Thailand quits World Heritage Convention

[News_Editor]

Thailand quits World Heritage Convention

2011-06-26 23:11:40 GMT+7 (ICT)

PARIS (BNO NEWS) -- Thailand announced on Saturday its departure from the United Nations World Heritage Convention after the World Heritage Committee decided to consider Cambodia's management plan for the Preah Vihear temple.

The Nation news website reported that Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation negotiating with the World Heritage Committee in Paris, said that his delegation agreed to withdraw Thailand from the World Heritage Convention after the body ignored Thailand's concern that the consideration of the management plan would complicate the Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

"They ignored it and they did not care about our sovereignty and territory," Suwit said. "They cared only about the conservation of the temple. Actually, we told them that if Cambodia withdraws its troops from the temple, the conservation can go ahead. The troop withdrawal will allow the conservation to be done. No one will interfere with it. No damages will be done if no one fires from the site."

Following the withdrawal, the World Heritage Committee could no longer force Thailand to compile to its decision, Suwit added.

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.

Tensions first escalated between the two countries in July 2008 following the build-up of military forces near the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple. The United Nations Security Council urged both sides to establish a permanent ceasefire after at least 10 people were killed.

Clashes resumed in February as both nations claim the lands surrounding the ancient Hindu Temple, which has been damaged due to the conflict. The Preah Vihear temple dates back to the 11th century and is located on the Cambodian side of the border. The World Court ruled in 1962 that the temple was in Cambodian soil but did not clarify the ownership of the surrounding area.

In 2008, the temple was inscribed on the World Heritage List in recognition of its outstanding universal value. It is considered an outstanding example of Khmer architecture and consists of a complex of sanctuaries linked by pavements and staircases on an 800-meter-long axis.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-06-26

[hellodolly]

Just like a spoiled brat.

I want my way and am completely closed minded to any other way.

[Steele404]

if all the resources were saved instead on having this argument and shooting mortar rounds.... we could have built our very own Preah Vihear temple 10 times over

[Bagwan]

Somehow I don't think the World will go into mourning over this. Their decision merely confirms the petty and juvenile aspects of Thai attitudes towards others.

I wonder if closing down the casinos along the border would concentrate minds.

[BanTamo]

Actually no, we couldn't build 10 more Preah Vihars. We'll be lucky to be able to preserve the one. This is yet another very, very poor showing by Abhisit and his ilk. Shame on them.

[TerraPosse]

I wonder how this withdrawal will affect any support of Thai world heritage sites by UNESCO? Maybe there is no support involved beyond having sites listed as a world heritage site but I wouldn't be surprised if there is financial support for on-going conservation efforts at ancient sites on the list. And in this case it would look like Thailand cut off its nose to spite its face....or just plainly shoots itself in the foot....again...

[moe666]

Why is Thailand wrong and Cambodia right in this conflict. This situation from what I have read seems a bit convoluted and with the interference of outside agencies seems to have made it worse by assigning a temple to one country when they know full well both countries are in conflict over the land the temple sets. Thailand mobilize your army and run the Cambodians from your soil.

[otherstuff1957]

In this case, Thailand is wrong and Cambodia is right because Cambodia seems to be will to abide by the rule of international law...  Although it is entirely possible that some of those international law experts can sometimes make the wrong decision, nations should, nonetheless, abide by those decisions!  

Of course, not all Thais would agree with this. When I said this to my wife, WW III seemed to go off in our bedroom!

[janverbeem]

In this case, Thailand is wrong and Cambodia is right because Cambodia seems to be will to abide by the rule of international law... Although it is entirely possible that some of those international law experts can sometimes make the wrong decision, nations should, nonetheless, abide by those decisions!

Of course, not all Thais would agree with this. When I said this to my wife, WW III seemed to go off in our bedroom!

How can you make such a comment.Thailand laws are international because they ARE the world and there is nothing outside Thailand,If you are married to a Thai you should have known that already.

[virtualtraveller]

It's a childish and undiplomatic thing to do, but there again Cambodia has been fighting with the gloves off for some time now. It's using the temple as leverage to gain better control over the disputed land which it needs to gain access to the temple. The temple has a strategic position, as long as disputes continue, Cambodia can fired from the temple but the moment Thailand returns fire, it damages the temple and makes them look like spoilers. This is what has been happening, Hun Sen is not a man you do business with in conference halls, he's an ex Khmer Rouge rogue, simple as that!

[DNPBC0]

The Government's announcement that it is withdrawing its support for the World Heritage Convention can be nothing more that another foolish last-ditch attempt to woo voters, this time from PAD. The Convention is an international agreement to which Thailand has been a signatory. Such agreements cannot be easily dissolved, and it will months for Thailand to reverse out of this one.

