German Map Expert Who Surveyed Preah Vihear In 1961 Returns

[whybother]

Thai at Heart, on 21 Apr 2013 - 15:54, said:

whybother, on 21 Apr 2013 - 15:52, said:

crazygreg44, on 21 Apr 2013 - 14:08, said:

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.

Yes. Agreed. But some people are still saying that the watershed puts the temple on Cambodian soil. If that's true, why don't Cambodia argue that? I would suggest they don't argue that because it's not true.

[JCauto]

Thai at Heart, on 21 Apr 2013 - 15:54, said:

whybother, on 21 Apr 2013 - 15:52, said:

crazygreg44, on 21 Apr 2013 - 14:08, said:

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.

Yes. Agreed. But some people are still saying that the watershed puts the temple on Cambodian soil. If that's true, why don't Cambodia argue that? I would suggest they don't argue that because it's not true.

Quite simple really. It's explained in the interview with the German dude:

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.

As the temple ownership is not in dispute, and it was decided not on the basis of the watershed, then it's a moot point. Why would Cambodia bring that up again in this case? If the court already decided that the watershed was not the basis but the map was, then it just doesn't matter.

[whybother]

Quite simple really. It's explained in the interview with the German dude:

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.

As the temple ownership is not in dispute, and it was decided not on the basis of the watershed, then it's a moot point. Why would Cambodia bring that up again in this case? If the court already decided that the watershed was not the basis but the map was, then it just doesn't matter.

They didn't argue it in the 1962 case either.

It would have been easier to argue that the watershed put the temple on Cambodian soil, since the watershed is stated in the 1904 treaty, than using a 1908 map that wasn't "officially" accepted when it was added as an appendix to the treaty.

Edited April 21, 2013 by whybother

[Thai at Heart]

Thai at Heart, on 21 Apr 2013 - 15:54, said:

whybother, on 21 Apr 2013 - 15:52, said:

crazygreg44, on 21 Apr 2013 - 14:08, said:

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.

Yes. Agreed. But some people are still saying that the watershed puts the temple on Cambodian soil. If that's true, why don't Cambodia argue that? I would suggest they don't argue that because it's not true.

They don't have to, that is settled.

[whybother]

They don't have to, that is settled.

Well, it's not completely settled. If the disputed area was on the Cambodian side of the watershed, it would be a slam dunk for the Cambodians, if only they used that in their argument.

[Thai at Heart]

They don't have to, that is settled.

Well, it's not completely settled. If the disputed area was on the Cambodian side of the watershed, it would be a slam dunk for the Cambodians, if only they used that in their argument.

Well, that is for their legal team to decide. They appear to be focusing on the meaning of vicinty, which would seem to be a pretty strong arguement.

[tinom]

4.6 square Km could also easily divided by 2 which would give 2.3 Km2 for each country...

Then the natural border could naturally be drawn by the watershed line...

Now, as many did suggest before, a "Peace and Friendship Sanctuary" managed and maintained by both countries should be a relevant decision!

ASEAN in two years, borders will probably "soften" as it happened with the Shengen Zone. Border lines did not move but business and tourism has been eased...

A recent Bangkok Post poll said that more than 95% of the surveyed thais would disagree with a "war" on this dispute...

So why a couple of stubborn nationalists of both countries continue to try to poison the now friendly relationships of two neighbourgs whole populations?

Isaan people and Khmers of the north share the same DNA...

Edited April 21, 2013 by tinom

[hellodolly]

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.

You pretty well summarized it nicley in four words

"obscure, impotent, and unimportant"

The one change I would like to make in your recap was the word Thailand to a piece of 4.2 square kilometers of land. The rest is just politicians way of saying we don't really have any thing important to do so we are going to make this into a big deal.

Tyhat foes for both sides of the border.

[hellodolly]

Just wondering what the verdict would be if it was decided by the people living in the area for the last 50 years.

Give them a choice

1 Thailand

2 Cambodia

3 who cares

[KuhnPaen]

Wait,what? The helicopter that came to pick him up the first time crashed and killed the pilots?

Jing jing?

Yeah, that is sad....

And really fishy.

[bumpkin]

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

He was not called to give testimony on this occasion, and his "old friend " is not old enough to have been involved in the 1962 hearings.

[DocN]

4.6 square Km could also easily divided by 2 which would give 2.3 Km2 for each country...

