Thailand quits World Heritage Convention

[mogoso]

I don't care a whit about who has the better claim, I just don't like or trust the United Nations and just like to see someone throwing off the yoke.

[jayboy]

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.

Before weighing in with posts criticising the input of other members, some consideration should be given to checking the accuracy of your own position (that means both of you).

No management plan was accepted by the WHC, as the following UN press release makes clear.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38853&Cr=Heritage&Cr1=

[whybother]

Before weighing in with posts criticising the input of other members, some consideration should be given to checking the accuracy of your own position (that means both of you).

No management plan was accepted by the WHC, as the following UN press release makes clear.

http://www.un.org/ap...r=Heritage&Cr1=

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.

UNESCO said the committee made the decision unanimously after Thailand staged a walkout, despite “intense negotiations” with both Thailand and Cambodia over the past five days on the sidelines of the committee meeting.

And, funnily enough, it doesn't say anything about the border being demarcated in 1962.

[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?

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.

Before weighing in with posts criticising the input of other members, some consideration should be given to checking the accuracy of your own position (that means both of you).

No management plan was accepted by the WHC, as the following UN press release makes clear.

http://www.un.org/ap...r=Heritage&Cr1=

Where did I say it was accepted? I said the dispute needed to be settled before the management plan was put forward, let alone accepted. The plan has been put forward, the WHC is considering accepting it. The dispute has not been settled. That is the issue. Political agenda is my diagnosis for your backfired attempt to sully my post.

[alexakap]

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?

Thai soil. Yeah...Of course.

[webfact]

Suwit Clarifies: Withdrawal from World Heritage Committee to Protect Sovereignty

Earlier today, Thai representatives who attended the World Heritage Convention, led by acting Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, arrived back in Thailand.

Suwit reiterated that Thailand had to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee because it needed to protect the nation's sovereignty.

Upon returning to Thailand from the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in France, acting Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti held a press conference to explain the reason Thailand had to withdraw its membership from the World Heritage Committee.

Suwit said the Thai government had requested that the committee postpone the deliberation of the management plan of the area around the disputed Preah Vihear Temple.

However, Cambodia submitted a revised version of the plan, asking the committee to send a team of officials to repair and restore the ancient Khmer temple.

Suwit claimed that if the plan is approved, it could put the sovereignty of Thailand at risk.

As the Thai-Cambodian border issue is very sensitive, the acting natural resources and environment minister believes it was in the best interest of Thailand to withdraw from the committee, because now Cambodia will not be able to bring up the agreements reached at the convention at the International Court of Justice.

Also, from now on, neither Cambodia nor the World Heritage Committee will be able to take any action in the area within the temple's vicinity without permission from Thailand.

Suwit and the team of Thai representatives were received and applauded by about 200 members of the Thai Patriot Network who praised the envoy for deciding to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-27

[almavro]

The border was demarcated in 1962

Certainly, one would think that it would be difficult to rule that the temple is on the Cambodian side of the border without first establishing where the border is.

It's an interesting study. The French pointed to water catchment/drainage patterns in a convoluted justification of their ownership claim. It would've been risible except that the Thais were completely unprepared for the way the French played the system: they were deep into the law, while the Thais were deep into common sense and geography (how can a temple inaccessible from Cambodia belong to Cambodia?).

France's/Cambodia's creative logic prevailed. The full decision is available on the net for someone with the energy to parse it and determine what was said about the demarcation of the border.

[jayboy]

Where did I say it was accepted? I said the dispute needed to be settled before the management plan was put forward, let alone accepted. The plan has been put forward, the WHC is considering accepting it. The dispute has not been settled. That is the issue. Political agenda is my diagnosis for your backfired attempt to sully my post.

You implied the plan had been accepted, but perhaps you were not expressing yourself very clearly.In any event you seem to understand the position now.Some of your other observations seem dubious and I suggest you read the UNESCO press release more carefully.

I was not thinking in terms of any party's political agenda but since you raise the matter, most sophisticated observers understand exactly why the Thai government is taking its current line - a desperate and in my view futile attempt to bring the "No vote" faction back into harness before the Thai people vote next week.

[whybother]

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?

Thai soil. Yeah...Of course.

<snipped image>

Do you have one of those maps from 1400 to about 1904 when the Khmer "empire" consisted of an area smaller than the current Cambodia, and Thailand basically controlled the land across to Angkor Wat?

