Cambodia May Insist On Going Ahead With Talks

[Lite Beer]

Cambodia may insist on going ahead with talks

By The Nation on Sunday

Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation negotiating with the World Heritage Committee in Paris on management of Preah Vihear Temple, said yesterday it was highly possible Cambodia would oppose a proposal to defer the committee's meeting to a later date.

Suwit, the natural resources and environment minister, said the committee's meeting on the controversial issue could go ahead as scheduled today if there was no deal in the fifth round of prior talks with all the parties concerned.

Cambodia wants to press ahead with the World Heritage Committee's meeting on the management of 4.6-square-km space around the ancient Hindu temple.

The World Court ruled in 1962 that the temple situated on the Thai-Cambodian border, belongs to Cambodia, but stopped short of making a ruling on the ownership of land surrounding the ancient temple.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the caretaker prime minister, said he was confident the meeting on management of the space surrounding the temple would be postponed.

Chumphol Silapa-archa, leader of Chat Thai Pattana party, said Thailand should leave the World Heritage Committee if many member countries wanted to go ahead with the meeting on management of space surrounding Phear Vihear.

An acceptance of the Cambodian bid would complicate the ownership of land in Thai territory.

"We should get out of the committee to show that we disagree with the Cambodian proposal. It's not unusual, as other countries such as the US have also done that if they disagree on big international issues.

"The World Heritage Committee has no authority on the territory issue," he said.

-- The Nation 2011-06-26

[Steely Dan]

I can find no independant confirmation, but the wife tells me that's exactly what Thailand have done - withdrawn from UNESCO. Has the ICJ clarified their judgement yet?

[Lite Beer]

Thailand leaves World Heritage Convention

Thailand has withdrawn from the World Heritage Convention to protest against the World Heritage Committee's decision to consider Cambodia's management plan of Preah Vihear Temple

Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation negotiating with the World Heritage Committee in Paris, announced at 11:55 pm Saturday, that his delegation had informed the World Heritage Committee that Thailand resigned as a member country to the convention.

Suwit, the natural resources and environment minister, said the Thai delegation had to make the move after the committee ignored Thailand's concern that the consideration of the management plan would complicate Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

"They ignored it and they did not care about our sovereignty and territory," Suwit said.

-- The Nation 2011-06-26

[geovalin]

Alone against the whole world! Let's fight a new world war (185 countries against 1).

6 billions people are devils, 60 millions are angels!

What is the name if this pathology? Paranoia?

Or

How to lose face to avoid to lose face.

[whybother]

Alone against the whole world! Let's fight a new world war (185 countries against 1).

6 billions people are devils, 60 millions are angels!

What is the name if this pathology? Paranoia?

Or

How to lose face to avoid to lose face.

No. Alone against 1 country and a single UN agency.

[SomTumTiger]

<br />

<br />Alone against the whole world! Let's fight a new world war (185 countries against 1).<br />6 billions people are devils, 60 millions are angels!<br />What is the name if this pathology? Paranoia?<br />Or<br />How to lose face to avoid to lose face.<br />

<br />No. Alone against 1 country and a single UN agency.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Don't ruin a good rant Whybother 5555

[bangkokburning]

I think US pulled out of UNESCO decades ago.

Thailands case is so weak. They looks so awful and petty. Let it never be said the nation is worried about loss of face.

While they are giving back the temple, maybe they can return all of southern issan as well.

Losers

[whybother]

I think US pulled out of UNESCO decades ago.

Thailands case is so weak. They looks so awful and petty. Let it never be said the nation is worried about loss of face.

While they are giving back the temple, maybe they can return all of southern issan as well.

Losers

Why is their case weak?

They don't want a UN sponsored management plan over land that is disputed (not the temple itself).

It is quite clear that the land is disputed. I think they have a strong case.

[patjem]

I think US pulled out of UNESCO decades ago.

Thailands case is so weak. They looks so awful and petty. Let it never be said the nation is worried about loss of face.

While they are giving back the temple, maybe they can return all of southern issan as well.

Losers

Why is their case weak?