[webfact]

THAI-KHMER DISPUTE

Temple to remain time bomb

By PONGPHON SARNSAMAK,

SAMASCHA HUNSARA

THE NATION

Thailand will withdraw from Heritage Convention, but experts query move

Thailand's defiant decision to pull out of the World Heritage Convention late on Saturday in protest over Cambodia's management plan for Preah Vihear Temple could be another ticking bomb for the new government.

"The next step to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee will be the responsibility of the next government," Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told a press conference at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

He had called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya to meet for 10 minutes at the airport's VIP room before the press conference.

"From now Unesco can consult with Thailand over the next process and Thailand will insist that any activity to recover the disputed areas must be approved by Thailand. We do always ask Cambodia to withdraw troops from the Preah Vihear Temple as it would violate the convention and the intention of the committee," he said.

Noppadon Patama, a legal adviser to ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra and former foreign minister, derided the decision to withdraw from the World Heritage Convention, saying it would cause trouble for the country.

"There is another way to protect our sovereign rights that is better than resignation from the convention," he said in a comment called "What has Suwit done in Paris?" on his Facebook page.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation negotiating with the World Heritage Committee in Paris, announced at 11.55pm on Saturday that his delegation had informed the World Heritage Committee that Thailand had withdrawn its membership to the convention. He said the Thai delegation had to make the move after the committee ignored Thailand's concern that consideration of the management plan would complicate the Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

"So, I think that we should not take a risk. If we take a risk, the vote of the committee may affect us and affect our sovereignty. I talked to the delegation and we agreed to withdraw as a member of the World Heritage Convention," Suwit said.

However, academics have called into doubt the legality of the caretaker government's decision, saying the Constitution does not allow a caretaker government to make any legally binding decision until the next government is appointed.

"It is still a question whether the caretaker government has the authority to make any legally binding decision after the House dissolution," said Panas Tassaneeyanont, a legal expert and former senator.

"The withdrawal from the World Heritage Convention will not take effect as the caretaker government does not have the authority to legally bind the next government," he said. "The new government will later cancel the previous government's decision."

According to Article 35 of the World Heritage Convention, such a move must be notified by a signatory in writing, sent to the director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco).

The withdrawal would take effect 12 months after receipt of such a notice. It would not affect the financial obligations of the state until the date on which the withdrawal takes effect.

Abhisit insisted that Suwit's decision had followed the Cabinet resolution.

Akkharaphong Khamkhun, a lecturer at Thammasat University's Pridi Banomyong International College, said Suwit's announcement was hollow because it was done by the caretaker government.

Adul Wichiencharoen, a former member of the National World Heritage Committee, said he supported Suwit's response, as Thailand was in danger of losing territory if the committee accepted the Cambodian plan.

Panthep Pourpongpan, spokesman for the People's Alliance for Democracy, which has been camping out at Government House to protest against the listing of Preah Vihear Temple, said the announcement was a victory for the country.

-- The Nation 2011-06-27

[Buchholz]

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.

Thailand's resistance to WHC management of the disputed territory seems reasonable. Until the area is demarcated and an exact border established, there shouldn't be an outside agency to manage it. The border needs to be established first before progressing. It's a cart before the horse situation.

[cloudhopper]

It's a cart before the horse situation.

More like a step on your crank situation.

[DNPBC0]

"Akkharaphong Khamkhun, a lecturer at Thammasat University's Pridi Banomyong International College, said Suwit's announcement was hollow because it was done by the caretaker government."

It wasn't "hollow" in a general election context. Suwit's announcement had to be a last minute, panic attempt by the Government to gain votes from PAD.

[Buchholz]

It's a cart before the horse situation.

More like a step on your crank situation.

As that's an impossibility, I'll stick with cart before the horse.

[Buchholz]

"Akkharaphong Khamkhun, a lecturer at Thammasat University's Pridi Banomyong International College, said Suwit's announcement was hollow because it was done by the caretaker government."

It wasn't "hollow" in a general election context. Suwit's announcement had to be a last minute, panic attempt by the Government to gain votes from PAD.

Suwit's announcement came as WHC made their move to dictate the situation.

Are you saying UNESCO controls the Thailand election?

Do you have references that PAD has deviated from their No Vote campaign?

[gregb]

The Government's announcement that it is withdrawing its support for the World Heritage Convention can be nothing more that another foolish last-ditch attempt to woo voters, this time from PAD. The Convention is an international agreement to which Thailand has been a signatory. Such agreements cannot be easily dissolved, and it will months for Thailand to reverse out of this one.

I think you completely missed the point. If Thailand remains a part of the WHC, then they are obligated to respect the management plan that is approved by them. By resigning before the vote has a chance to go ahead, they are not bound by that decision. That allows the status quo to continue without regard to what the WHC says, and it gives Cambodia one less front to attack them on. I think everyone can see Thailand does not have the support necessary to defeat the Cambodian proposal, so they simply need to make life difficult until they are forced to return to the negotiating table. Thailand is nothing if not extremely good at protests.

