Thai Govt Urged To Delist World Heritage Site

[webfact]

WHC

Govt urged to delist World Heritage site

By JANJIRA PONGRAI,

PONGPHON SARNSAMAK

THE NATION

Academics yesterday called on the government to delist the country's five Unesco World Heritage Sites, saying the designation was just a meaningless tourism and travel symbol.

"It's a shame for Thailand if the government continues to use the World Heritage sign in front of the sites after its withdrawal from the World Heritage Convention," said Adul Wichiencharoen, a former member of the National World Heritage Committee.

The World Heritage Committee's process of considering the registration of a World Heritage Site is without academic principle, he said.

"The decision to designate a site as world heritage is based on benefits generated from tourism. We did not get any benefit from the designation of World Heritage Site," he said.

Thailand's five World Heritage Sites are the Historic City of Ayutthaya, the Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns, Ban Chiang Archaeological Site, Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex.

The World Heritage Committee only allocates budg?ets for educational training and capacity building.

Some funds are made available to maintain designated sites such as the Historic City of Ayutthaya after damage from flooding, said Nisakorn Kositrat, secretary-general of the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning.

"We were supported with only US$30,000 [bt936,000] to restore the Historic City of Ayutthaya after it was sub?merged in flood waters," she said.

Thailand has proposed four more cultural and natural sites to the World Heritage Committee - Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phu Phra Bat Historical Park, Prasart Hin Pimai-Prasart Phanomrung, and Prasart Moung Tham - as well as the Andaman Sea.

Sunant Arunnopparat, director-general of the National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department, said Thailand's exit from the World Heritage Convention would not ruin the tourism atmosphere at the two existing designated natural sites.

"Whether there's a sign of world heritage in front of the sites doesn't matter for tourists visiting the natural sites," he said.

The department will hold a meeting this week to discuss the impact from the withdrawal on the status of the two world heritage designated sites and is now waiting for the order from high-level officials, he said.

Irina Bokova, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, on Sunday expressed her deep regret via Unesco's website after the declaration of Minister Suwit Khunkitti of Thailand's intention to denounce the World Heritage Convention.

Suwit was in Paris attending the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee at Unesco's headquarters from June 19-29.

Contrary to widely circulated media reports, Bokova said, the World Heritage Committee did not discuss the management plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear, nor did it request any reports to be submitted on its state of conservation.

It needs to be clarified that Unesco's World Heritage Centre never pushed for a discussion of the management plan by the committee, she said.

The decision of the World Heritage Committee on the Preah Vihear Temple World Heritage Site in Cambodia only reaffirms the need to ensure the protection and conservation of the property from any damage, Bokova said.

It further encouraged the two countries to use the con?vention as a tool to support conservation, sustainable development and dialogue.

The World Heritage Committee decision on Preah Vihear was adopted unanimously after Thailand staged a walkout. The request of Thailand to adjourn the debate was not supported by any other member of the committee.

Bokova said she had emphasised that heritage should serve not for conflict but as a tool for dialogue and reconciliation.

She expressed the hope that Thailand would carefully consider its future course of action in respect to the convention and would continue to be an active participant in the international cooperation for the protection of the world's outstanding heritage.

-- The Nation 2011-06-28

[jonclark]

Bad move to walk out. Now you have no international voice on this matter and only the Cambodians will be heard. Thailand sits like a child in the corner sulking.

[webfact]

related article

World Heritage Committee Walkout: More Loss Than Gain; Thai Opinion

Follow this link:

[Thaddeus]

Thailand sits like a child in the corner sulking.

With a loaded gun.

[animatic]

Such useless foolishness.

More face lost, by far, over this dispute of nearly useless land,

than gained over anything anyone has done.

Thailand you are screwing the pooch on the world stage.

[geriatrickid]

"We were supported with only US$30,000 [bt936,000] to restore the Historic City of Ayutthaya after it was submerged in flood waters," she said.

I am amazed by the ingratitude expressed. Thailand is supposedly self sufficient and doesn't need full funding. That's almost 1million baht. Maybe it's chump change for her, but that money could be used to help a lot of other places. The funding is supposed to be allocated on the basis of need and it's not as if Thaialnd contributed to the fund. Who the <deleted> does she think she is? These people are clueless. This type of comment will only lead to the ridicule of Thailand. Good job lady.

