also between Indonesia and Cambodia. Our ultimate goal is to avoid any clash at the border," said the Thai premier.

As Cambodia is now seeking an International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s interpretation of its 1962 ruling on Preah Vihear and accuses Thailand of attempting to claim Cambodian territory, Mr Abhisit said Thailand expects to give facts to the world over the series of clashes which he says indicate Phnom Penh’s intention to internationalise the conflict.

The court, based in The Hague, ruled in 1962 that the ancient temple belonged to Cambodia, but did not rule on the surrounding area and both Phnom Penh and Bangkok claim ownership of the 4.6-square-kilometre tract.

When asked whether Thailand is at disadvantage in contending the case, Mr Abhisit reaffirmed there are several aspects that Thailand can contest in the court, but refused to give further detail, citing concerns over the affect on the case. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-05-05

[webfact]

Cambodia rejects Thai demands over temple troops

by Arlina Arshad

JAKARTA, May 6, 2011 (AFP) - Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong on Friday rejected a Thai demand to withdraw troops from an 11th-century Khmer temple at the disputed border, saying Bangkok was not sincere about peace.

"We never can withdraw our troops from our own territory. That should be very clear," Hor Namhong told reporters after a meeting in Jakarta with Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa.

The Indonesians are trying to broker a ceasefire and the deployment of neutral military observers to the flashpoint area on the Thai-Cambodian border where some 18 people have died in fighting in recent months.

The issue is likely to be discussed at a summit of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders in Jakarta starting on Saturday, where plans for a more closely integrated regional community will top the agenda.

"Non-development, non-progress, lack of development, the status quo is not an option," Natalegawa said after meeting his counterparts from both countries.

"We're seeing a status quo meaning exchange of fire and artillery as we talk about ASEAN community. That's not quite right. There's something wrong if we keep on doing this," he said.

Both countries have accused each other of sparking the violence, which centres on territory around the 11th-century Preah Vihear temple, the most celebrated example of ancient Khmer architecture outside Cambodia's Angkor.

The World Court ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia but both countries claim ownership of a 4.6 square kilometre (1.8 square mile) surrounding area. The temple was granted UN World Heritage status in 2008.

Cambodia has previously denied it has troops stationed at Preah Vihear itself, although it has soldiers in the contested area.

The neighbours agreed in late February to allow Indonesian observers near Preah Vihear, but Thailand has been dragging its feet on their deployment as fighting continues.

"The problem is the willingness of Thailand to accept the observers or not -- that is the real problem," Hor Namhong said.

Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya did not speak to reporters after his talks with Natalegawa and did not meet directly with his Cambodian counterpart.

Indonesia currently holds the chair of ASEAN and has been trying to use its position to broker an end to the hostilities, which are undermining ASEAN's ambitions to create a closely integrated community by 2015.

Natalegawa said that both countries had agreed in principle to accept 15 Indonesian observers each, but outstanding issues remained to be resolved before they could be deployed.

"We're ready (to send observers) but Thailand is saying that before the deployment of observers can be made, they require the redeployment of Cambodian troops out of the temple," he said.

"This issue is not governed in the terms of reference. It's outside the terms of reference proper. This is where we are now."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a ceasefire and said the neighbours should launch "serious dialogue" to resolve the dispute, which temporarily displaced about 85,000 people.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-05-06

[whybother]

The Cambodians won't withdraw their troops from their own territory, and the Thais won't withdraw their troops from their own territory.

No wonder they are fighting. They're standing on top of each other, seeing as they are both claiming the same territory.

[anterian]

So who will blink first?

[Pi Sek]

BANGKOK, May 5 - Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Thursday asserted he will not endorse the documents endorsing the presence of Indonesian observers at the disputed border of Thailand and Cambodia until its neighbour withdraws its troops and citizens from the contested area.

JAKARTA, May 6, 2011 (AFP) - Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong on Friday rejected a Thai demand to withdraw troops from an 11th-century Khmer temple at the disputed border, saying Bangkok was not sincere about peace.

I do hope Hor Namhong is referring to Preah Viharn, not one of the temples in the contested area.

Preah Viharn, as we all know, is in Cambodia - that's not being argued - and so the Cambodians have every right to station troops there. But Abhisit didn't ask for them to withdraw from Preah Viharn, he asked them to withdraw from the disputed territory.

If he is not referring to Preah Viharn and he is in fact referring to one of the temples in the contested area, then I am dismayed to see that I was right in my original assumption - that Cambodia is simply making a military land grab to attempt to enforce their position if the border is re-drawn based on current positions. That would certainly make a lot of sense with respect to the operation's timing (i.e. so close to a Thai election). If this is the case, I just hope that the world sees this as the stunt it is and it doesn't enforce their position at all.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope I am too. Maybe it was a simple case of understanding and the Cambodians and Thais will agree to leave the disputed area "demilitarised" for the time being.