Thailand's goal is simply to prevent the development of this temple from going forward without resolving the larger border dispute. I think they played the only card they had in this game. It was hardly an election tactic. They would have made the same choice no matter when the decision came down.

[Deeral]

Thailand makes a fool of itself internationally. but home? What would the motivation be? (BTW - that's a rhetorical question)

[Deeral]

The Government's announcement that it is withdrawing its support for the World Heritage Convention can be nothing more that another foolish last-ditch attempt to woo voters, this time from PAD. The Convention is an international agreement to which Thailand has been a signatory. Such agreements cannot be easily dissolved, and it will months for Thailand to reverse out of this one.

I think you completely missed the point. If Thailand remains a part of the WHC, then they are obligated to respect the management plan that is approved by them. By resigning before the vote has a chance to go ahead, they are not bound by that decision. That allows the status quo to continue without regard to what the WHC says, and it gives Cambodia one less front to attack them on. I think everyone can see Thailand does not have the support necessary to defeat the Cambodian proposal, so they simply need to make life difficult until they are forced to return to the negotiating table. Thailand is nothing if not extremely good at protests.

Thailand's goal is simply to prevent the development of this temple from going forward without resolving the larger border dispute. I think they played the only card they had in this game. It was hardly an election tactic. They would have made the same choice no matter when the decision came down.

Not an accurate assessment ar all - you're swallowing spin.

[LomSak27]

My god this is a "created diplomatic row" by PAD to discredit Thaksin back when. If Thailand has any real issues about the PV temple complex they could have voiced them in 1962, or in the 45 years before this dispute was created ... argh

Its sad but to be expected that some posters seem to have bought the PR hook line and sinker.

[Buchholz]

Thailand makes a fool of itself internationally. but home? What would the motivation be? (BTW - that's a rhetorical question)

Another rhetorical question is what would be the motivation for Hun Sen to push through the management plan prior to the border being demarcated?

.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Buchholz

[LomSak27]

The border was demarcated in 1962

[Buchholz]

The border was demarcated in 1962

The disputed territory was not.

.

[gregb]

The Government's announcement that it is withdrawing its support for the World Heritage Convention can be nothing more that another foolish last-ditch attempt to woo voters, this time from PAD. The Convention is an international agreement to which Thailand has been a signatory. Such agreements cannot be easily dissolved, and it will months for Thailand to reverse out of this one.

I think you completely missed the point. If Thailand remains a part of the WHC, then they are obligated to respect the management plan that is approved by them. By resigning before the vote has a chance to go ahead, they are not bound by that decision. That allows the status quo to continue without regard to what the WHC says, and it gives Cambodia one less front to attack them on. I think everyone can see Thailand does not have the support necessary to defeat the Cambodian proposal, so they simply need to make life difficult until they are forced to return to the negotiating table. Thailand is nothing if not extremely good at protests.

Thailand's goal is simply to prevent the development of this temple from going forward without resolving the larger border dispute. I think they played the only card they had in this game. It was hardly an election tactic. They would have made the same choice no matter when the decision came down.

Not an accurate assessment ar all - you're swallowing spin.

Disagree. You don't know what you are saying.

[ballpoint]

The border was demarcated in 1962

Why do people feel the need to wade in on a topic they know nothing about? The border was not demarcated in 1962. The ICJ ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, and Thailand must remove its troops from the "vicinity". Nobody drew a line showing where that vicinity ended. Thailand grudgingly accepted the decision, but followed it. Between 1962 and 2008 the temple has belonged to Cambodia and the disputed land was shared by both, with Cambodians setting up market stalls, alongside Thais, to take advantage of (read into that what you will) the tourists coming from the Thai side. The current impasse came about when Cambodia single handedly put forward a management plan which included the disputed land as well as the temple. The matter of the disputed land clearly needs to be, and should have been, resolved before any management plan involving it was put forward, let alone accepted. Yet we continue to get dozens of posters here, whether through simple Thai bashing or a political agenda, trying to tell us the fault is entirely Thailands.

As an aside; shooting at the Thai army from a temple in the hope that the Thai army shoots back, haven't we seen that tactic used elsewhere too?

[whybother]

In this case, Thailand is wrong and Cambodia is right because Cambodia seems to be will to abide by the rule of international law... Although it is entirely possible that some of those international law experts can sometimes make the wrong decision, nations should, nonetheless, abide by those decisions!

Of course, not all Thais would agree with this. When I said this to my wife, WW III seemed to go off in our bedroom!

Which "rule of international law" aren't the Thai's abiding by?

They are NOT trying to lay claim to the temple. They have accepted that the temple belongs to Cambodia, as per the 1962 ICJ ruling.

