Nationalist group takes stand against ICJ and its ruling on Preah Vihear

[Bluespunk]

This temple thing is doing a great job for those in power in both countries.

It is taking attention away from the real prize, the marine boundary where there is all that lovely oil and gas.

I've heard that before. Can you explain it please?

Don't expect him to explain it. He heard it somewhere that Thaksin and Hun Sen have sewn the area up for oil and gas deals despite the fact that Total and Chevron already have exploration rights to a block in the disputed area. Also the two governments are talking about joint development anyway. This Reuters report will give you a bit of background without the BS

Thai Energy Minister Pichai Naripthaphan said Thailand would seek parliamentary approval to restore a decade-old Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries that was scrapped by the previous government when relations deteriorated.

Negotiations on joint development and revenue-sharing would soon follow, he added.

"There are processes that need to be done on both sides but the intention was very good, the relationship was very good and we're certain in the future there'll be no more conflict," Pichai told reporters after a meeting with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, also head of the National Petroleum Authority. "We want to see this proceed with success because it's for energy security for both countries ... for another 40 or 50 years," he said. The two countries had come close to an agreement but that was derailed when former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by the military in 2006. However, since his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, became prime minister in August, diplomatic ties have warmed significantly. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/thailand-cambodia-energy-idUSL3E7NT4TZ20111229

Total and Chevron... the Burmese junta's fairy godmothers!

If those two companies are involved then the Thai and Cambodian people will see precious little benefit from it.

Unfortunately, nothing new about that.

[Lakegeneve]

Very little I disagree with your post except on my interpretation of the UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge. I largely am in favour of the UN and the work it does throughout the world, both in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief. However with Cambodia it got it wrong and despite growing evidence of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge it ignored what they had done. They allowed it to keep its seat at the UN and did nothing to stop its funding. Yes there was pressure from the USA and other states, that does not free the UN from guilt. It knew what the KR had done yet still backed them.

You somehow messed up the quote boxes so just using your response.

Firstly, again the UN is body of member states. The member states dictate what the UN does. I have highlighted factually how the KR was recognised at the UNGA - member states voted for that NOT the unspecified UN that you refer to. It is not the UN's role, the UN at that level only does what it is told to do by its members. There seems to be much confusion in your statements but I am keeping an open mind that you can back them up with some specific facts and context.

Secondly, what the heck and who specifically are you talking about when you state, "UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge." That is a statement which requires some expansive and detailed explanation as it seems very bizarre. I'd love to hear what this is seemingly absurd statement is based on. Pls do be specific.

3rdly, "there was some pressure from the USA and other states". This really does ignore the reality that the US and other states ensured that the UNGA vote approved the KR representation. That is not just 'some pressure', it was active lobbying and financial support from the US.

4thly, the the various agencies and bodies of the UN are guilty of much and make plenty of mistakes. However, my original point remains, the UN is made of of member states which give it its mandate. It is pointless to allege that the UN did this or that without being specific about what part of the UN you are referring to and recognising that member states dictate through mandates, policy, funding and lobbying exactly what the UN does or does not do. I gave you the specific example of the then UN Human Rights Commission, a UN body made of member states. Not some independent body that could do what it wanted without a mandate.

Times have changed, there are now more humanitarian early warning & intervention based principals and mechanisms which do allow some UN bodies to act unilaterally to a limited extent. However, there have all been established with the agreement of member states and in accordance with UNSC Resolutions and subsequent international law. The supremecy of the doctrine of state sovereignty remains though.

[hellodolly]

And as they continue the very, very slow process of maturation, Nationalists will continue chanting:

"Thailand, Thailand über alles!!!"

Farang raus!! "

Oh dear me! Can you imagine these nut-cases wielding the power of government?

No there are not.....and they would happily agree to the former agreement that Cambodia broke. That called it "overlapping area" and governed it together by a joint board.

And I can't find a bit racism against Farangs there.

I was unaware of the former agreement that called it an overlapping area. Is that the one Thaksin had with Cambodia? Or did it precede that?

And as they continue the very, very slow process of maturation, Nationalists will continue chanting:

"Thailand, Thailand über alles!!!"