[Pi Sek]

BANGKOK, May 5 - Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Thursday asserted he will not endorse the documents endorsing the presence of Indonesian observers at the disputed border of Thailand and Cambodia until its neighbour withdraws its troops and citizens from the contested area.

JAKARTA, May 6, 2011 (AFP) - Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong on Friday rejected a Thai demand to withdraw troops from an 11th-century Khmer temple at the disputed border, saying Bangkok was not sincere about peace.

I do hope Hor Namhong is referring to Preah Viharn, not one of the temples in the contested area.

Preah Viharn, as we all know, is in Cambodia - that's not being argued - and so the Cambodians have every right to station troops there. But Abhisit didn't ask for them to withdraw from Preah Viharn, he asked them to withdraw from the disputed territory.

If he is not referring to Preah Viharn and he is in fact referring to one of the temples in the contested area, then I am dismayed to see that I was right in my original assumption - that Cambodia is simply making a military land grab to attempt to enforce their position if the border is re-drawn based on current positions. That would certainly make a lot of sense with respect to the operation's timing (i.e. so close to a Thai election). If this is the case, I just hope that the world sees this as the stunt it is and it doesn't enforce their position at all.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope I am too. Maybe it was a simple case of understanding and the Cambodians and Thais will agree to leave the disputed area "demilitarised" for the time being.

From today's article in The Nation: "Three points of concern are at Wat Keo Sikha Kiri Svara, at a market and at a community in the area, Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Thani Thongpakdi said."

Wat Keo Sikha Kiri Svara is the pagoda where both Thai and Cambodian flags have been erected this year (Thais put one up as the Cambodians refused to take theirs down) and falls within the disputed 4.6sqkm. It is not at this time either Cambodian or Thai and so no side has any right to station troops there. So, as per the above post, if Cambodia refuses to withdraw its troops from this pagoda, they are simply making a military land grab to attempt to enforce their position if the border is re-drawn based on current positions.

Very sad indeed... just confirms that the Thais are not the only aggressors - if they are aggressors, which today's Nation article alludes they are: "Thailand and Cambodia have agreed upon the TOR but observers cannot move in yet as both sides have demanded prior withdrawal of the other side's troops."

Cambodia has every right to demand Thailand withdraws its troops from the disputed area (but no right to demand they withdraw from existing Thai territory), just as the reverse. I wasn't aware that Thai troops were stationed in the disputed area... but if they are, they should of course move back into Thailand pronto.

Thailand's record on this temple issue is at best questionable, depending on how much weight one gives to the widely-circulated rumours of various massacres by the RTA - but what we have here is clear proof that Cambodia are trying to encroach, settle and colonise land which does not belong to them. Exactly what they are accusing the Thais of.

[Oberkommando]

Thailand's record on this temple issue is at best questionable, depending on how much weight one gives to the widely-circulated rumours of various massacres by the RTA - but what we have here is clear proof that Cambodia are trying to encroach, settle and colonise land which does not belong to them. Exactly what they are accusing the Thais of.

The massacres are a matter of historical fact but do not pertain much to the border conflict other than to sully the already poor reputation of the Thai armed forces. More the invasion of Cambodia in 1942 by fascist dictator Phibun or the occupation of the Preah Vihear temple by the Thai Army in 1956 that led to the International Court of Justice ruling the temple belonged to Cambodia in 1962, forcing the Thai troops to leave.

There is no "clear proof Cambodia is trying to encroach", the land is only being disputed by Thailand, to the Cambodians the land is theirs and they have asked the ICJ to clarify the 1962 ruling to that effect.

[Pi Sek]

Thailand's record on this temple issue is at best questionable, depending on how much weight one gives to the widely-circulated rumours of various massacres by the RTA - but what we have here is clear proof that Cambodia are trying to encroach, settle and colonise land which does not belong to them. Exactly what they are accusing the Thais of.

The massacres are a matter of historical fact but do not pertain much to the border conflict other than to sully the already poor reputation of the Thai armed forces. More the invasion of Cambodia in 1942 by fascist dictator Phibun or the occupation of the Preah Vihear temple by the Thai Army in 1956 that led to the International Court of Justice ruling the temple belonged to Cambodia in 1962, forcing the Thai troops to leave.

There is no "clear proof Cambodia is trying to encroach", the land is only being disputed by Thailand, to the Cambodians the land is theirs and they have asked the ICJ to clarify the 1962 ruling to that effect.

Oberkommando, you can dress it up however you like - but the land is disputed, that's why there's a dispute (with arguments for and against both sides). This simple fact means the Cambodians are indeed "trying to encroach, settle and colonise land which does not belong to them". You know full well that Cambodia owns Preah Viharn as according to the 1962 ruling but there is another 4.6sqkm of land that both sides claim and in fact I challenge you to find any neutral report published within the last year which does not refer to this land as "disputed". Even most of the nationalist publications on both sides refer to it as "disputed", even when their starting point is that this land "was stolen" or whatever.