[LomSak27]

I could become an expert, just like you. That is if I actually believed the tripe, ladled up and slopped in the trough by the nation Newspaper. I choose not to.

[alexakap]

The border was demarcated in 1962

Certainly, one would think that it would be difficult to rule that the temple is on the Cambodian side of the border without first establishing where the border is.

What are you guys talking about?? Just google for the ICJ 1962's decision. There is the map, and there is the border drawn.

It is a true fun to see how Thailand just woke up after 50 years of silence about the story. How typically Thai......

Edited June 27, 2011 by alexakap

[alexakap]

Do you have one of those maps from 1400 to about 1904 when the Khmer "empire" consisted of an area smaller than the current Cambodia, and Thailand basically controlled the land across to Angkor Wat?

Seized by Thailand, you meant? Yes, I do have. And also I have some modern ones, where Ankor Wat is returned.

[whybother]

Do you have one of those maps from 1400 to about 1904 when the Khmer "empire" consisted of an area smaller than the current Cambodia, and Thailand basically controlled the land across to Angkor Wat?

Seized by Thailand, you meant? Yes, I do have. And also I have some modern ones, where Ankor Wat is returned.

Right ... And the Khmer's didn't do any seizing at all when they took over all that land.

The only relevant treaty/map now is the one between the French and the Thai's in 1904 (which put the temple on Thai soil) and the maps that should have matched that treaty but instead put the temple on Cambodian soil.

The 1962 ICJ ruling on the temple went with the maps, but they didn't rule on the land adjacent to the temple. That is still disputed, but the Cambodians want to include it in World Heritage management plan.

[whybother]

The border was demarcated in 1962

Certainly, one would think that it would be difficult to rule that the temple is on the Cambodian side of the border without first establishing where the border is.

What are you guys talking about?? Just google for the ICJ 1962's decision. There is the map, and there is the border drawn.

It is a true fun to see how Thailand just woke up after 50 years of silence about the story. How typically Thai......

So the question is, why don't the maps match the treaty?

[whybother]

I could become an expert, just like you. That is if I actually believed the tripe, ladled up and slopped in the trough by the nation Newspaper. I choose not to.

Maybe you should "choose to" read the ICJ ruling then (or plenty of other material), that specifically says that it is only ruling on the temple and the land that it is on, and not on the other land in the area.

[whybother]

<snip>

I was not thinking in terms of any party's political agenda but since you raise the matter, most sophisticated observers understand exactly why the Thai government is taking its current line - a desperate and in my view futile attempt to bring the "No vote" faction back into harness before the Thai people vote next week.

It always amazes me how people think that the Thai government has control over other countries and international bodies, and how they use this for their political purposes.

The usual one is how the Thai government controls the weakness of the $US and it's effect on the Thai exchange rates.

But this one also, where the Thai government not only controls when Cambodia puts forward it's management plan, but also controls the timing of the UNESCO meetings, all so that it can object just before an election.

[animatic]

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

Suwit said. " "They cared only about the conservation of the temple."

Well gee wiz boys, that is UNESCO's brief;

to worry about temple conservation

and not about Thai national soverignty and territory.

That is not their job.

If Cambodia is in sole possession of the temple,

then there need not be any say so from Thailand to manage it.

If there is a need for access to the temple over Thai soil,

that is a wholely different issue, and can not be directly tied

to management and conservation of the temple. It should

be negotiated, but it appears Thailand is trying to negotiate

on points off their listed rights, and using force to stretch the points.

If Thailand insists to have a say over Cambodia's property

then they can rightly expect to be ignored by UNESCO.

As to negotiating a treaty, they are putting nationalism and FACE, before common sense and this is the main reason there can be no agreement.

And I do not back Hun Sens provocations by saying this,

only noting the wrongfully held position of Thailand thinking their internal sovereignty / ego problems should be of any concern to UNESCO.

Acting macho nationalist towards UNESCO

is not going the win back 'No Voters'.

That bunch is well and truly lost, and will illogically blame Abhisit for handing the election to Thaksin, when their vindictive and illogical 'no votes' likely are the margin of defeat.

Edited June 27, 2011 by animatic

[alexakap]

I could become an expert, just like you. That is if I actually believed the tripe, ladled up and slopped in the trough by the nation Newspaper. I choose not to.