They don't want a UN sponsored management plan over land that is disputed (not the temple itself).

It is quite clear that the land is disputed. I think they have a strong case.

Indeed they have a case. Considering that border demarcation follows watersheds, and the temple in basically on the top of a cliff, overlooking Cambodia, where the watershed will naturally be at the foot of said cliff. The real issue was the French poorly drawn maps, and full demarcation was never completed. I do feel that Thailand, however, could approach the issue in a far more structured way which concentrates on this point, afterall, possession is 9/10ths of the law as they say..... far better than arguing over whether discussions should be held bilaterally or unilaterally.

[geovalin]

I think they have a strong case.

You "think" but unfortunately you are not in the commission and the commission "thinks" that the Thai position is weak.

ALL the countries of this planet consider that, at a time or another of their story, they had been spoiled by a neighbor. To be adult is to able to accept the current situation.

[whybother]

Indeed they have a case. Considering that border demarcation follows watersheds, and the temple in basically on the top of a cliff, overlooking Cambodia, where the watershed will naturally be at the foot of said cliff. The real issue was the French poorly drawn maps, and full demarcation was never completed. I do feel that Thailand, however, could approach the issue in a far more structured way which concentrates on this point, afterall, possession is 9/10ths of the law as they say..... far better than arguing over whether discussions should be held bilaterally or unilaterally.

Actually, the watershed is at the top of the cliff, or more precisely to top of the ridge. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/watershed

The temple *could* be at the top of the cliff, but still on the Cambodian side of the watershed.

But the *fact* is, it is on the Thai side of the watershed. So, according to the 1904 treaty, the temple is in Thailand.

Unfortunately, the ICJ ruled in 1962 that the temple (and the land that it sits on) is in Cambodia. Although Thailand disagrees with this, they have accepted the decision. The ownership of the rest of the land was not ruled on by the ICJ, so it is still in dispute.

The fact that the ownership of the land is in dispute would make a mockery of any decision on a management plan that includes any of this land. How can someone manage land when the ownership of it is in dispute?

[whybother]

I think they have a strong case.

You "think" but unfortunately you are not in the commission and the commission "thinks" that the Thai position is weak.

ALL the countries of this planet consider that, at a time or another of their story, they had been spoiled by a neighbor. To be adult is to able to accept the current situation.

The current situation is that the land is in dispute. Neither the Cambodians nor the Thais accept the current situation.

Do you think that a country should just sit back and let other countries take their property? Would you just sit back and let someone take over part of your property?

[Lite Beer]

Thailand pulls out of World Heritage Convention

PARIS, June 26 - Thailand announced its departure from the World Heritage Convention with immediate effect on Saturday, after the World Heritage Committee failed to heed its request seeking postponement of the Cambodia's unilaterally-proposed Preah Vihear Temple management plan, as Thailand fears that it may threaten national sovereignty.

Thailand's Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, leading the Thai delegation at the 35th session of the WHC meeting in Paris, earlier notified Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, director-general of International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, who represents the director-general of United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), that Thailand would leave the World Heritage Convention and would also withdraw from the 21-member World Heritage Committee as the body continues to ignore any negative consequences which may arise from the consideration of the temple management plan which he said overlooks sensitive issues which could adversely affect Thailand's sovereignty and territory.

Mr Suwit also said the World Heritage Centre, instead of revising the wording of the draft, decided to put it on the agenda of the WHC meeting in Paris, despite Thailand's request to have the plan deferred, pending border demarcation with Cambodia.

Thailand is opposed to the terms of "urgent repair and restoration" but preferred using the wording "protection and conservation" in the draft. The head of the Thai delegation also said the pullout means that any WHC resolution will not be binding to Thailand.

The withdrawal has resulted in the Director General of the Fine Arts Department, Mrs Somsuda Leyavanija, one of 21 members of the WHC, to leave her post.

Mr Suwit earlier posted a message on his Twitter account late Saturday night saying, "Thailand has no choice but to withdraw as the meeting has resolved to put the issue on agenda."