If they're so sure that the disputed land is theirs, why not allow the JBC to award it to them rather than taking it by force (and crying wolf whenever the Thais check their progress)? But we all already know the answer to that, just like everyone seems to know the answer to why Thailand at first didn't want international observers!

By the logic that you and the Cambodians are trying to propose, it's OK for both sides to have soldiers armed to the teeth within close promiximity to each other because "it's our land - it's only the other side disputing this". Thailand stupidly put a flag on the pagoda in February this year, which suggests they were willing to follow suit and play immature. This is not the way to do military business with your neighbours! By my logic (and I would hope by the logic of a few others), it's not OK to have your own or your neighbours' armed soldiers in an area for which you and your neighbour both claim ownership.

With regards to historical facts and how they affect people's perceptions - I agree that they're not really relevant other than to direct public opinion against Thailand's army's (non-)ethical standpoint. I'll give you that 1942 and 1956 were historical facts but I was actually referring to more recent alleged incidents in the border area that, as you know, also make the RTA seem very bad (although there is no historically factual reference to them that I can find other than some unverifiable personal accounts).

[rubl]

There is no "clear proof Cambodia is trying to encroach", the land is only being disputed by Thailand, to the Cambodians the land is theirs and they have asked the ICJ to clarify the 1962 ruling to that effect.

With equal right and validity:

There is no "clear proof Thailand is trying to encroach", the land is only being disputed by Cambodia, to the Thais the land is theirs and the Cambodians try to use the ICJ ruling on the Temple complex and a further interpretation by the ICJ to suggest the land is theirs.

[Oberkommando]

(although there is no historically factual reference to them that I can find other than some unverifiable personal accounts).

Thompson, Larry Clinton (2010). Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982. McFarland & Co. ISBN 0-786-44529-5

Details the atrocities committed at Preah Vihear against Cambodian refugees by the Thai Army. Also they are mentioned in numerous other books about the Khmer Rouge and Cambodia's recent history, most notably Haing S. Ngor's A Cambodian Odyssey.

[Oberkommando]

You know full well that Cambodia owns Preah Viharn as according to the 1962 ruling but there is another 4.6sqkm of land that both sides claim and in fact I challenge you to find any neutral report published within the last year which does not refer to this land as "disputed". Even most of the nationalist publications on both sides refer to it as "disputed", even when their starting point is that this land "was stolen" or whatever.

"It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing, to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.

The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand. Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line".

From the book Prasat Phra Viharn, truth that Thais need to know

[Pi Sek]

...any neutral report published within the last year which does not refer to this land as "disputed"...

From the book Prasat Phra Viharn, truth that Thais need to know

I haven't read that book - I'm guessing from the title that it's not a neutral report, but maybe an historical commentary written by a Thai academic - but what you posted is historical fact that should be used as part of the Cambodian arguments to clarify the dispute. But the disputed land is still "disputed", regardless of the merits of each side's arguments... it's astonishing to me that you "dispute" this!

[Pi Sek]

(although there is no historically factual reference to them that I can find other than some unverifiable personal accounts).

Thompson, Larry Clinton (2010). Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982. McFarland & Co. ISBN 0-786-44529-5

Details the atrocities committed at Preah Vihear against Cambodian refugees by the Thai Army. Also they are mentioned in numerous other books about the Khmer Rouge and Cambodia's recent history, most notably Haing S. Ngor's A Cambodian Odyssey.

The Haing Ngor one was the personal account I was referring to, I wasn't aware it was verifiable. I haven't read the Clinton one, thank you for the link I'll have a look.

edit- link sends me to an "invalid book code" page. Can you give another one?

Edited May 8, 2011 by Pi Sek

[rubl]

Thompson, Larry Clinton (2010). Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982. McFarland & Co.

edit- link sends me to an "invalid book code" page. Can you give another one?

http://www.amazon.com/Refugee-Workers-Indochina-Exodus-1975-1982/dp/0786445297

[lovelomsak]

There is no "clear proof Cambodia is trying to encroach", the land is only being disputed by Thailand, to the Cambodians the land is theirs and they have asked the ICJ to clarify the 1962 ruling to that effect.

With equal right and validity:

There is no "clear proof Thailand is trying to encroach", the land is only being disputed by Cambodia, to the Thais the land is theirs and the Cambodians try to use the ICJ ruling on the Temple complex and a further interpretation by the ICJ to suggest the land is theirs.

I believe you have this wrong. It is the Cambodians and the rest of the worlds understanding the area of Cambodia that Thailand is attempting to dispute is in Cambodia and Thailnd is the one creating the problem and dispute.Thailand just wants something that isnot theirs.

Edited May 8, 2011 by lovelomsak