Farang raus!! "

Oh dear me! Can you imagine these nut-cases wielding the power of government?

Well said pisico. The last time these TPN/Yellow Shirt/ Nationalist nutters came to Si Sa Ket to get the local Thais to confront the evil Khmen over the border they were duffed up by the local Thais and told to <deleted> off back to BKK. Thais here have been trading across the border since the Khmer Rouge were finally flushed out. Flag waving nationalists play no positive role in any democracy. Off they went back to BKK licking their wounds muttering how these illiterate Issan farmers don't understand. Ha ha ha.

I don't think they all left. Two of them are still in Cambodia with free room and meals.

[Bluespunk]

Very little I disagree with your post except on my interpretation of the UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge. I largely am in favour of the UN and the work it does throughout the world, both in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief. However with Cambodia it got it wrong and despite growing evidence of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge it ignored what they had done. They allowed it to keep its seat at the UN and did nothing to stop its funding. Yes there was pressure from the USA and other states, that does not free the UN from guilt. It knew what the KR had done yet still backed them.

You somehow messed up the quote boxes so just using your response.

Firstly, again the UN is body of member states. The member states dictate what the UN does. I have highlighted factually how the KR was recognised at the UNGA - member states voted for that NOT the unspecified UN that you refer to. It is not the UN's role, the UN at that level only does what it is told to do by its members. There seems to be much confusion in your statements but I am keeping an open mind that you can back them up with some specific facts and context.

Secondly, what the heck and who specifically are you talking about when you state, "UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge." That is a statement which requires some expansive and detailed explanation as it seems very bizarre. I'd love to hear what this is seemingly absurd statement is based on. Pls do be specific.

3rdly, "there was some pressure from the USA and other states". This really does ignore the reality that the US and other states ensured that the UNGA vote approved the KR representation. That is not just 'some pressure', it was active lobbying and financial support from the US.

4thly, the the various agencies and bodies of the UN are guilty of much and make plenty of mistakes. However, my original point remains, the UN is made of of member states which give it its mandate. It is pointless to allege that the UN did this or that without being specific about what part of the UN you are referring to and recognising that member states dictate through mandates, policy, funding and lobbying exactly what the UN does or does not do. I gave you the specific example of the then UN Human Rights Commission, a UN body made of member states. Not some independent body that could do what it wanted without a mandate.

Times have changed, there are now more humanitarian early warning & intervention based principals and mechanisms which do allow some UN bodies to act unilaterally to a limited extent. However, there have all been established with the agreement of member states and in accordance with UNSC Resolutions and subsequent international law. The supremecy of the doctrine of state sovereignty remains though.

We're just going to have to disagree here. The UN supported the KR when it allowed them to keep Cambodia's seat there. They allowed the KR to maintain Cambodia's UN seat. This position allowed them to solicit and receive international aid. This is why i feel they did nothing to prevent the funding of them. Yes it was a mistake and one the UN, I'm sure, regrets, and no one is pointing fingers at it, however by allowing the KR to keep its seat they supported the KR. Do some countries/power blocks bear more responsibility for allowing this travesty to happen, yes for sure they do but the UN as an organisation allowed the KR to maintain a position of authority they should not have had. As you say the size and workings of the UN allowed this to happen, for me this does not mean they escape blame. The KR should not have been allowed to maintain its position because of the crimes it was responsible for.

[Slip]

Have I stumbled into Cambodianvisa.com ?

[Soutpeel]

This temple thing is doing a great job for those in power in both countries.

It is taking attention away from the real prize, the marine boundary where there is all that lovely oil and gas.

I've heard that before. Can you explain it please?

Don't expect him to explain it. He heard it somewhere that Thaksin and Hun Sen have sewn the area up for oil and gas deals despite the fact that Total and Chevron already have exploration rights to a block in the disputed area. Also the two governments are talking about joint development anyway. This Reuters report will give you a bit of background without the BS

Thai Energy Minister Pichai Naripthaphan said Thailand would seek parliamentary approval to restore a decade-old Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries that was scrapped by the previous government when relations deteriorated.

Negotiations on joint development and revenue-sharing would soon follow, he added.