NO ONE has ruled on the land adjacent (4.6 sq km) to the temple. That is what this dispute is about.

The Cambodians want to use this disputed land as part of their management plan for the temple. But the border has not been demarcated, so how can they put forward a plan that potentially uses Thai soil?

Cambodia is wrong by putting forward a management plan that includes disputed land.

[webfact]

PM: Withdrawal from World Heritage Committee was a Cabinet Decision

The acting prime minister confirmed Thailand's decision to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee was the result of a previous Cabinet resolution.

He has asked the army to step up security along the border and for the new government to prioritize this issue.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the decision by Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee shows that Thailand does not want the committee to deliberate Cambodia's management plan of the area around Preah Vihear Temple.

He added that this had been decided at a previous Cabinet meeting for the Thai delegation should the World Heritage Committee push ahead with deliberation of the plan.

Abhisit said Thailand has repeatedly expressed its opposition to Cambodia's plan as it contains ambiguous words which may pose a threat to Thailand's sovereignty.

However, the World Heritage Committee refused to heed Thailand's concern and has pressed ahead with deliberation of the plan.

The prime minister stated that after Thailand announced its withdrawal from the World Heritage Committee, the meeting proceeded with considering the management plan and resolved to cut out the problematic ambiguous paragraph that Thailand had objected to.

Therefore, the deliberation of the plan was halted.

Abhisit noted that if rehabilitation of the ancient Khmer ruins is to be carried out on Thai soil, Unesco must seek Thailand's permission first.

He added that Thailand will keep the channel of communication open with Unesco despite the kingdom's withdrawal from the World Heritage Committee.

The prime minister is confident foreign countries will now have a better understanding of Thailand's stance on this issue and thanked the Thai delegation for trying its best to negotiate with Cambodia.

Abhisit also asks the new government to prioritize this issue upon taking power after the election, but confirmed that the Foreign Affairs Ministry will continue to work on the matter.

He has also asked the army chief and the Interior Ministry to keep a close watch on the situation along the Thai-Cambodian border in case Cambodia launches another attack on Thailand.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-27

[webfact]

PAD Supports Withdrawal from WHC

The People's Alliance for Democracy approves the decision to withdraw Thailand from the World Heritage Committee as they believe the move will help prevent the loss of the country's sovereignty on the Thai-Cambodia disputed area.

The People's Alliance for Democracy or PAD spokesman Parnthep Puapongpan thanked to Natural Resource and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkit, the head of Thai delegates at the meeting, for his decision to announce the country's removal from the World Heritage Convention.

Parnthep said Suwit's move was in contrast to the government's policy that only aims for the postponement of the panel's consideration on Cambodia's proposed management plan around Preah Viheat Temple.

Parnthep asked the government to scrap the Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU signed in 2000 for the handling of Thai-Cambodian border areas, given that it could put the country at a disadvantage in the International Court of Justice and the United Nations.

The PAD's spokesman maintained that the government must not approve Cambodia's attempt to access the area around the temple for reconstruction efforts as the temple is on Thai soil.

He went on to say the government should announce its opposition to Cambodia's petition to the International Court of Justice for an injunction against the Thai military presence in the disputed area around the temple before the court makes its ruling on.

Parnthep added that the group will end its protests on July 1, but it will continue to keep a close watch on the Phrea Vihear Temple dispute.

PAD core leader Major General Chamlong Srimuang said the withdrawal as a World Heritage Committee signatory is among the demands pressed by his group as it would help prevent a significant loss of the country's territory.

Chamlong also demands the government scrap the MOU and push Cambodian troops and people out of the 4.6 square-kilometer-overlapping area.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-27

[Buchholz]

The border was demarcated in 1962

Why do people feel the need to wade in on a topic they know nothing about? The border was not demarcated in 1962. The ICJ ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, and Thailand must remove its troops from the "vicinity". Nobody drew a line showing where that vicinity ended. Thailand grudgingly accepted the decision, but followed it. Between 1962 and 2008 the temple has belonged to Cambodia and the disputed land was shared by both, with Cambodians setting up market stalls, alongside Thais, to take advantage of (read into that what you will) the tourists coming from the Thai side. The current impasse came about when Cambodia single handedly put forward a management plan which included the disputed land as well as the temple. The matter of the disputed land clearly needs to be, and should have been, resolved before any management plan involving it was put forward, let alone accepted. Yet we continue to get dozens of posters here, whether through simple Thai bashing or a political agenda, trying to tell us the fault is entirely Thailands.

As an aside; shooting at the Thai army from a temple in the hope that the Thai army shoots back, haven't we seen that tactic used elsewhere too?

Thank you for expounding more exactly then my brief 1-liner reply to the 1-liner misrepresentation.

Your observations on postings in these temple threads is not solitary. The sort of thing you describes occurs on every one of the many threads.