German Map Expert Who Surveyed Preah Vihear In 1961 Returns

[Lite Beer]

German map expert who surveyed Preah Vihear in 1961 returns
Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation on Sunday

THE HAGUE: -- More than half a century ago, Prof Friedrich Ackermann of the Institute for Photogrammetry at the University of Stuttgart sat in a courtroom at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and offered his views on watersheds, maps and the international boundary near the Preah Vihear Temple.

Five decades later, the now 83-year-old took a plane from Germany to the Dutch city to listen to a Romanian expert on Thailand's legal team - co-counsel Alina Miron - make a presentation to the court on maps relating to the Preah Vihear land dispute between Cambodia and Thailand.

"I have nothing to do with the hearing this time, but it's my personal interest, and I've come to see my old friend Donald [McRae], who is an expert on mapping and boundaries," Ackermann told The Nation in an interview outside the courtroom. McRae is a member of the legal team arguing Thailand's case this time around.

Ackermann briefly chatted with Miron after the hearing on April 17 and told her that he was impressed with her presentation.

During the original case, Ackermann was called to testify as a geological survey expert to brief the ICJ on behalf of Thailand on a field survey of the border area near Preah Vihear Temple he conducted in 1961. He was then only 32 years old.

"I spent many days appearing at the court to tell what we did and explain the watershed," he said.

Before the 1962 trial, Ackermann had no association with Thailand. He worked at the Institute of International Photogrammetry under the directorship of Prof Willem Schermerhorn, who was also Dean of the International Training Centre for Aerial Survey.

The Thai delegation approached Schermerhorn and gave him aerial photographs of the area near Preah Vihear. The problem is the aerial picture showed nothing much more than forested, mountainous terrain. It did not give a clear idea of the location of the watershed line, which was used in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 to demarcate the border between the two kingdoms. Schermerhorn gave the photograph to Ackermann, dispatching him to survey the border area near the temple.

Watersheds are areas of land - often ridges or similar features - from which rainwater drains into a river system or a body of water. They often separate two or more water basins.

A 15-strong team, including two officers from the Thai Royal Survey Department, took a train to Ubon Ratchatani before being taken by helicopter to the temple. Ackermann said he was saddened to find out later that the first helicopter sent to take him from Ubon Ratchathani had crashed, killing the pilots.

The team spent two weeks camping at the temple. "At that time, the temple was not very well known. When we were there I rarely saw a visitor. I walked over there every day seeing only the ruins and the trees covering the temple. The temple was a ruin, of course; I think nobody [except] archaeologists knew about it. Nobody lived there," he said.

From his survey, Ackermann found that the watershed used to establish the boundary line was located at the edge of the cliff atop which the temple sits.

"From the temple, there is a creek. The water runs down there, and I could prove it did not [flow] to the north, but in the [other direction], which [supports the use of] the watershed to make the boundary, and I could [verify] that," he said.

"And if the argument is based on the watershed, the temple would have stayed with Thailand," he concluded.

The 1:200,000-scale Dang Rek map produced by France in 1908 indicates a boundary line that does not correspond to the watershed, he said.

"I was not sure whether it was done intentionally by the French. I don't think they did a survey of the watershed - they just drew the line," he said.

Ackermann's survey took place in 1961, more than 50 years after the French map was drawn. It was possible the terrain was altered by a natural disaster. "But this piece of land is very stable, there was no major earthquake, no volcano erupted, no landslide there over the [previous] half century," he argued.

The French map shows the O'Tasem River as running around Phnom Trap, pushing the boundary line to the North of the temple. Ackermann said the map is wrong on this point.

"O'Tasem is not a river, it's a small creek. It passes to the south of Phnom Trap, and the watershed goes to the cliff, not the other way," he said.

"My point of view is based solely on the watershed. As a matter of fact, I would declare the French map was in error on that particular point," he said.

Maps, watersheds and the boundary line were heavily debated in the court trial 50 years ago, before the ICJ's 1962 verdict that the temple is situated on territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia. As part of the verdict, Thailand was ordered to withdraw troops from the temple and its "vicinity".

"That's a long story but at the end, when the court said, 'Okay, the watershed is not important anymore,' the court ruled on this ground, but I saw this as a mistake," Ackermann said.