[webfact]

Abhisit slams former FM Noppadon, saying he does not have the right to criticize govt because he supported Cambodia's sole listing of temple /TAN_Network

[jonclark]

Thailand sits like a child in the corner sulking.

With a loaded gun.

Which it uses constantly to shoot itself in the foot

[geriatrickid]

Abhisit slams former FM Noppadon, saying he does not have the right to criticize govt because he supported Cambodia's sole listing of temple /TAN_Network

And the knives come out..................

[Thaddeus]

Thailand sits like a child in the corner sulking.

With a loaded gun.

Which it uses constantly to shoot itself in the foot

I'm so glad that you got that and pointed it out for the benefit of those that didn't.

[REM]

This is funny stuff, all you are absolutely correct!! But it reminds more of the stories about bar girls than sulking kids. Like the bar girl who goes with a guy, then asks him for money because she needs it. Then, when it's not enough money, she gets mad and storms out and/or starts a problem. So in essence, Thailand is behaving like a childish bar girl who isn't happy with what other people think, and doesn't care about losing face, but says it's important.

[gregb]

This is funny stuff, all you are absolutely correct!! But it reminds more of the stories about bar girls than sulking kids. Like the bar girl who goes with a guy, then asks him for money because she needs it. Then, when it's not enough money, she gets mad and storms out and/or starts a problem. So in essence, Thailand is behaving like a childish bar girl who isn't happy with what other people think, and doesn't care about losing face, but says it's important.

International politics is about doing what is best for your country, full stop. The only reason to care about what other people think is if caring what they think is somehow advantageous to your negotiating position. There are no ethics involved here. There are considerations about how this might affect alliances in the future, but face or what others think about you protecting your national interests is not directly relevant.

So, before you start laughing, please stop to consider the ramifications of this decision. Will withdrawing really matter to anyone? If so, who? And what will it actually cost Thailand in the future? Then consider what Thailand gained from the action. Namely, they can now pursue their policy on the border demarcation without having to expend resources to fight in an organization where they had an extremely weak hand. By sidelining that agency, they actually strengthen their position, as they can now legitimately ignore anything the WHC says or does.

What did withdrawl actually cost them? Do you honestly believe that belonging to the WHC brings benefits to Thailand? If so, quantify them. I maintain the benefits are very small, and membership has been a net loss to the country for a long time. Why do you think Thailand should be a member? The only reason they maintained their membership up to now was inertia.

[REM]

This is funny stuff, all you are absolutely correct!! But it reminds more of the stories about bar girls than sulking kids. Like the bar girl who goes with a guy, then asks him for money because she needs it. Then, when it's not enough money, she gets mad and storms out and/or starts a problem. So in essence, Thailand is behaving like a childish bar girl who isn't happy with what other people think, and doesn't care about losing face, but says it's important.

International politics is about doing what is best for your country, full stop. The only reason to care about what other people think is if caring what they think is somehow advantageous to your negotiating position. There are no ethics involved here. There are considerations about how this might affect alliances in the future, but face or what others think about you protecting your national interests is not directly relevant.

So, before you start laughing, please stop to consider the ramifications of this decision. Will withdrawing really matter to anyone? If so, who? And what will it actually cost Thailand in the future? Then consider what Thailand gained from the action. Namely, they can now pursue their policy on the border demarcation without having to expend resources to fight in an organization where they had an extremely weak hand. By sidelining that agency, they actually strengthen their position, as they can now legitimately ignore anything the WHC says or does.

What did withdrawl actually cost them? Do you honestly believe that belonging to the WHC brings benefits to Thailand? If so, quantify them. I maintain the benefits are very small, and membership has been a net loss to the country for a long time. Why do you think Thailand should be a member? The only reason they maintained their membership up to now was inertia.

If it wasn't such a big deal, then why was it in the news, and why was Thailand trying to use them to their advantage??? I can quote that there was an almost $30,000 gain to Ayutthaya, as said in the article. The reason they maintained the membership is this economy is a tourism based economy, and that helped with advertising and bringing in the tourists. If you want to bother quantifying that, then be my guest, but for arguments sake, lets not make ridiculous claims that not even you will do to prove a point on an internet forum.

