Cambodia's Hun Sen Urges Thailand To Keep Peace

[webfact]

Cambodia's PM Hun Sen urges Thailand to keep peace

The Cambodia Herald/Asia News Network

File photo: Hun Sen//EPA

KAMPOT: -- Prime Minister Hun Sen urges Thailand to maintain peace with Cambodia as both nations are currently facing International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings in Hague over the interpretation of the 1962 ruling on the Preah Vihear temple.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of a new building for the Kampot City hall on Thursday, Hun Sen said keeping the peace is very important in maintaining harmony for both inside and outside Cambodia especially with a neighbouring country like Thailand.

"We have to solve any problems peacefully and we don't want small issues turning into conflicts between both countries," Hun Sen said. "And must peacefully avoid negative affects on all factors of our two nations."

He added, he was pleased with the present situation between Cambodia and Thailand, especially during the Cambodian New Year when both nationalities were able to go back and forth across each others borders.

-- The Nation 2013-04-18

[rkidlad]

Does he know the verdict already?

[animatic]

Does he know the verdict already?

Not yet, but when it likely goes against Thailand again, and will be called definitive past the point of appeal,

it will not be pretty in the myopic world of Thai nationalism.

[skorchio]

I have absolutely no idea of the details of this dispute, who is right wrong or whatever. But I do know that if the Thais don't get a favourable ruling (favourable to them), they will not accept it. Toys will be out of the pram for sure.

[Thai at Heart]

He plays the Thai nationalist monkeys like an organ grinder.

Keep the peace over there you lot.....

[GrahamMaddison]

[ice1318]

This is the time when Thai politicians - those at the top - should be looking at

the bigger picture.

Realising that the world's eye will on reaction to the court verdict they should

be stressing that court decisions have to be accepted. This is the way

civilised nations behave.

However, being more interested in self-serving vote gathering there appears to

be complete silence.

I'd stress this relates only to the politicians and not political journalism

see "ICJ decision deserves respect" Bangkok Post 17 April.

[Thai at Heart]

This is the time when Thai politicians - those at the top - should be looking at

the bigger picture.

Realising that the world's eye will on reaction to the court verdict they should

be stressing that court decisions have to be accepted. This is the way

civilised nations behave.

However, being more interested in self-serving vote gathering there appears to

be complete silence.

I'd stress this relates only to the politicians and not political journalism

see "ICJ decision deserves respect" Bangkok Post 17 April.

Protecting the country doesn't extend to its international reputation.

[assayer]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

[Thai at Heart]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

Very often that is what has been agreed and accepted.

[oldsailor35]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

Very often that is what has been agreed and accepted.

But never here !

Can't the international court make it a shared territory, resided by monks only , letting traders from both nations use the area.

[oldsailor35]

Those cliffs where the Royal Thai Army murdered all those Cambodians by just pushing them off, look formidable.

[Robby nz]

Thought for a bit he said piece, but no, or could something be lost in the translation?

Looks like this could turn into a great one for the Thai bashers.

[Gulfsailor]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

It does have a bearing, as in the original 1904 treaty the border was defined exactly in wording as among other marks, being the watershed.

That placed the temple and surround land clearly within Thai territory. The problem for Thailand is that in 1907 a drawn map appeared that had the border drawn in such a way that the temple AND surrounding land were in Cambodia. Thailand accepted and adopted that map and was widely used for Thai official purposes.

The 1962 ICJ ruling described that although generally the text of a treaty overrules the drawing if they contradict, but as in this case Thailand adopted the map, it placed the land on which the temple sits inside Cambodia. Cambodia asked the ICJ to rule on the temple, so that was what was done. But from the ruling it is pretty clear that the surrounding land was regarded to be Cambodian, and thus it was ruled that the temple was there as well.

[Thai at Heart]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

Very often that is what has been agreed and accepted.

But never here !

Can't the international court make it a shared territory, resided by monks only , letting traders from both nations use the area.

Courts would be expected to make clear judgements not leave it down to wishy washy agreements. Both sides could sort that out without going to the court.

So, I believe it will be judged clearly one way or the other without ambiguity since, they have both abused the meaning of vicinity since the original judgement.

This time will be clearly defined and judged I believe.

[Thai at Heart]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

It does have a bearing, as in the original 1904 treaty the border was defined exactly in wording as among other marks, being the watershed.

That placed the temple and surround land clearly within Thai territory. The problem for Thailand is that in 1907 a drawn map appeared that had the border drawn in such a way that the temple AND surrounding land were in Cambodia. Thailand accepted and adopted that map and was widely used for Thai official purposes.

The 1962 ICJ ruling described that although generally the text of a treaty overrules the drawing if they contradict, but as in this case Thailand adopted the map, it placed the land on which the temple sits inside Cambodia. Cambodia asked the ICJ to rule on the temple, so that was what was done. But from the ruling it is pretty clear that the surrounding land was regarded to be Cambodian, and thus it was ruled that the temple was there as well.