Maybe you should "choose to" read the ICJ ruling then (or plenty of other material)

I did. Did you?

that specifically says that it is only ruling on the temple and the land that it is on, and not on the other land in the area.

Got an eye?

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

Thу Annex I map is attached to the prev.post.

PS: "Preah Vihear" is not only a Temple itself, but the Kh.province as well. A whole province includind the Temple since 1962.

Sapienti sat.

[cmsally]

Do we know if the border demarcation team in the past ever visited the site. That temple is situated on a bl--dy great cliff. How on earth they could have put it in Cambodia beggars belief.

Preah Viharn panorama

[noahvail]

Do we know if the border demarcation team in the past ever visited the site. That temple is situated on a bl--dy great cliff. How on earth they could have put it in Cambodia beggars belief.

Preah Viharn panorama

Nice link, thank you

[thunder30101]

It all comes down to a country negotiating in good faith and implementing agreements already made no matter what goverment in charge made them which is what matters in the end. Thailand has shown in the case of this temple that they have no intention of giving anything up, land or temple. Its amazing how many different parties from thailand have scuttled any chance of a viable solution to this mess. The world isnt as stupid as some thais seem to think they are.

[webfact]

Army chief: Thai troops on eastern border stay alert

BANGKOK, 27 June 2011 (NNT) – Army Commander-In-Chief General Prayut Chan-O-Cha has ordered troops to tighten surveillance along the Thai-Cambodian border after Thailand has withdrawn itself from the World Heritage Convention.

General Prayut believed that the withdrawal should pose no problem to the Thai military which will continue to do their best to safeguard the Thai-Cambodian border in all aspects to protect the national sovereignty.

The army-chief added that military personnel including doctors and nurses will be dispatched to border zones and take care of local residents to prevent them from panicking with the news. He said the next step is for Thailand to monitor if the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a temporary injunction as requested by Cambodia.

Cambodia has sought a temporary injunction from the ICJ for the withdrawal of troops from the Thai-Cambodian disputed zone while the ICJ is considering the border demarcation process for the Preah Vihear Temple and its environs.

As for the relations between Thai and Cambodian troops, General Prayut responded that there have been no talks since the recent clashes. He said there used to be talks after border clashes, but both sides seem to have no trust on each other at present.

After giving the interview, the army chief went to meet Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti who has just returned from France and complimented the minister for doing a very good job in his mission.

-- NNT 2011-06-27

[geovalin]

Army chief: Thai troops on eastern border stay alert

.....

After giving the interview, the army chief went to meet Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti who has just returned from France and complimented the minister for doing a very good job in his mission.

-- NNT 2011-06-27

Army Chief is so happy! One or two provocations in the next days and the war would begin, as scheduled, on Friday. Then, either the army chief or the secret hand would make a speech "All the Thais behind the Army and the gvt!!!". Thus the Dems could win on Sunday.

Well done.

:-)

[chuang]

Just like a spoiled brat.

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

Sore loser.....

[ballpoint]

Do we know if the border demarcation team in the past ever visited the site. That temple is situated on a bl--dy great cliff. How on earth they could have put it in Cambodia beggars belief.

Preah Viharn panorama

You have to look at what else was going on in the region back in 1962; who the Cambodian advocate was, who the head of the judging panel was, and the then recent change at the top in Cambodia to fully understand the ruling. Also read the comments of the Australian on the judging panel: "With profound respect for the Court, I am obliged to say that in my judgment, as a result of a misapplication of these concepts and an inadmissible extension of them, territory, the sovereignty in which, both by treaty and by the decision of the body appointed under treaty to determine the frontier line, is Thailand's, now becomes vested in Cambodia".

[webfact]

Military Notified of World Heritage Withdrawal

The prime minister affirms that Thai World Heritage sites will not be affected by Thailand's decision to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee.

He adds that the military was notified of this decision before it was announced to the public.

Acting Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti will report to the Cabinet meeting tomorrow about Thailand's withdrawal from the World Heritage Committee.

The report will cover what this move entails and the process after Thailand's withdrawal from the committee becomes effective.

Abhisit stated this move will not affect the World Heritage status of many historic sites in Thailand.

The prime minister said the military had been notified of the move before the announcement was made public.