"There are processes that need to be done on both sides but the intention was very good, the relationship was very good and we're certain in the future there'll be no more conflict," Pichai told reporters after a meeting with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, also head of the National Petroleum Authority. "We want to see this proceed with success because it's for energy security for both countries ... for another 40 or 50 years," he said. The two countries had come close to an agreement but that was derailed when former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by the military in 2006. However, since his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, became prime minister in August, diplomatic ties have warmed significantly. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/thailand-cambodia-energy-idUSL3E7NT4TZ20111229

Total and Chevron... the Burmese junta's fairy godmothers!

If those two companies are involved then the Thai and Cambodian people will see precious little benefit from it.

Just as the Thai people have seen nothing from both the above mentioned companies in the Thai side of the gulf in the last 35 years you mean ?

[Soutpeel]

This temple thing is doing a great job for those in power in both countries.

It is taking attention away from the real prize, the marine boundary where there is all that lovely oil and gas.

I've heard that before. Can you explain it please?

Don't expect him to explain it. He heard it somewhere that Thaksin and Hun Sen have sewn the area up for oil and gas deals despite the fact that Total and Chevron already have exploration rights to a block in the disputed area. Also the two governments are talking about joint development anyway. This Reuters report will give you a bit of background without the BS

Thai Energy Minister Pichai Naripthaphan said Thailand would seek parliamentary approval to restore a decade-old Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries that was scrapped by the previous government when relations deteriorated.

Negotiations on joint development and revenue-sharing would soon follow, he added.

"There are processes that need to be done on both sides but the intention was very good, the relationship was very good and we're certain in the future there'll be no more conflict," Pichai told reporters after a meeting with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, also head of the National Petroleum Authority. "We want to see this proceed with success because it's for energy security for both countries ... for another 40 or 50 years," he said. The two countries had come close to an agreement but that was derailed when former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by the military in 2006. However, since his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, became prime minister in August, diplomatic ties have warmed significantly. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/thailand-cambodia-energy-idUSL3E7NT4TZ20111229

You may want to check your "facts" if the area is under legal dispute who granted the leases to the above mentioned Operators ? Thailand legally can't and neither can Cambodia ? Leases and concessions have to be granted in this case by a government

[SantiSuk]

Rallying at the City Pillar in Kantharalak - that's over 30k away from the border. Good job by the security forces then - these particular protesters might as well <deleted> off back to the place from whence they came.

Maybe they did - I drove past there this am in blissful ignorance of this report and was not aware of any presence whatsoever at the pillar, though there were the usual squaddies shopping in the fresh market! Sometimes it appears that 'conflict' in Thailand is a media confection.

Edited November 6, 2013 by SantiSuk

[Lakegeneve]

Very little I disagree with your post except on my interpretation of the UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge. I largely am in favour of the UN and the work it does throughout the world, both in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief. However with Cambodia it got it wrong and despite growing evidence of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge it ignored what they had done. They allowed it to keep its seat at the UN and did nothing to stop its funding. Yes there was pressure from the USA and other states, that does not free the UN from guilt. It knew what the KR had done yet still backed them.

You somehow messed up the quote boxes so just using your response.

Firstly, again the UN is body of member states. The member states dictate what the UN does. I have highlighted factually how the KR was recognised at the UNGA - member states voted for that NOT the unspecified UN that you refer to. It is not the UN's role, the UN at that level only does what it is told to do by its members. There seems to be much confusion in your statements but I am keeping an open mind that you can back them up with some specific facts and context.

Secondly, what the heck and who specifically are you talking about when you state, "UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge." That is a statement which requires some expansive and detailed explanation as it seems very bizarre. I'd love to hear what this is seemingly absurd statement is based on. Pls do be specific.

3rdly, "there was some pressure from the USA and other states". This really does ignore the reality that the US and other states ensured that the UNGA vote approved the KR representation. That is not just 'some pressure', it was active lobbying and financial support from the US.

4thly, the the various agencies and bodies of the UN are guilty of much and make plenty of mistakes. However, my original point remains, the UN is made of of member states which give it its mandate. It is pointless to allege that the UN did this or that without being specific about what part of the UN you are referring to and recognising that member states dictate through mandates, policy, funding and lobbying exactly what the UN does or does not do. I gave you the specific example of the then UN Human Rights Commission, a UN body made of member states. Not some independent body that could do what it wanted without a mandate.