Then the natural border could naturally be drawn by the watershed line...

Now, as many did suggest before, a "Peace and Friendship Sanctuary" managed and maintained by both countries should be a relevant decision!

ASEAN in two years, borders will probably "soften" as it happened with the Shengen Zone. Border lines did not move but business and tourism has been eased...

A recent Bangkok Post poll said that more than 95% of the surveyed thais would disagree with a "war" on this dispute...

So why a couple of stubborn nationalists of both countries continue to try to poison the now friendly relationships of two neighbourgs whole populations?

Isaan people and Khmers of the north share the same DNA...

...and maybe that is exactly, why some "Thai- nationalists" don't give a hoot...

[HarryMilton]

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

He's not giving testimony this time.

[Joe Mamma]

Seeing how Cambodia has logged and clear-cutted massive amounts of their forests and other watershed areas. I hope Thailand is the final steward of this war torn area.

Look at a satellite image map of the green of Thailand and the brown of Cambodia to see the dis-respect Cambodian leaders have shown to the wild lands.

[ballpoint]

4.6 square Km could also easily divided by 2 which would give 2.3 Km2 for each country...

Then the natural border could naturally be drawn by the watershed line...

Now, as many did suggest before, a "Peace and Friendship Sanctuary" managed and maintained by both countries should be a relevant decision!

ASEAN in two years, borders will probably "soften" as it happened with the Shengen Zone. Border lines did not move but business and tourism has been eased...

A recent Bangkok Post poll said that more than 95% of the surveyed thais would disagree with a "war" on this dispute...

So why a couple of stubborn nationalists of both countries continue to try to poison the now friendly relationships of two neighbourgs whole populations?

Isaan people and Khmers of the north share the same DNA...

So what sort of DNA do the rest of us have?

[MobileContent]

4.6 square Km could also easily divided by 2 which would give 2.3 Km2 for each country...

Then the natural border could naturally be drawn by the watershed line...

Now, as many did suggest before, a "Peace and Friendship Sanctuary" managed and maintained by both countries should be a relevant decision!

ASEAN in two years, borders will probably "soften" as it happened with the Shengen Zone. Border lines did not move but business and tourism has been eased...

A recent Bangkok Post poll said that more than 95% of the surveyed thais would disagree with a "war" on this dispute...

So why a couple of stubborn nationalists of both countries continue to try to poison the now friendly relationships of two neighbourgs whole populations?

Isaan people and Khmers of the north share the same DNA...

I wouldn't call it Isaan people in general as almost 20 million people in Isaan have no idea about the Khmer-Surin language and only around 1.3 million people in the Northeast speak Khmer Surin compared to the Lao dialect.

Isaan people and Northern Khmers in Buriram, Surin and Sisaket, Roi Et are the same. To compare that out of 6.5 million people that live in Buriram, Surin, Sisaket and Roi Et only around a quarter of them speak Khmer-Surin.

75% of those do not have a DNA line

Edited April 22, 2013 by MobileContent

[lounger]

Very difficult to override more recently decisions however in a referendum i would vote for the original proposal which in 1904 was based on the waterline original. I would probably concede to agreeing to the present waterline. So long as it hasn't been changed by subsequent irrigation.

Problem solved by a modern survey using original intent.

[JCauto]

Seeing how Cambodia has logged and clear-cutted massive amounts of their forests and other watershed areas. I hope Thailand is the final steward of this war torn area.

Look at a satellite image map of the green of Thailand and the brown of Cambodia to see the dis-respect Cambodian leaders have shown to the wild lands.

Yes, because the Thai have done such a great job of it . And the 4.6 square km of scrubland is a rich forest that needs careful management.

[JCauto]

Very difficult to override more recently decisions however in a referendum i would vote for the original proposal which in 1904 was based on the waterline original. I would probably concede to agreeing to the present waterline. So long as it hasn't been changed by subsequent irrigation.

Problem solved by a modern survey using original intent.

This is a matter for the ICJ, that's a court. It's not something that gets voted upon because it's a dispute between two countries. If there were a referendum, the country with the largest population would always win. As noted previously, the watershed line is not relevant, only the maps are.

[ubonrthai]

Fascinating article. Having hiked in all the parks on the border I would love to hear this guy talk more about his 2 weeks there.

