Pm Lauds ' Job Well Done' In The Hague

[Lite Beer]

PM lauds 'job well done' in The Hague
The Nation on Sunday

Virachai

THE HAGUE: -- Thai team did its best to make country's case on Preah Vihear, Surapong says

Thailand's legal team defended the country's interests to the best of its ability in the dispute with Cambodia over land near Preah Vihear Temple, team leader Virachai Plasai said after the five-day legal battle at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that ended in The Hague on Friday night, Bangkok time.

Virachai said the team had been meticulous and transparent in conducting its case. The self-assessment came as Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra expressed satisfaction with the Thai team's performance, as reported by Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister Surapong Towichu-kchaikul. Surapong conveyed the premier's feelings on the "Yingluck Meets the People" television programme broadcast on state-run Channel 11 yesterday.

The foreign minister said he hoped the ICJ's ruling, expected later this year, would restore the situation to the position established in 1962. Surapong said Yingluck had spoken to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen on the phone and expressed confidence that the issue would not damage bilateral ties.

Both Surapong and Virachai appeared on television yesterday via teleconference from The Hague. Surapong praised the Thai team for having prepared a solid case in arguing that the court had nothing to adjudicate, since the matter was put to rest in 1962 when the ICJ ruled that Preah Vihear Temple belonged to Cambodia. The ruling led to the withdrawal of Thai troops from the temple but made no mention of land surrounding it.

He said the Thai team spent three years preparing for the case. He also apologised to the public for the fact that not all matters relating to the case could be fully revealed before the hearings, for fear of allowing the Cambodian side to fully read Thailand's legal game plan.

Surapong reiterated that the Yingluck administration was in no way colluding with the Cambodian government and had done its best to defend Thailand's sovereignty. Surapong urged the opposition not to politicise the matter.

"Our country should not politicise foreign affairs. I urge those who think differently to recognise that we co-exist [with others as a member of] the world community, and that we are a modern society," he said.

Surapong noted that both Yingluck and Hun Sen had agreed to respect the ruling of the ICJ no matter what, adding that the two countries will soon be members of the Asean Economic Community in 2015 and needed to foster good relations.

He said one possibility was for both nations to seek to jointly develop the area. "This is the best solution," he said, adding that he had trust that the ICJ would deliver justice.

Virachai insisted sovereignty over Preah Vihear did not give rights over surrounding land to Cambodia. He also believed the court had no jurisdiction over the issue.

"We do not deny that [Thailand and Cambodia] have differing views. But [these differing views] have coexisted for over 45 years. No one filed a 'police complaint' [back then]. It's difficult to take when someone files a police complaint after 45 years, however. Cambodia insists it still has the right to do so, but the world would have no stability if this is the case," said Virachai, who was educated at the Sorbonne in Paris. Yingluck phoned to congratulate the team at 11.30pm on Friday, Thai time, saying she recognised they had done well and performed to the utmost of their ability. She said the team had clearly stated the Kingdom's case, particularly during the last day of proceedings on Friday.

"Today, I would like to express my admiration and thanks from my heart for your commitment to the work. Everyone did well, particularly Virachai Plasai, ambassador to The Hague, who represents Thailand. You have my moral support on a job well done," the premier was quoted as saying on the phone.

The opposition Democrat Party also commended the Thai team, but warned the government to prepare for various possible scenarios. Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakom-alyasut said the time to prepare was now, as he believed a favourable ruling for Thailand would not put the matter to rest in Cambodia's eyes.

-- The Nation 2013-04-21

[Lite Beer]

ICJ HEARING
Legal team did well, Chula academic says
Pakorn Puengnetr
The Nation on Sunday

THE HAGUE: -- But prepare for a negative ruling, Puangthong warns

Chulalongkorn University political scientist Puangthong Pawakarapan said Thai people should be jubilant about the seemingly well-executed legal fight over disputed land around Preah Vihear Temple in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but should prepare for a possible negative ruling.

Puangthong said it was premature to expect victory because Cambodia was equally confident about its prospects. She warned that back in 1962, Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

The political scientist said that over the past week Cambodia insisted many times that it had protested repeatedly in regard to the placement of barbed wire outside Preah Vihear Temple since 1962. And they provided the ICJ with what claimed to be written proof - notes from the French Embassy in Phnom Penh to the French Foreign Ministry, for example, and reports that then ruler Prince Sihanouk had protested against Thailand's action.

However, she said the Thai media were not interested in reporting about the matter. And while Thailand insists that the court should not have jurisdiction to rule over the land surrounding Preah Vihear Temple, it was unclear how the court would view that matter.

In regard to the disputed maps, it was also unclear to what extent the ICJ might use them as evidence.