Thailand wanted the meeting to defer consideration of the Cambodian management plan until the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules on its complaint, and not until Thailand and Cambodia finish demarcation of their common border.

Ties between the neighbours have been strained since Preah Vihear temple was granted UN World Heritage status in July 2008.

In April, Cambodia asked the court to clarify its 1962 ruling on the ancient Hindu temple on its disputed border with Thailand following recent deadly armed clashes between the two neighbouring countries.

The world court, based in The Hague, ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia, but both Phnom Penh and Bangkok claim ownership of 4.6-square-kilometre (1.8-square-mile) of the surrounding area. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-06-26

[Lite Beer]

Suwit withdraws Thailand from WHC

BANGKOK, 26 June 2011 (NNT)- Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation has expressed his frustration through twitter during his trip to the UNESCO World Heritage Commitee in Paris, France in order to seek solutions regarding the Preah Vihear Temple management. He stated that he has no choice but to withdraw the country from WHC. Mr. Suwit tweeted that If any society conducts themselves according to personal will regardless of the law and regulations placed by the committee then there is no use to stay in such society.

At 23.40 hrs., he later tweeted that Thai delegation and himself would resign as members of the World Heritage Committee.

In an interview with the press earlier, at 17.47 hrs.Mr. Suwit referred to Thailand’s position as 'futile', and that every attempt had been made to protect national interest to the fullest. Every duty and every role had been fulfilled at the greatest ability and the only unfinished agenda was to wait for response from the committee. It was the final point before entering the congress, he noted

The proposal was simple, either postponing the issue or Thailand resigns, Mr. Suwit stressed. The current World Heritage Committee comprised of 21 nations however 9 have reached the end of their term. Those include Australia, Bahrain, barbados, brazil, China, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, and Sweden.

Meanwhile, Mr Thepmontri Limpayom, an observer for the People’s Alliance for Democracy, revealed that Mr. Suwit decision had been reported to the Prime Minister. Since his delegation was appointed by the Cabinet, Mr. Suwit had been fully authorized to decide on the country's membership of the World Heritage Committee. He added that when the committee neglected the rescheduling of the Preah Vihear management proposal, it was a signal for the Thai delegation to quit, as the decision overlooked the Thai sovereignty and territorial integrity. Furthermore the withdrawal also limited Cambodia’s use of Preah Vihear land.

-- NNT 2011-06-26

[Oberkommando]

Bad losers indeed. Only yesterday Abhisit said they would respect the WHC.

The only dispute is from the Thais and their petty disagreement about some scrubland which of course is all lies as they want Preah Vihear to be Thai, or at the very least jointly managed which of course will not happen.

The Thais ruined it for themselves after using force to occupy the temple in the 60's and had to be removed by the UN.

No use crying over spilt milk now children.

[pisico]

I think they have a strong case.

You "think" but unfortunately you are not in the commission and the commission "thinks" that the Thai position is weak.

ALL the countries of this planet consider that, at a time or another of their story, they had been spoiled by a neighbor. To be adult is to able to accept the current situation.

...and the French go: "Return Louisiana to France!"

...and the Russians go: "Return Alaska to Russia!"

...and the Mexicans go: "Return California to Mexico!"

...and the Argentinians go: "Return the Falkland islands to Argentina!"

...as a comedian in the USA once said referring to the adoration of the Media for Barack Hussein Obama: "He is the president and open to criticism: stop defending him, he is not your boyfriend!"

Thai position in this border/temple issue is murky from the get go. A lot of blame has been placed on the original French survey. However, that finding was accepted for decades by Thailand and Cambodia.

Enter the Yellow mob. Now it's a matter of national pride? A matter of national security in the face of an enemy that has not air force, no submarines, no aircraft carriers?

Thailand's position is tantamount to this: "if I do not get my way, there is no compromise. I will take my ball, bat and mitt and go home! There!

Long bloody wars have been waged over such hubris. But of course, the blind supporters of this position are willing to fight and die to the very last Cambodian and Thai soldier, not to mention civilian collateral casualties... not them.

...if the shoe fits....