Times have changed, there are now more humanitarian early warning & intervention based principals and mechanisms which do allow some UN bodies to act unilaterally to a limited extent. However, there have all been established with the agreement of member states and in accordance with UNSC Resolutions and subsequent international law. The supremecy of the doctrine of state sovereignty remains though.

We're just going to have to disagree here. The UN supported the KR when it allowed them to keep Cambodia's seat there. They allowed the KR to maintain Cambodia's UN seat. This position allowed them to solicit and receive international aid. This is why i feel they did nothing to prevent the funding of them. Yes it was a mistake and one the UN, I'm sure, regrets, and no one is pointing fingers at it, however by allowing the KR to keep its seat they supported the KR. Do some countries/power blocks bear more responsibility for allowing this travesty to happen, yes for sure they do but the UN as an organisation allowed the KR to maintain a position of authority they should not have had. As you say the size and workings of the UN allowed this to happen, for me this does not mean they escape blame. The KR should not have been allowed to maintain its position because of the crimes it was responsible for.

I didn't say the bolded bit at all so please don't say blantant untruths that I said something that I could not say as it has not basis in reality.

I've attempted to explain twice exactly how state representatives are recognised at the UN General Assembly and that is ultimately decided upon by member states with a UNGA vote - NOT the UN. I explained the political context in respect of the KR debacle. You have not responded directly to either the process nor the facts but keep asserting an incorrect view of both and thus history - though we both agree in overall terms about the complete injustice & travesty that the KR were the country reps at the UNGA.

You clearly have an entrenched view which is not open to the facts of how things work so it seems pointless to try a third time to explain it given the level of detail I have gone into. However, in some vein hope an analogy may help you perhaps to understand the process.

If the UNGA is the equivalent of a national parliament, the UNSC the Cabinet/Executive of that government, then the UN in general is the civil service - as indeed it is, an international civil service with many agencies and bodies. Just like national govt departments.

Thus, if this parliament wishes to appoint or recognise representative AB to join the parliament by a parliamentary election - as happens in many countries where parliamentarians can be appointed by the parliament if there is a vacancy for a seat. The parliament accordingly votes on the issue and by majority agrees to AB joining it. It is then the task of the civil service to implement that decision and recognise the status of AB - not the civil services task to make the decision.

The civil service (the UN in general) is only there to implement the decisions of the parliament (the UNGA) and the executive/cabinet (the UNSC).

A domestic equivalent is that you would be blaming all the civil servants working in Finance, Agricultural and Commence depts for the obvious wastage of funds for the rice pledging scheme when it is clearly the policy of PT has decided upon by the Cabinet as policy. They make the policy decision, not the civil service who implement policy.

[Lakegeneve]

Rallying at the City Pillar in Kantharalak - that's over 30k away from the border. Good job by the security forces then - these particular protesters might as well <deleted> off back to the place from whence they came.

Maybe they did - I drove past there this am in blissful ignorance of this report and was not aware of any presence whatsoever at the pillar, though there were the usual squaddies shopping in the fresh market! Sometimes it appears that 'conflict' in Thailand is a media confection.

Nationalist based stories obviously make good press and sell more papers and we have seen that the media is most willing to engage in that genre of reporting - within a greater context of poor reporting standards in Thailand and an absence of proper investigative and objective reporting.

Whatever the decision next week we'll undoubtedly see large front page headlines which mis represent the facts of the ICJ decision. The positive thing is that both govts and put a lot of work into improving relations so the exchanges of fire that we saw back in 2010 & 2011 seem highly unlikely if not impossible. As another Nation article canvassed today, conflict arising from the ICJ judgement will most likely only be internal within Thailand.

Hopefully some rational, considered and mature statements by community, military and political leaders will be able to contain the rabid nationalists from getting too much press time and stoking up stupid reactions.

[smutcakes]

Thai Energy Minister Pichai Naripthaphan said Thailand would seek parliamentary approval to restore a decade-old Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries that was scrapped by the previous government when relations deteriorated.

Negotiations on joint development and revenue-sharing would soon follow, he added.