The majority of the border between Thailand and Cambodia was delimited more than a century ago, but the boundary near Preah Vihear has yet to be demarcated. The line has not yet been settled. Cambodia, 50 years after the initial judgement, submitted a request for an interpretation of the judgement to define precisely the "vicinity" of the temple.

The name of Prof Schermerhorn and the work of Ackermann were mentioned in the court hearing last week. This time the watershed is no longer an issue, but the boundary of the temple's vicinity is very much a topic of interest.

-- The Nation 2013-04-21

[Thai at Heart]

Why did it take a Thai newspaper so long to find this expert.

In fact, they didn't find him, he found them at the court.

[noitom]

He "came to see his old friend," a member of the Thai legal team. This comment should render his testimony "tainted."

[rametindallas]

More pro-Thailand evidence. I'm curious how this info will be interpreted to make Thailand look petty, selfish, and immature. LOL. In 1962 a 'Western' court sided with a very 'Western' and influential France against obscure, impotent, and unimportant Thailand. It's called politics and has no relationship with justice. Cambodia was a part of France in 1962 and had no independent voice. This was all about the wishes and 'face' of France and not Cambodia.

[DocN]

This is getting so extremely boring!

Funny, how back in 1962 the International Court of JUSTICE ruled in favor of Cambodia and now all of these "experts" pop up and all this "evidence" and how great the Thai- legal team is performing.

If they get the fxxxxxxxx land...fine! (except they will rub it in with week long victory- celebrations...)

If not...can you please shut the fXXX up?

[apetley]

More pro-Thailand evidence. I'm curious how this info will be interpreted to make Thailand look petty, selfish, and immature. LOL. In 1962 a 'Western' court sided with a very 'Western' and influential France against obscure, impotent, and unimportant Thailand. It's called politics and has no relationship with justice. Cambodia was a part of France in 1962 and had no independent voice. This was all about the wishes and 'face' of France and not Cambodia.

Cambodia became an independent Kingdom in 1953.

Edited April 21, 2013 by apetley

[NongKhaiKid]

Why did it take a Thai newspaper so long to find this expert.

In fact, they didn't find him, he found them at the court.

Crazy farang, it's all his fault

[lemonjelly]

He "came to see his old friend," a member of the Thai legal team. This comment should render his testimony "tainted."

Why..?.. neither of them are witnesses.

Edited April 21, 2013 by lemonjelly

[lemonjelly]

Well done Supalak Ganjanakhundee, a nicely witten (typed 555) article. I hope you can ignore the grumpy, cynical, Chang drinking beer bellied intellectual midgets that seem to plague this forum nowadays.

[Credo]

Let me see....a German disagreeing with a French map 50 years ago?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

[Nisa]

"I have nothing to do with the hearing this time, but it's my personal interest, and I've come to see my old friend Donald [McRae], who is an expert on mapping and boundaries," Ackermann told The Nation in an interview outside the courtroom.

The Nation has a reporter travel to the Netherlands to get a quote but when it comes to stories of interest in Bangkok they seem to have no reporters to followup or investigate anything and instead rely on the official Police and Government press releases and statements ... that and Facebook posts..

Edited April 21, 2013 by Nisa

[Nisa]

In 1962 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, awarded ownership of Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia by a 9 to 3 vote, stating that the 1907 map clearly showed Preah Vihear as being in Cambodia. The court only ruled that the temple belong to Cambodia, and did not rule on the surrounding adjacent lands....

The ownership dispute reappeared in recent years after Cambodia submitted an application to UNESCO requesting that Preah Vihear be designated as a World Heritage site .... Cambodia withdrew the application, and in 2008, after winning support from Thailand, submitted a modified map requesting the designation only for the temple but not the surrounding land.

Although this is more recent history, it is interesting to see just how far back this has gone on ... See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Thai_border_dispute#Background

[FarangTalk]

More pro-Thailand evidence. I'm curious how this info will be interpreted to make Thailand look petty, selfish, and immature. LOL. In 1962 a 'Western' court sided with a very 'Western' and influential France against obscure, impotent, and unimportant Thailand. It's called politics and has no relationship with justice. Cambodia was a part of France in 1962 and had no independent voice. This was all about the wishes and 'face' of France and not Cambodia.