Edited June 26, 2011 by pisico

[FOODLOVER]

Indeed they have a case. Considering that border demarcation follows watersheds, and the temple in basically on the top of a cliff, overlooking Cambodia, where the watershed will naturally be at the foot of said cliff. The real issue was the French poorly drawn maps, and full demarcation was never completed. I do feel that Thailand, however, could approach the issue in a far more structured way which concentrates on this point, afterall, possession is 9/10ths of the law as they say..... far better than arguing over whether discussions should be held bilaterally or unilaterally.

Actually, the watershed is at the top of the cliff, or more precisely to top of the ridge. http://www.thefreedi...y.com/watershed

The temple *could* be at the top of the cliff, but still on the Cambodian side of the watershed.

But the *fact* is, it is on the Thai side of the watershed. So, according to the 1904 treaty, the temple is in Thailand.

Unfortunately, the ICJ ruled in 1962 that the temple (and the land that it sits on) is in Cambodia. Although Thailand disagrees with this, they have accepted the decision. The ownership of the rest of the land was not ruled on by the ICJ, so it is still in dispute.

The fact that the ownership of the land is in dispute would make a mockery of any decision on a management plan that includes any of this land. How can someone manage land when the ownership of it is in dispute?

Did not Thailand agree with the decision until it was declared a historic site thus bringing with it income?

[geovalin]

Do you think that a country should just sit back and let other countries take their property? Would you just sit back and let someone take over part of your property?

I would call police and you would be obliged to go away.

It's what Cambodia did.

It's what UN told to Thailand.

Fair or unfair is NOT the debate. The debate is to know if Thailand accept the decisions of the "police".

If Thailand does not accept the whole world decision, what's next? War for the next 1000 years? I still think this is childish.

Well, when I write "Thailand", I don't mean Thailand, just the yellow & army who obliges Abisith to act silly. Before the yellow and the secret hand rules Thailand since 5 years, there was no problem at the border.

Edited June 26, 2011 by geovalin

[whybother]

Do you think that a country should just sit back and let other countries take their property? Would you just sit back and let someone take over part of your property?

I would call police and you would be obliged to go away.

It's what Cambodia did.

It's what UN told to Thailand.

Fair or unfair is NOT the debate. The debate is to know if Thailand accept the decisions of the "police".

If Thailand does not accept the whole world decision, what's next? War for the next 1000 years? I still think this is childish.

Well, when I write "Thailand", I don't mean Thailand, just the yellow & army who obliges Abisith to act silly. Before the yellow and the secret hand rules Thailand since 5 years, there was no problem at the border.

The "police" haven't ruled on the land that is currently in dispute. In 1962, they only ruled on the temple and the land *immediately* surrounding it, and Thailand have accepted that ruling.

The problem with the temple management plan is that it includes land that was NOT ruled on in 1962, and is therefore the ownership of that land is *still* in dispute.

[whybother]

Did not Thailand agree with the decision until it was declared a historic site thus bringing with it income?

Thailand ARE NOT objecting to the 1962 decision.

The 1962 decision did not rule on all the land in the area. It specifically ruled on the temple (and the land it's on).

Thailand are objecting to the World Heritage decision and the management plan which includes land in which the ownership is still in dispute.

[Ponbkk]

Can anyone tell me why a UN 'Education' 'Scientific' Culture' agency is so aggressive with pressing ahead an issue that involves a border conflict? Shouldn't the issue have been passed off to a UN 'Border Resolution' agency a LONG time ago and left where it is, until the border issue is resolved? IMHO, it seems that it is the agency's aggressive efforts that is the problem here.

[Lite Beer]

PM says Thailand withdrew from World Heritage Committee because of ambiguity regarding Preah Vihear management plan/Via@TANN

PM asks military to step up security at border with Cambodia/Via@TANN

[pisico]

Do you think that a country should just sit back and let other countries take their property? Would you just sit back and let someone take over part of your property?

I would call police and you would be obliged to go away.

It's what Cambodia did.

It's what UN told to Thailand.

Fair or unfair is NOT the debate. The debate is to know if Thailand accept the decisions of the "police".