In regard to interpretation of the word "vicinity" around the temple, Puangthong said there seemed to be no definitive principle to support Thailand's argument that it only refers to the immediate vicinity of the temple which belongs to Cambodia.

"From all these factors, it can be concluded that it won't be easy to say that we will win. Actually, it will be tough," the political scientist concluded, adding that joint border control over the disputed land may be the best option for peace between the two nations.

"Certain political groups may distort the issue by claiming that the land must belong to Thailand only. If that's the case, it will be problematic. So the role of the media is very important in creating understanding," she said.

"There are many places in the world which do not belong to a particular nation and they handle them through joint border administration. This is better than war….

"We must wait and see how the government will react - whether they will follow a nationalist trend or forget it and do something which is more constructive."

Veerapat Pariyawong, an independent Harvard-educated lawyer told Nation TV, a sister media organisation of The Nation, that the original ruling would have far more influence on the outcome than the whole argument by both sides as to which map was more reliable and why.

He said it was too early to judge Thailand's performance at the ICJ regarding the disputed land and what the week-long court fight that ended on Friday may lead to.

Cambodian weaknesses, he said, were the country's shifting stance and its decision to make an oversimplified accusation against Thailand. "We tried to show to the court that Cambodia cannot be trusted," he said.

Veerapat warned, however, that the MoU signed between the two countries in 2000 was like a double-edged sword and may be beneficial to Cambodia. It was likely to be crucial in the court's decision on whether to accept the complaint made by Cambodia or not.

On Facebook, Army Col Nat Sri-in, deputy intelligence chief at Suranaree Army Unit, warned that a ruling by the ICJ favourable to Cambodia could lead to a 100-year war between the two nations.

Nat said the word "vicinity" did not imply the disputed land area but the mere immediate vicinity of Preah Vihear Temple which Thailand has already handed over to Cambodia decades ago. Nat blamed Cambodia for re-igniting the issue despite the MoU signed in 2000 to jointly demarcate the border.

-- The Nation 2013-04-21

[NongKhaiKid]

It's a George Bush " Mission Accomplished " mis-statement as it will be a job well done if the court ruling is favourable. It must stick in some craws having to hire a Romanian " expert " to appear, what no Thai lawyer capable of appearing on the world stage ? At least they have a fall guy / girl / person to blame if it goes wrong

[apetley]

I find it a real shame when Thai commentators show such zenophobia in their reports.

Saying that there may be a negative outcome for them because there are no Thai judges! I'd imagine that there are no Cambodian ones eithet but that is not pointed out is it?

Cambodians cannot be trusted. Cambodia asked for the court to make a ruling on the 1962 judgement so it seems to me they are the ones with more trust in the legal system and want a proper resulution.

And then there is the threat of a hundred year war from an army highup if there is a negative ruling. There should not be people with power in a position to make such comments. Sometimes a verdict favours the other party and should be accepted with grace not the throwing of toys.

[Markaew]

There is so much nonsense and so many contradictions in this OP where do you start?

Bizarre. Is there something lost in the translation or is this as simple minded as it appears?

It's like listening to your 8 year old child explaining why they got in a fight on the playground.

[Payboy]

Bald guy in a vest, must be an intellectual.

[Thai at Heart]

Everything indicates to me that the Thais have little confidence in winning.

All the expert opinion of " we did a good job" is odd to me. I have a feeling they know they are toast.

[nuananddon]

Thai judges? Ever watch a boxing match on TV where a Thai and a foreigner fight to a decision. Never seen a foreigner win yet. Something about losing just isn't Thai. I'm afraid it will be the same case here .

[culicine]

Did these guys actually ask the court to rule on the disputed land? If they just rule on the location of the temple, nothing will be achieved? Surely the map which demarcates the entire border could be used, or is current border a min-n-match of many maps over many years?

[Thai at Heart]

Did these guys actually ask the court to rule on the disputed land? If they just rule on the location of the temple, nothing will be achieved? Surely the map which demarcates the entire border could be used, or is current border a min-n-match of many maps over many years?

It seems the Thai strategy was to tell the court it had no right to judge the meaning of vicinity, even though that it exactly what the original judgement had in clear language.

[slapout]

I doubt that any of those involved in this decision have any intrest whatsoever in the Thai recap of what they think, preceive, project to happen.

Waste of printspace to even start reviewing what was said/done, before a finding by the court which will not be influenced by "the Thai way".of attempting to influence the outcome.

[rubl]

Well done, brilliant performance, we showed them, Thailand still rules the Waves and all that.

Didn't check, but I'm sure the Cambodian PM Hun Sen will have said something similar.