"There are processes that need to be done on both sides but the intention was very good, the relationship was very good and we're certain in the future there'll be no more conflict," Pichai told reporters after a meeting with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, also head of the National Petroleum Authority. "We want to see this proceed with success because it's for energy security for both countries ... for another 40 or 50 years," he said. The two countries had come close to an agreement but that was derailed when former Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by the military in 2006. However, since his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, became prime minister in August, diplomatic ties have warmed significantly. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/thailand-cambodia-energy-idUSL3E7NT4TZ20111229

You may want to check your "facts" if the area is under legal dispute who granted the leases to the above mentioned Operators ? Thailand legally can't and neither can Cambodia ? Leases and concessions have to be granted in this case by a government

I think the "facts" the fab4 is highlighting is that RobbyNZ has no idea what he is talking about- just making up a story so he can have a good old load of Thaksin this and that. He has no idea what he is talking about- like most people he has probably heard things about the maritime border/oil/gas exploration but really do not understand the complexities of it. Really amazing that he knows all about it, i am more surprised that no one in the opposition or any other group has ever mentioned it-perhaps Robby could give them the heads up on what TS is doing.

[Spare]

The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that.

Only problem is the ICJ awarded the temple to the Khmer. Easiest way out is to relocate the Temple a few km North into Cambodia. Case close.

[h90]

And as they continue the very, very slow process of maturation, Nationalists will continue chanting:

"Thailand, Thailand über alles!!!"

Farang raus!! "

Oh dear me! Can you imagine these nut-cases wielding the power of government?

No there are not.....and they would happily agree to the former agreement that Cambodia broke. That called it "overlapping area" and governed it together by a joint board.

And I can't find a bit racism against Farangs there.

I was unaware of the former agreement that called it an overlapping area. Is that the one Thaksin had with Cambodia? Or did it precede that?

And as they continue the very, very slow process of maturation, Nationalists will continue chanting:

"Thailand, Thailand über alles!!!"

Farang raus!! "

Oh dear me! Can you imagine these nut-cases wielding the power of government?

Well said pisico. The last time these TPN/Yellow Shirt/ Nationalist nutters came to Si Sa Ket to get the local Thais to confront the evil Khmen over the border they were duffed up by the local Thais and told to <deleted> off back to BKK. Thais here have been trading across the border since the Khmer Rouge were finally flushed out. Flag waving nationalists play no positive role in any democracy. Off they went back to BKK licking their wounds muttering how these illiterate Issan farmers don't understand. Ha ha ha.

I don't think they all left. Two of them are still in Cambodia with free room and meals.

"I was unaware of the former agreement that called it an overlapping area. Is that the one Thaksin had with Cambodia? Or did it precede that?"

It was for a very long time...sure before Thaksin. I am not sure if it was an official name, or if they just called it that way unofficially. But they governed the area together.

The problems now are more difficult than it seems, as now they also speak about surrounding areas, with various tricks from both sides and both sides as it seems don't know where they are walking. No GPS satellite there?????

[h90]

The guy said "just like WW II. That was the war that the Thais declared war on the US and the UK in January 1942 and went on the side with their colleagues from Japan.

Ssssh, Thais are not taught this, as part of Thai history, in school.

My wife learned in school that Thailand fought the Japanese so successful, that Japan was so weakend that China could win against them.

(so Thailand won against Japan, China had it easy to finish them off, and no word about USA, Australia, etc etc)...

very strange....

Ah, history is an amazing thing.

The winner writes the book of history, and Thailand won the WWII twice....once with the axis and once with the Americans

Off topic, but good fitting here: There is a book from the Communists "Communist Thailand with the King as head of state".

[whybother]

The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that.

 

Only problem is the ICJ awarded the temple to the Khmer. Easiest way out is to relocate the Temple a few km North into Cambodia. Case close.

 

The Cambodians are disputing it, which is why this is currently in court.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[thaicbr]

And as they continue the very, very slow process of maturation, Nationalists will continue chanting:

"Thailand, Thailand über alles!!!"

Farang raus!! "

Oh dear me! Can you imagine these nut-cases wielding the power of government?