I have read enough conflicting stories to believe it may be possible that the water sheds back to the Cambodian side from the temple.

People talk about a gully that gathers the water back to the Cambodian side, which may be why the original map was made.

[whybother]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

Except for the fact that the 1904 of treaty defines the watershed as the boundary of the two countries. But never mind about that.

[crazygreg44]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

It does have a bearing, as in the original 1904 treaty the border was defined exactly in wording as among other marks, being the watershed.

That placed the temple and surround land clearly within Thai territory. The problem for Thailand is that in 1907 a drawn map appeared that had the border drawn in such a way that the temple AND surrounding land were in Cambodia. Thailand accepted and adopted that map and was widely used for Thai official purposes.

The 1962 ICJ ruling described that although generally the text of a treaty overrules the drawing if they contradict, but as in this case Thailand adopted the map, it placed the land on which the temple sits inside Cambodia. Cambodia asked the ICJ to rule on the temple, so that was what was done. But from the ruling it is pretty clear that the surrounding land was regarded to be Cambodian, and thus it was ruled that the temple was there as well.

I have read enough conflicting stories to believe it may be possible that the water sheds back to the Cambodian side from the temple.

People talk about a gully that gathers the water back to the Cambodian side, which may be why the original map was made.

I have been at the cliffs many times, and the temple is clearly outside the Thai watershed.

All rainwater that falls outside the Thai watershed and on the ground around the temple gets washed into the Cambodia plains.

The so called "gully" is a fact, and it also places the temple ground as well as the whole area north of the temple cliff into Cambodian watershed.

If Thailand would agree on the watershed being the accepted boundary, they will eventually loose the temple PLUS the adjacent terrain !!!

Why does the court of Justice never sent a geological survey team, ordering it to make an ultimate and clear map of the actual watershed ?

Todays geo-satelite mapping would result in a near to perfect map. With such a map and the confinement of both parties to the WATERSHED being the boundary, the dispute could definitely and forever end.

[rubl]

In the mean time various Khmer websites including some 'Sons of the Khmer Empire' seem somewhat more militant and equally nuts like the Thai Patriot Network. Probably just an oversight, must have escaped PM Hun Sen.

[whybother]

The natural watershed of the area has absolutely no bearing on the boundary of two countries!!

It does have a bearing, as in the original 1904 treaty the border was defined exactly in wording as among other marks, being the watershed.

That placed the temple and surround land clearly within Thai territory. The problem for Thailand is that in 1907 a drawn map appeared that had the border drawn in such a way that the temple AND surrounding land were in Cambodia. Thailand accepted and adopted that map and was widely used for Thai official purposes.

The 1962 ICJ ruling described that although generally the text of a treaty overrules the drawing if they contradict, but as in this case Thailand adopted the map, it placed the land on which the temple sits inside Cambodia. Cambodia asked the ICJ to rule on the temple, so that was what was done. But from the ruling it is pretty clear that the surrounding land was regarded to be Cambodian, and thus it was ruled that the temple was there as well.

I have read enough conflicting stories to believe it may be possible that the water sheds back to the Cambodian side from the temple.

People talk about a gully that gathers the water back to the Cambodian side, which may be why the original map was made.

I have been at the cliffs many times, and the temple is clearly outside the Thai watershed.

All rainwater that falls outside the Thai watershed and on the ground around the temple gets washed into the Cambodia plains.

The so called "gully" is a fact, and it also places the temple ground as well as the whole area north of the temple cliff into Cambodian watershed.

If Thailand would agree on the watershed being the accepted boundary, they will eventually loose the temple PLUS the adjacent terrain !!!

Why does the court of Justice never sent a geological survey team, ordering it to make an ultimate and clear map of the actual watershed ?

Todays geo-satelite mapping would result in a near to perfect map. With such a map and the confinement of both parties to the WATERSHED being the boundary, the dispute could definitely and forever end.

You would think that if the watershed was on the Thai side of the temple, meaning that the temple was in Cambodia, then Cambodia would simply argue that case. Since they haven't, I would assume that the watershed would put the temple on Thai land.

[timewilltell]

In Thai law there is the principle of 'got Mai' (Sure I spelt it like it sounds), which means if you have an existing agreement where there is some change made by one side - and the other side to the agreement voluntarily does some act that shows acceptance then the change is deemed accepted and the court will 'shut your mouth' in uk law this is similar to estoppel. if you try to go back to the original terms. If the earlier agreement was superseded by a map, incorrectly drawn per the prior written treaty and that map has been used by the Thai officials subsequently then it seems those officials may have made a grave error and that Thailand will be in difficulty now.

Of course International law no doubt has its own idiosyncrasies and there may be excuses for the Thai acceptance of the badly drawn map so the judgement will be very interesting. If you are interested in those sort of things of course. I must see if I can find the main points of counsels arguments!

[Chrisswe]

We all know who stands behind this political tools , Democratic party , PAD and it's cronys !!

[Thaddeus]

We all know who stands behind this political tools , Democratic party , PAD and it's cronys !!

Do you know any other songs?