Anyway, waiting for the ruling later this year

[culicine]

Did these guys actually ask the court to rule on the disputed land? If they just rule on the location of the temple, nothing will be achieved? Surely the map which demarcates the entire border could be used, or is current border a min-n-match of many maps over many years?

It seems the Thai strategy was to tell the court it had no right to judge the meaning of vicinity, even though that it exactly what the original judgement had in clear language.

Correct me if I'm Cambodian side, and the disputed area on the other (or very near to it). So even though the temple is on Cambodian land, access is difficult for them. What about joint management of the land? Is this so difficult to achieve?

Interesting that because there are no Thais on the judging panel, they think their chances are dim. I doubt there are any Cambodians either.

[Bellweather]

There is so much nonsense and so many contradictions in this OP where do you start?

Bizarre. Is there something lost in the translation or is this as simple minded as it appears?

It's like listening to your 8 year old child explaining why they got in a fight on the playground.

The political scientist, if quoted correctly, is yet another Thai opening the mouth without engaging the brain. A negative result because there are no Thai judges implies Thai judges would automatically be biased in favour which shafts the Thai judicial system. How would she explain a court's reasoning if it's Thai against Thai but that's a rhetorical question as most of us could suggest an answer.

[FarangTalk]

Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

That insinuates the reason Thailand may not win is because the judges aren't Thai.

Typical insular, xenophobic and nationalist nonsense.

We tried to show to the court that Cambodia cannot be trusted

This is typical. Instead of presenting the facts as they see them, they will try a smear campaign and paint the opposing side as dishonest.

The typical Thai modus operandi of bullying and threats won't work in the ICJ.

[FarangTalk]

Did these guys actually ask the court to rule on the disputed land? If they just rule on the location of the temple, nothing will be achieved? Surely the map which demarcates the entire border could be used, or is current border a min-n-match of many maps over many years?

It seems the Thai strategy was to tell the court it had no right to judge the meaning of vicinity, even though that it exactly what the original judgement had in clear language.

Their arrogance knows no bounds. That is the problem when the education system is merely a rote instruction manual to believe myth and not question anything. The end result is you really think you are superior to everyone else when in fact you are merely indoctrinated, closed-minded and thus unable to think in rational and logical terms.

You can just imagine how much they were hurting over the verdict in 1962, digging up their flagpole and marching off in a huff, like a scolded child.

History is set to repeat itself, and they only have themselves to blame yet again.

[Locationthailand]

All the back slapping and high fives will have no affect on the ruling. They have done their best so let's wait and see if that was sufficient. Reading the other post on the German I would think Thailand has a better chance but again, opinions are simply that - opinions.

[Gettingaround]

There are two ways of looking at this. Here is the Cambodian way:

http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/thailand-asks-un-court-to-dismiss-preah-vihear-case-19315/

[Bluespunk]

She warned that back in 1962, Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

That is a very odd defence argument. We may lose because there were no Thais on the bench. Are we supposed to assume only Thai judges can be expected to understand this issue or is it the Thai case is so weak only a Thai would accept it?

Edited April 21, 2013 by Bluespunk

[OzMick]

A for Effort

F for Failure.

[Thai at Heart]

She warned that back in 1962, Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

That is a very odd defence argument. We may lose because there were no Thais on the bench. Are we supposed to assume only Thai judges can be expected to understand this issue or is it the Thai case is so weak only a Thai would accept it?

As though, it would be feasible to have a Cambodian or Thai judge sitting on the bench of such a case. If that were the case, why couldn't they have sorted it out at home?

[Thai at Heart]

She warned that back in 1962, Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

That is a very odd defence argument. We may lose because there were no Thais on the bench. Are we supposed to assume only Thai judges can be expected to understand this issue or is it the Thai case is so weak only a Thai would accept it?

Incredibly insulting huh? Or is she saying that the only type of judges who would be swayed by the paucity fo their case would be thais? Anyone independent would laugh and throw the case out?

[skorchio]

"Puangthong said it was premature to expect victory ........especially when considering that all the judges were
non-Thais."

I find this amusing - basically she is saying that Thais must be prepared for a ruling against them, as the judicaiary is not Thai, and hence there is a level playing field!!!

[Thai at Heart]

"Puangthong said it was premature to expect victory ........especially when considering that all the judges were

non-Thais."

I find this amusing - basically she is saying that Thais must be prepared for a ruling against them, as the judicaiary is not Thai, and hence there is a level playing field!!!

It is an incredible statement.

The only way for us to win would have been to have a loaded bunch of judges. lolololololol

[Bluespunk]

She warned that back in 1962, Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

That is a very odd defence argument. We may lose because there were no Thais on the bench. Are we supposed to assume only Thai judges can be expected to understand this issue or is it the Thai case is so weak only a Thai would accept it?