Interesting that the helicopter crash isn't mentioned here that I see. http://www.thai-aviation.net/files/Air_Accidents.pdf

[Beetlejuice]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

[Nisa]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

[DocN]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

Aaaaaaahhh...so you do not even understand humor!

Any statistics to back up your claim?

[Nisa]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

Aaaaaaahhh...so you do not even understand humor!

Any statistics to back up your claim?

Humor used to comment on a subject needs to include some reality or understanding of the subject and not based on something that makes no sense. But if you found that one funny then how about this ... Since motorbikes are built for God I bet even he/she would be required to pay 200 baht if he didn't have a license on him.

But in reality what you incorrectly think was a joke is actually sarcasm, even if based on an incorrect assumption, and for some reason you need to tell the world you let you panties get bunched up once again by posting non-relevant and inaccurate information over something not directed at you and which was simply correcting somebody's misunderstanding of a subject.

Try the ignore feature if you can't control yourself after reading my posts .... it works for others.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Nisa

[DocN]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

Aaaaaaahhh...so you do not even understand humor!

Any statistics to back up your claim?

Humor used to comment on a subject needs to include some reality or understanding of the subject and not based on something that makes no sense. But if you found that one funny then how about this ... Since motorbikes are built for God I bet even he/she would be required to pay 200 baht if he didn't have a license on him.

But in reality what you incorrectly think was a joke is actually sarcasm, even if based on an incorrect assumption, and for some reason you need to tell the world you let you panties get bunched up once again by posting non-relevant and inaccurate information over something not directed at you and which was simply correcting somebody's misunderstanding of a subject.

Try the ignore feature if you can't control yourself after reading my posts .... it works for others.

What about sticking to your own advice?

[Nisa]

Here is a summary of the 1962 ruling ... http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

I wouldn't say Thailand lost on a technicality but it is interesting to note that the Temple was meant to be in Thailand as per the treaty agreement ... assuming the water line put it in Thailand as claimed but not considered by the court.

Reminds of a women I knew years ago who fought her ex-husband over the house which she purchased before they were married but ended up having to sell and split the money with him all because while on the stand she called it their home a number of times. Every document showed she paid for the home herself but by calling it their house after being married she got screwed just as Thailand screwed itself by accepting maps for decades showing the temple in Cambodia. Hard pill to swallow for the women I know as it must be for Thailand but at some point you got to accept things and move on.

[Beetlejuice]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

You`re got me here.

I`ve been trying to remember his name. Arry somebody or other I think?

Got it, Harry Krishna, third cousin four times removed of John the Baptist. Harry was one of the almighty powerful , but unfortunately hopeless at creating earthquakes.

Who cares what God? My point is that if the building was destroyed by some sort of natural disaster, it would stop the dispute and the bickering would stop.

[Nisa]

Considering this matter is about temple, a so-called house of God, although I doubt if God would be allowed in there without a permit, or by having to prove his allegiance to one side or the other, perhaps he could show his hand, create an earthquake in the area and demolish the building completely?

I`m sure that would solve the problem.

Which God are you talking about? Although it originally started out as as a Hindu Temple around the 9th Century, most of it and what still remains was built around the 11th century in the name of Buddhism which doesn't have a God.

You`re got me here.

I`ve been trying to remember his name. Arry somebody or other I think?

Got it, Harry Krishna, third cousin four times removed of John the Baptist. Harry was one of the almighty powerful , but unfortunately hopeless at creating earthquakes.

Who cares what God? My point is that if the building was destroyed by some sort of natural disaster, it would stop the dispute and the bickering would stop.

It is a serious of buildings and not just one building and they already are in ruins but understand the point you are trying to make on a subject you appear to know little about. However, why not take it a step further and just destroy the entire planet to end all disputes.

[ALFREDO]

I was there, at the place of dispute and I was very surprised,

that that hilltop temple place at the edge of a high steep mountain rock, can belong to Cambodia.

Only, because the decisions had been partly (mostly) made on French maps and border lines!

[Nisa]

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

Since you pointed out this name it has become like a bad song I can't get out of my head. Yesterday saw some guy acting like a real douche bag and for some reason I wanted to say to him, "don't be such a Wellington Koo" and had no idea what that would mean since I know nothing about Mr. Koo personally -- later I am watching some talent show on TV and became convinced this one band would go much further if they named themselves "The Wellington Koos" ...