If Thailand does not accept the whole world decision, what's next? War for the next 1000 years? I still think this is childish.

Well, when I write "Thailand", I don't mean Thailand, just the yellow & army who obliges Abisith to act silly. Before the yellow and the secret hand rules Thailand since 5 years, there was no problem at the border.

Never mind what you mean (even if reality backs you up) those with a tunnel vision are in love with the powers-that-are.

The misnomer, Democrat, that actually means a dictatorship of 50% plus one on the remaining minority; that majority truly feels they own the truth. They also feel that if they are in favor of the ruling elite that brings them closer to a celestial level.

If Thailand does not act as an evolved and responsible country, respectful of international laws, rulings, treaties and organizations, it will soil the country's standing in the global community. It will put the country in the group of banana republics that are ruled by capricious leaders without regard for the people's welfare and or future.

Cambodia has no air force, no aircraft carriers, no submarines; nothing comparable to the Thai arsenal. Is it a matter of national security?

Hubris is what propels that bunch.

As I stated before, those clamoring for the ownership of both land and temple, are willing to fight to the last Cambodian and Thai soldier and collateral civilian casualties. .. Not them.

Oh! I see, they claim principles and are willing to bore us to death with reasons and factoids. Oi vey!

[Lite Beer]

Suwit: Thailand s withdrawal from WHC is the right decision

BANGKOK, 26 June 2011 (NNT)-Mr. Suwit Khunkitti, who led the Thai delegation to the World Heritage Committee to Paris, said the decision for Thailand to withdraw from the WHC was the right move and to protect the sovereignty of Thailand.

In the decision to quit WHC membership, Mr. Suwit found some of the WHC's stance taken on the Preah Vihear unacceptable. He told Thai public not to worry about the withdrawal, adding that this would not fuel the border tensions. Mr. Suwit said later that should Thailand wish to be part of the WHC again, it could do so.

-- NNT 2011-06-26

[Lite Beer]

Thai FM Kasit holds urgent meeting to ponder next move

By The Nation

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Sunday held an urgent meeting to consider the next move after Thailand withdrew from the World Heritage Convention to protest against its decision to consider Cambodia's Preah Vihear management plan.

The meeting comprised representatives from his ministry and ministries of Culture and Natural Resources and Environment.

It was held as Kasit is leaving for Kazakhtan this evening.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation negotiating with the World Heritage Committee in Paris, said on Saturday his delegation had informed the WHC that Thailand resigned as a member country to the convention.

The decision was made after the panel ignored Thailand's concern that the consideration of the management plan would complicate Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

"They ignored it and they did not care about our sovereignty and territory," Suwit said.

-- The Nation 2011-06-26

[geovalin]

The "police" haven't ruled on the land that is currently in dispute. In 1962, they only ruled on the temple and the land *immediately* surrounding it, and Thailand have accepted that ruling.

This is what I mean to be childish. We do not make any war for a small jungle. Thailand and Cambodia in the past was able to discuss calmly about this pretty little issue. Army, yellow and Abisith decided that its better to make a war is better than an agreement (it was sign in May 2008), this is childish.

[geovalin]

Do you think that a country should just sit back and let other countries take their property? Would you just sit back and let someone take over part of your property?

I would call police and you would be obliged to go away.

It's what Cambodia did.

It's what UN told to Thailand.

Fair or unfair is NOT the debate. The debate is to know if Thailand accept the decisions of the "police".

If Thailand does not accept the whole world decision, what's next? War for the next 1000 years? I still think this is childish.

Well, when I write "Thailand", I don't mean Thailand, just the yellow & army who obliges Abisith to act silly. Before the yellow and the secret hand rules Thailand since 5 years, there was no problem at the border.

Never mind what you mean (even if reality backs you up) those with a tunnel vision are in love with the powers-that-are.

The misnomer, Democrat, that actually means a dictatorship of 50% plus one on the remaining minority; that majority truly feels they own the truth. They also feel that if they are in favor of the ruling elite that brings them closer to a celestial level.