Uninformed nonsense.

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

Edited April 21, 2013 by FarangTalk

[Scott]

A troll post has been deleted.

[MikeOboe57]

Let me see....a German disagreeing with a French map 50 years ago?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Nice to see you did not miss the opportunity of a cheap shot against the "Hun".

We all know that the British and French were extremely good at "drawing lines on maps" without ever having been on site - just look at the borders of many African states and the resulting continuous problems with ethnic minorities. Professor Ackermann was at the Temple and did a survey. His statement is well founded and cannot be dismissed easily. But as a German and arguing "pro-Thai" he cannot expect a fair treatment in this forum.

[Nisa]

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

[Gulfsailor]

Let me see....a German disagreeing with a French map 50 years ago?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Nice to see you did not miss the opportunity of a cheap shot against the "Hun".

We all know that the British and French were extremely good at "drawing lines on maps" without ever having been on site - just look at the borders of many African states and the resulting continuous problems with ethnic minorities. Professor Ackermann was at the Temple and did a survey. His statement is well founded and cannot be dismissed easily. But as a German and arguing "pro-Thai" he cannot expect a fair treatment in this forum.

Not even Cambodia is contesting this man's findings, which are irrelevant. But before anyone makes more silly comments after a completely irrelevant to the case article in The Nation, please read the 1962 ICJ ruling, and understand why the temple was awarded to Cambodia. I will also give you the most likely outcome in current case.

[Nisa]

Let me see....a German disagreeing with a French map 50 years ago?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Nice to see you did not miss the opportunity of a cheap shot against the "Hun".

We all know that the British and French were extremely good at "drawing lines on maps" without ever having been on site - just look at the borders of many African states and the resulting continuous problems with ethnic minorities. Professor Ackermann was at the Temple and did a survey. His statement is well founded and cannot be dismissed easily. But as a German and arguing "pro-Thai" he cannot expect a fair treatment in this forum.

Not even Cambodia is contesting this man's findings, which are irrelevant. But before anyone makes more silly comments after a completely irrelevant to the case article in The Nation, please read the 1962 ICJ ruling, and understand why the temple was awarded to Cambodia. I will also give you the most likely outcome in current case.

It was my understanding what really hurt Thailand was that they not only didn't dispute a 1907 map, drawn up by the French, but they also used and distributed the map. The map showed the temple in Cambodia despite an agreement years earlier that it would remain in Thailand.

Is this about right?

I'd be curious to know but not so curious to want to read the entire court decision which is a very lengthy document but did find a link if anybody else is interested ... http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1962.06.15_preah_vihear.htm

[FarangTalk]

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

I mean they were represented by former government officials from Britain and the US, and not by France, as the other poster incinuated.

Funnily enough, the Thais accused the US judge presiding of having a bias, as the Cambodian legal team also had an American representative.

Expect similar hand wringing and protests this time around.

Thailand losing the site will be Karma for the Thai military massacre of thousands of innocent Cambodian civilians at the site in 1979.

Edited April 21, 2013 by FarangTalk

[crazygreg44]

This expert says, that on date of his survey, they whole area was covered by forest and scrub. So actually, he was not able to survey the terrain moreclosely from any of the hilltops, as trees must have hindered his sights. If he had been standing on the today's site of the Thai flagpole, he would have found his definition of a watershed VERY dissimilar from the facts that can be seen from out of this viewpoint. Today, there are no more trees obliterating the view. Today, you can clearly see more of the terrain and it helps to determine where the rainwater will flow . Another western toad blind on both eyes. It's probably only him who knows why he so easily sides with Thailand. Had he been Cambodia's guest in these days of old, he might be siding with them. It's much easier to smile at your partner when he is standing next to you than siding with somebody who lives 10 kilometer far away in the misty distance.

[pacovl46]

He "came to see his old friend," a member of the Thai legal team. This comment should render his testimony "tainted."

Mate, the watershed line WAS USED in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 to demarcate the border between the two kingdoms. The German guy was only there to determine the watershed line BACK IN 1961.