Incredibly insulting huh? Or is she saying that the only type of judges who twould be swayed by the paucity fo their case would be thais? Anyone independent would laugh and throw the case out?

.

Perfect quote to help explain definition of "condescending" in next websters dictionary.

[Thai at Heart]

She warned that back in 1962, Thailand also expected to win but did not, so people should prepare themselves, especially when considering that all the judges were non-Thais.

That is a very odd defence argument. We may lose because there were no Thais on the bench. Are we supposed to assume only Thai judges can be expected to understand this issue or is it the Thai case is so weak only a Thai would accept it?

Incredibly insulting huh? Or is she saying that the only type of judges who twould be swayed by the paucity fo their case would be thais? Anyone independent would laugh and throw the case out?

.

Perfect quote to help explain definition of "condescending" in next websters dictionary.

If she made a similar statement about a Thai judge actually, they would have the right to sue the backside off her for defamation.

Could you imagine it, if there happened to be a Thai on the bench.

"We are extremely confident of victory becaue Judge Somchai is on our side".

Headline next day

"Somchai removed for conflict of interest"

Headline next day

"Somchai sues academic for suggesting bias in his judgements which cost him his job at the Hague."

And this comes from the mouth of a political scientist at Chula????? My god, oh god, I worry for this country sometimes.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[SunsetT]

Thailand is the richest country in SE Asia. Why cant they just give this tiny 4.6 square kilometer piece of land to it's poor neighbour as a magnanimous gesture of good will. How much would their standing in the region and in the World be increased if they did this? When I suggested this to my Thai partner, she was horrified. So I asked her if she would be willing for her teenage son to go to war and fight and die over just 4.6 sq kilos? She shut up then.

[Tanaka]

There is so much nonsense and so many contradictions in this OP where do you start?

Bizarre. Is there something lost in the translation or is this as simple minded as it appears?

It's like listening to your 8 year old child explaining why they got in a fight on the playground.

8 years? Isn't that about the intellectual level of these Thai politicians?

[SunsetT]

Thailand is the richest country in SE Asia. Why cant they just give this tiny 4.6 square kilometer piece of land to it's poor neighbour as a magnanimous gesture of good will. How much would their standing in the region and in the World be increased if they did this? When I suggested this to my Thai partner, she was horrified. So I asked her if she would be willing for her teenage son to go to war and fight and die over just 4.6 sq kilos? She shut up then.

..........Further, Both Thailand and Cambodia are supposed to be Buddhist countries. The Buddha renounced everything material he owned, and taught that suffering was caused by our 'clinging attachment' to all things material and physical, e.g., land. He taught that the way to achieve this was to adopt 'The Middle Way' . This sounds to me like the way of 'compromise'. But this dispute over a crumb of land is the very opposite of the Buddha's actual teaching. What are the head honcho monks preaching on this issue? ............Or are they too busy counting their 'donations'?

[hookedondhamma]

Thailand is the richest country in SE Asia. Why cant they just give this tiny 4.6 square kilometer piece of land to it's poor neighbour as a magnanimous gesture of good will. How much would their standing in the region and in the World be increased if they did this? When I suggested this to my Thai partner, she was horrified. So I asked her if she would be willing for her teenage son to go to war and fight and die over just 4.6 sq kilos? She shut up then.

..........Further, Both Thailand and Cambodia are supposed to be Buddhist countries. The Buddha renounced everything material he owned, and taught that suffering was caused by our 'clinging attachment' to all things material and physical, e.g., land. He taught that the way to achieve this was to adopt 'The Middle Way' . This sounds to me like the way of 'compromise'. But this dispute over a crumb of land is the very opposite of the Buddha's actual teaching. What are the head honcho monks preaching on this issue? ............Or are they too busy counting their 'donations'?

Lol, please. Thai Buddhism is more culture than anything else, save for a few practicing temples here and there. The 'head haunchos' otherwise known as the supreme Sangha Council reside in Bangkok, which is obviously the best city in Thailand to train monks <~~~ sarcasm.

Hardly anyone would give a d@mn anyways regardless of what they said concerning the situation as it is not one that deals with Sangha affairs, regardless of the Hindu temple and the and the land that surrounds it.

But please, continue to suggest what the should do with their donations, contributed by the Thais that frequent their preferred temples. In fact, go hint at a Thai to stop doing so and see how well that goes. Merit making is the easy way out via the use of money ... And let's get real, that's the face saving factor for more than a few.

If you want to see just how involved the higher ranked monks cam become in whatever issue you can check out the rules and regulations of the transactions they can officially partake in. Good luck in finding a monk who is up to date on them though.

Just because there are temples all over the place doesn't mean they are full of saints, nor the people of the country in which those temples reside.