If Thailand does not act as an evolved and responsible country, respectful of international laws, rulings, treaties and organizations, it will soil the country's standing in the global community. It will put the country in the group of banana republics that are ruled by capricious leaders without regard for the people's welfare and or future.

Cambodia has no air force, no aircraft carriers, no submarines; nothing comparable to the Thai arsenal. Is it a matter of national security?

Hubris is what propels that bunch.

As I stated before, those clamoring for the ownership of both land and temple, are willing to fight to the last Cambodian and Thai soldier and collateral civilian casualties. .. Not them.

Oh! I see, they claim principles and are willing to bore us to death with reasons and factoids. Oi vey!

Probably I was not clear in my post because what I meant is exactly what you wrote: "If Thailand does not act as an evolved and responsible country, respectful of international laws, rulings, treaties and organizations, it will soil the country's standing in the global community. It will put the country in the group of banana republics that are ruled by capricious leaders without regard for the people's welfare and or future."

[pisico]

Do you think that a country should just sit back and let other countries take their property? Would you just sit back and let someone take over part of your property?

I would call police and you would be obliged to go away.

It's what Cambodia did.

It's what UN told to Thailand.

Fair or unfair is NOT the debate. The debate is to know if Thailand accept the decisions of the "police".

If Thailand does not accept the whole world decision, what's next? War for the next 1000 years? I still think this is childish.

Well, when I write "Thailand", I don't mean Thailand, just the yellow & army who obliges Abisith to act silly. Before the yellow and the secret hand rules Thailand since 5 years, there was no problem at the border.

Never mind what you mean (even if reality backs you up) those with a tunnel vision are in love with the powers-that-are.

The misnomer, Democrat, that actually means a dictatorship of 50% plus one on the remaining minority; that majority truly feels they own the truth. They also feel that if they are in favor of the ruling elite that brings them closer to a celestial level.

If Thailand does not act as an evolved and responsible country, respectful of international laws, rulings, treaties and organizations, it will soil the country's standing in the global community. It will put the country in the group of banana republics that are ruled by capricious leaders without regard for the people's welfare and or future.

Cambodia has no air force, no aircraft carriers, no submarines; nothing comparable to the Thai arsenal. Is it a matter of national security?

Hubris is what propels that bunch.

As I stated before, those clamoring for the ownership of both land and temple, are willing to fight to the last Cambodian and Thai soldier and collateral civilian casualties. .. Not them.

Oh! I see, they claim principles and are willing to bore us to death with reasons and factoids. Oi vey!

Probably I was not clear in my post because what I meant is exactly what you wrote: "If Thailand does not act as an evolved and responsible country, respectful of international laws, rulings, treaties and organizations, it will soil the country's standing in the global community. It will put the country in the group of banana republics that are ruled by capricious leaders without regard for the people's welfare and or future."

You were clear, crystal clear.

I was merely expounding on your statement to make it blatantly obvious to those of the Lutea persuasion.

[whybother]

The "police" haven't ruled on the land that is currently in dispute. In 1962, they only ruled on the temple and the land *immediately* surrounding it, and Thailand have accepted that ruling.

This is what I mean to be childish. We do not make any war for a small jungle. Thailand and Cambodia in the past was able to discuss calmly about this pretty little issue. Army, yellow and Abisith decided that its better to make a war is better than an agreement (it was sign in May 2008), this is childish.

I think you need to do a little bit of research on the temple clashes before you start laying blame.

January 2008 - The Thai government objected to Cambodia's attempt to register the temple with UNESCO.

July 2008 - A Thai soldier lost a leg to a land mine on disputed territory.

July 2008 - The Thai government rejected ASEAN help in solving the border dispute.

October 2008 - There were several clashes between Thai and Cambodian troops.

Who was in government in 2008?

[whybother]

Probably I was not clear in my post because what I meant is exactly what you wrote: "If Thailand does not act as an evolved and responsible country, respectful of international laws, rulings, treaties and organizations, it will soil the country's standing in the global community. It will put the country in the group of banana republics that are ruled by capricious leaders without regard for the people's welfare and or future."

Which laws, rulings and treaties are Thailand NOT respecting?