This time he DID NOT testify!!! What do you mean with his testimony being tainted??? Also, it's pretty easy to determine where the watershed runs off to. In other words, if he lied back then it would be pretty easy to prove. So what are you on about???

[seajae]

this is very similar to the Australian dispute with Timor, the disputed boundary is in the ocean but it at the edge of the Australian continental shelf which is or has, always been the boundary of a country at sea. However this area also contains a very good supply of oil & gas so it has become a bit of a problem. Before Timor claimed independance in 1999 it was decided by Indonesia and Australia but now Timor want the gas & oil so they are disputing it. Same thing is happening here, both want the temple and the land surrounding it but neither are willing to take a backward step. To my way of thinking the temple should be part of both cultures, after all, originally it was there for the whole area not just one country. As it sits on the border(which should favour Thailand due to the landscape/watershed principles) I see this as the only fair proposal, it should be shared by both countries with an area surrounding it allowed for as development for tourism that would benefit both countries with a joint committe overseeing it. Unfortunately this also is about loosing face and not wanting to share so it will never happen, just one big bun fight.

[Nisa]

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

I mean they were represented by former government officials from Britain and the US, and not by France, as the other poster incinuated.

Funnily enough, the Thais accused the US judge presiding of having a bias, as the Cambodian legal team also had an American representative.

Got it. I just wasn't sure if there was some protocol at the ICJ of having another country represent you.

Although I have no bases to believe anything bias or unfair happened, I did notice that there were actually a couple French on the Cambodian team. This of course is meaningless because each side should be represented by people who are biased for them and only the judges should be unbiased.

Just out of curiosity, I did look up the judges. Below are those that decided the case which ended in a 9-3 victory for Cambodia. The three in red sided with Thailand.

President: Winiarski (Poland); Vice-President: Alfaro (Panama);

Judges: Basdevant (France), Badawi (Egypt), Moreno Quintana (Argintina), Wellington Koo (China), Sir Percy Spender (Australia), Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (UK), Koretsky (USSR), Tanaka (Japan), Bustamante y Rivero (Peru), Morelli (Italy)

I'd like to believe a fair decision was made but have no idea what the politics of the day were and how much they may have played into any decision.

http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1962.06.15_preah_vihear.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice

[Thai at Heart]

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

I mean they were represented by former government officials from Britain and the US, and not by France, as the other poster incinuated.

Funnily enough, the Thais accused the US judge presiding of having a bias, as the Cambodian legal team also had an American representative.

Got it. I just wasn't sure if there was some protocol at the ICJ of having another country represent you.

Although I have no bases to believe anything bias or unfair happened, I did notice that there were actually a couple French on the Cambodian team. This of course is meaningless because each side should be represented by people who are biased for them and only the judges should be unbiased.

Just out of curiosity, I did look up the judges. Below are those that decided the case which ended in a 9-3 victory for Cambodia. The three in red sided with Thailand.

President: Winiarski (Poland); Vice-President: Alfaro (Panama);

Judges: Basdevant (France), Badawi (Egypt), Moreno Quintana (Argintina), Wellington Koo (China), Sir Percy Spender (Australia), Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (UK), Koretsky (USSR), Tanaka (Japan), Bustamante y Rivero (Peru), Morelli (Italy)

I'd like to believe a fair decision was made but have no idea what the politics of the day were and how much they may have played into any decision.

http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1962.06.15_preah_vihear.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice

Aside from anything else, "Wellington Koo" must go down as one of the best names for anyone, anywhere in the world.

[JCauto]

More pro-Thailand evidence. I'm curious how this info will be interpreted to make Thailand look petty, selfish, and immature. LOL. In 1962 a 'Western' court sided with a very 'Western' and influential France against obscure, impotent, and unimportant Thailand. It's called politics and has no relationship with justice. Cambodia was a part of France in 1962 and had no independent voice. This was all about the wishes and 'face' of France and not Cambodia.

Cambodia achieved its independence in 1953. Fortunately, you're not on anyone's list of experts.

[Locationthailand]

Well done Supalak Ganjanakhundee, a nicely witten (typed 555) article. I hope you can ignore the grumpy, cynical, Chang drinking beer bellied intellectual midgets that seem to plague this forum nowadays.