Security along the Thai-Cambodian border has been beefed up, fearing a possible backlash from the decision to withdraw from the committee.

Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister for national security Suthep Thaugsuban said the withdrawal was inevitable.

He explained details of the management plan could affected Thai sovereignty, a fact that the World Heritage Committee refused to acknowledge.

Suthep also commented on Pheu Thai deputy leader Plodprasop Surassawadi's plan to oppose the government's decision to withdraw from the committee.

He said Pheu Thai is merely carrying out its duty as an opposition party.

However, Suthep has urged the party and its red-shirt supporters not to stage a public rally to protest against the move.

Acting Government Spokesman Panitan Watanayagorn said the World Heritage Committee has been informed of Thailand's decision.

The next step is for the Foreign Ministry to send an official letter to inform the UNESCO headquarters after which UNESCO has to acknowledge with a written reply.

Panitan confirmed Thailand's membership in the World Heritage Committee has, in practicality, been terminated upon the withdrawal from the World Heritage Convention.

Panitan added that Thai historic ruins which are listed as World Heritage sites will not be affected by Thailand's decision to withdraw from the committee.

He revealed Thailand has not received budgets or help in the care of these sites from UNESCO.

Any ongoing attempt to list new sites will have to be terminated.

He does not believe this will affect tourism as most of these sites are famous by their own rights.

He added Thailand can still work with the international community on the restoration of these sites despite its withdrawal from the World Heritage Committee.

Panitan reiterated Thailand had to walk out of the World Heritage Convention because Cambodia had included information that could affect Thailand's sovereignty as part of the Preah Vihear Temple's management plan submitted to the World Heritage Committee.

He did not think this will spark a new round of border clashes with Cambodia but soldiers have been asked to step up security at the border.

-- 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.

Before weighing in with posts criticising the input of other members, some consideration should be given to checking the accuracy of your own position (that means both of you).

No management plan was accepted by the WHC, as the following UN press release makes clear.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38853&Cr=Heritage&Cr1=

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of my rebuttal post concerning the demarcation of the border which has NOT be completed.

.

.

[whybother]

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

http://www.icj-cij.o...se=45&k=46&p3=5

Thу Annex I map is attached to the prev.post.

PS: "Preah Vihear" is not only a Temple itself, but the Kh.province as well. A whole province includind the Temple since 1962.

Sapienti sat.

"the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear."

The court decided to use the frontier indicated on the map, rather than the true watershed line to come to it's decision on the "sovereignty over Preah Vihear".

It did not rule on the rest of the border.

[Buchholz]

Then, either the army chief or the secret hand would make a speech

I look forward to the secret hand revealing himself/herself in a speech.

Then these silly references could end.

.

[webfact]

Govt Urged to Reject Future Preah Vihear Ruling

The People's Alliance for Democracy urges the government to reject the future ruling of the International Court of Justice on the Preah Vihear case.

At the same time, the group also asks the government make public its resignation letter from the World Heritage Committee.

Spokesperson of the People's Alliance for Democracy, or PAD, Parnthep Puapongpan, called on acting Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti to release to the public Thailand's resignation letter from the World Heritage Committee.

Parnthep said that the PAD wanted to review the exact wording of the letter to see if it will be effective immediately or 12 months from now, as claimed by the government.

The PAD also pointed out that the government need to announce that Thailand will not accept the International Court of Justice's ruling on Cambodia's latest petition.

The court is now deliberating a petition filed by Cambodia for the court to review the ownership of the land surrounding the ancient temple.

It has also asked the court to issue an injunction that will drive Thai soldiers out of the disputed area.

The PAD also condemned UNESCO for overstepping its jurisdiction by approving the management plan of the area around the temple proposed by Cambodia after Thailand has walked out from the convention.

At any rate, Parnthep vowed the Thai public will never accept the decision.

The group urged the Thai military to expel Cambodian settlements from the disputed area.

Panthep also slammed the Pheu Thai Party for criticizing the government's decision to withdraw from the World Heritage Committee.

Pheu Thai claimed the decision may hurt Thailand's fragile tourism industry.

Meanwhile, Chamlong Srimuang, a core PAD leader, said the group's "Vote No" campaign has been well received by the public.

He added that voters can exercise their democratic rights by abstaining their votes in the upcoming poll.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-27