So if they pursue a 'policy' on demarcation, then what will they do? Ignore the rules of law? Start another border fight? I know it happens here daily (not starting border fights, but ignoring the law), but if that is your implication, then I understand your defense. Do you think they really sidelined that agency? I highly doubt that, as the agency didn't set the standard, it was set by the ICJ. Will Thailand withdraw from that organization as well, so they can make their own rules and ignore everyone else? They know that the WHC sides with Cambodia, and that made them mad, they don't like hearing it.

The cost of withdrawal, while possibly not monetary, will come back to them in the future. If they walk out on such a meaningless organization that up until a few weeks ago they were begging for help, then when they go back for help, or to some other organization, this will be remembered, and they most likely won't get it. But you are right, it is about doing what's best for your country. So tell me, how is this advantageous to Thailand? The maps are still the same, and the temple is still in Cambodia, and now Thailand has weakened their weak hand even further, according to you.

And one more question, if they were there for intertia, what was that for? And why could they walk away so easily? And further more, why did they stay a member for so long, and according to you, waste their time? Also, what will having the temple do for them, correct a 100 year old mistake they obviously didn't care about until 50 years ago, or just let them make one more tourist trap? I doubt Thai's would flock to this temple to pray....

Edited June 28, 2011 by REM

[pepi2005]

Embarrassing!

I once sympathized with the idea of a shared management of the site by both countries,

but after the events of the last year, this would seem like awarding an arrogant and

sulky baby for its misbehavior.

[hellodolly]

Bad move to walk out. Now you have no international voice on this matter and only the Cambodians will be heard. Thailand sits like a child in the corner sulking.

Sorry to have to disagree with you.

They are not that grown up.

[themockrat]

Bad move to walk out. Now you have no international voice on this matter and only the Cambodians will be heard. Thailand sits like a child in the corner sulking.

As long as this government acts like a little child, it should be treated as a little child.

[themockrat]

"We were supported with only US$30,000 [bt936,000] to restore the Historic City of Ayutthaya after it was submerged in flood waters," she said.

I am amazed by the ingratitude expressed. Thailand is supposedly self sufficient and doesn't need full funding. That's almost 1million baht. Maybe it's chump change for her, but that money could be used to help a lot of other places. The funding is supposed to be allocated on the basis of need and it's not as if Thaialnd contributed to the fund. Who the <deleted> does she think she is? These people are clueless. This type of comment will only lead to the ridicule of Thailand. Good job lady.

Very well said. Thailand is not a poor country. It should have no problems supporting its own restorations of historic places. Spend a few billion Baht less on useless submarines and you can have a wonderful tourist attraction. But no, instead they choose to withdraw from UNESCO and shell the tourist attractions with artillery. What's next? Oh, of course ...a study why tourism drops in Thailand. And that study will be cheap, it'll only cost about 20 million Baht.

[hellodolly]

This is funny stuff, all you are absolutely correct!! But it reminds more of the stories about bar girls than sulking kids. Like the bar girl who goes with a guy, then asks him for money because she needs it. Then, when it's not enough money, she gets mad and storms out and/or starts a problem. So in essence, Thailand is behaving like a childish bar girl who isn't happy with what other people think, and doesn't care about losing face, but says it's important.

International politics is about doing what is best for your country, full stop. The only reason to care about what other people think is if caring what they think is somehow advantageous to your negotiating position. There are no ethics involved here. There are considerations about how this might affect alliances in the future, but face or what others think about you protecting your national interests is not directly relevant.

So, before you start laughing, please stop to consider the ramifications of this decision. Will withdrawing really matter to anyone? If so, who? And what will it actually cost Thailand in the future? Then consider what Thailand gained from the action. Namely, they can now pursue their policy on the border demarcation without having to expend resources to fight in an organization where they had an extremely weak hand. By sidelining that agency, they actually strengthen their position, as they can now legitimately ignore anything the WHC says or does.

What did withdrawl actually cost them? Do you honestly believe that belonging to the WHC brings benefits to Thailand? If so, quantify them. I maintain the benefits are very small, and membership has been a net loss to the country for a long time. Why do you think Thailand should be a member? The only reason they maintained their membership up to now was inertia.

You state

"Namely, they can now pursue their policy on the border demarcation without having to expend resources to fight in an organization where they had an extremely weak hand."

Are you saying they have decided to fight it out alone no matter what the rest of the world thinks of them?

If they just fight it out with Cambodia they can be a bully. So why stay where the whole world that does not agree with your political decision and can beat you to a pulp.

Give me a bully and I will give you a coward. The first sign of a bigger opponent and run for the hills.