Unfounded and uneducated summary judgement on TV members? Especially from one so self proclaimed highly intelligent above others... Get a life.

[lemonjelly]

Well done Supalak Ganjanakhundee, a nicely witten (typed 555) article. I hope you can ignore the grumpy, cynical, Chang drinking beer bellied intellectual midgets that seem to plague this forum nowadays.

Unfounded and uneducated summary judgement on TV members? Especially from one so self proclaimed highly intelligent above others... Get a life.

you're right...... maybe some of them drink Leo.

[chris1101]

The US represented Cambodia in the ICJ in 1962 and Britain represented the Thai side.

Cambodia became an independent nation in 1953.

Suggest some reading up on history of the region is urgently needed.

What do you mean they were represented by other countries? Do you mean because they had lawyers assisting them from different countries? If that is the case then both sides were represented by the US.

I mean they were represented by former government officials from Britain and the US, and not by France, as the other poster incinuated.

Funnily enough, the Thais accused the US judge presiding of having a bias, as the Cambodian legal team also had an American representative.

Got it. I just wasn't sure if there was some protocol at the ICJ of having another country represent you.

Although I have no bases to believe anything bias or unfair happened, I did notice that there were actually a couple French on the Cambodian team. This of course is meaningless because each side should be represented by people who are biased for them and only the judges should be unbiased.

Just out of curiosity, I did look up the judges. Below are those that decided the case which ended in a 9-3 victory for Cambodia. The three in red sided with Thailand.

President: Winiarski (Poland); Vice-President: Alfaro (Panama);

Judges: Basdevant (France), Badawi (Egypt), Moreno Quintana (Argintina), Wellington Koo (China), Sir Percy Spender (Australia), Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (UK), Koretsky (USSR), Tanaka (Japan), Bustamante y Rivero (Peru), Morelli (Italy)

I'd like to believe a fair decision was made but have no idea what the politics of the day were and how much they may have played into any decision.

http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1962.06.15_preah_vihear.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice

The minute he walked in the room I could see he was a man of distinction Sir Percy Spender, good looking so refined wouldn't he like to know what's going on in my mind etc.

Apologies to Dame Shirley Bassey.

[whybother]

This expert says, that on date of his survey, they whole area was covered by forest and scrub. So actually, he was not able to survey the terrain moreclosely from any of the hilltops, as trees must have hindered his sights. If he had been standing on the today's site of the Thai flagpole, he would have found his definition of a watershed VERY dissimilar from the facts that can be seen from out of this viewpoint. Today, there are no more trees obliterating the view. Today, you can clearly see more of the terrain and it helps to determine where the rainwater will flow . Another western toad blind on both eyes. It's probably only him who knows why he so easily sides with Thailand. Had he been Cambodia's guest in these days of old, he might be siding with them. It's much easier to smile at your partner when he is standing next to you than siding with somebody who lives 10 kilometer far away in the misty distance.

If the watershed so clearly puts the temple on Cambodian soil, why don't Cambodia argue that in court? Seeing that they are only arguing that the map puts the temple on Cambodian soil, I would assume that the watershed puts the temple on Thai soil.

[Thai at Heart]

This expert says, that on date of his survey, they whole area was covered by forest and scrub. So actually, he was not able to survey the terrain moreclosely from any of the hilltops, as trees must have hindered his sights. If he had been standing on the today's site of the Thai flagpole, he would have found his definition of a watershed VERY dissimilar from the facts that can be seen from out of this viewpoint. Today, there are no more trees obliterating the view. Today, you can clearly see more of the terrain and it helps to determine where the rainwater will flow . Another western toad blind on both eyes. It's probably only him who knows why he so easily sides with Thailand. Had he been Cambodia's guest in these days of old, he might be siding with them. It's much easier to smile at your partner when he is standing next to you than siding with somebody who lives 10 kilometer far away in the misty distance.

If the watershed so clearly puts the temple on Cambodian soil, why don't Cambodia argue that in court? Seeing that they are only arguing that the map puts the temple on Cambodian soil, I would assume that the watershed puts the temple on Thai soil.

The temple itself its settled. Now it is a clarification about the definition of vicinity.