But what about the nut cases that are already running the Government,

regards Worgeordie

Frankly the longer i stay in Thailand i find that most Thai's are childish nutcases ( varying degrees). especially the Nationalists

[Bluespunk]

Very little I disagree with your post except on my interpretation of the UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge. I largely am in favour of the UN and the work it does throughout the world, both in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief. However with Cambodia it got it wrong and despite growing evidence of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge it ignored what they had done. They allowed it to keep its seat at the UN and did nothing to stop its funding. Yes there was pressure from the USA and other states, that does not free the UN from guilt. It knew what the KR had done yet still backed them.

You somehow messed up the quote boxes so just using your response.

Firstly, again the UN is body of member states. The member states dictate what the UN does. I have highlighted factually how the KR was recognised at the UNGA - member states voted for that NOT the unspecified UN that you refer to. It is not the UN's role, the UN at that level only does what it is told to do by its members. There seems to be much confusion in your statements but I am keeping an open mind that you can back them up with some specific facts and context.

Secondly, what the heck and who specifically are you talking about when you state, "UN's culpability in funding and supporting the Khmer Rouge." That is a statement which requires some expansive and detailed explanation as it seems very bizarre. I'd love to hear what this is seemingly absurd statement is based on. Pls do be specific.

3rdly, "there was some pressure from the USA and other states". This really does ignore the reality that the US and other states ensured that the UNGA vote approved the KR representation. That is not just 'some pressure', it was active lobbying and financial support from the US.

4thly, the the various agencies and bodies of the UN are guilty of much and make plenty of mistakes. However, my original point remains, the UN is made of of member states which give it its mandate. It is pointless to allege that the UN did this or that without being specific about what part of the UN you are referring to and recognising that member states dictate through mandates, policy, funding and lobbying exactly what the UN does or does not do. I gave you the specific example of the then UN Human Rights Commission, a UN body made of member states. Not some independent body that could do what it wanted without a mandate.

Times have changed, there are now more humanitarian early warning & intervention based principals and mechanisms which do allow some UN bodies to act unilaterally to a limited extent. However, there have all been established with the agreement of member states and in accordance with UNSC Resolutions and subsequent international law. The supremecy of the doctrine of state sovereignty remains though.

We're just going to have to disagree here. The UN supported the KR when it allowed them to keep Cambodia's seat there. They allowed the KR to maintain Cambodia's UN seat. This position allowed them to solicit and receive international aid. This is why i feel they did nothing to prevent the funding of them. Yes it was a mistake and one the UN, I'm sure, regrets, and no one is pointing fingers at it, however by allowing the KR to keep its seat they supported the KR. Do some countries/power blocks bear more responsibility for allowing this travesty to happen, yes for sure they do but the UN as an organisation allowed the KR to maintain a position of authority they should not have had. As you say the size and workings of the UN allowed this to happen, for me this does not mean they escape blame. The KR should not have been allowed to maintain its position because of the crimes it was responsible for.

I didn't say the bolded bit at all so please don't say blantant untruths that I said something that I could not say as it has not basis in reality.

I've attempted to explain twice exactly how state representatives are recognised at the UN General Assembly and that is ultimately decided upon by member states with a UNGA vote - NOT the UN. I explained the political context in respect of the KR debacle. You have not responded directly to either the process nor the facts but keep asserting an incorrect view of both and thus history - though we both agree in overall terms about the complete injustice & travesty that the KR were the country reps at the UNGA.

You clearly have an entrenched view which is not open to the facts of how things work so it seems pointless to try a third time to explain it given the level of detail I have gone into. However, in some vein hope an analogy may help you perhaps to understand the process.

If the UNGA is the equivalent of a national parliament, the UNSC the Cabinet/Executive of that government, then the UN in general is the civil service - as indeed it is, an international civil service with many agencies and bodies. Just like national govt departments.

Thus, if this parliament wishes to appoint or recognise representative AB to join the parliament by a parliamentary election - as happens in many countries where parliamentarians can be appointed by the parliament if there is a vacancy for a seat. The parliament accordingly votes on the issue and by majority agrees to AB joining it. It is then the task of the civil service to implement that decision and recognise the status of AB - not the civil services task to make the decision.

The civil service (the UN in general) is only there to implement the decisions of the parliament (the UNGA) and the executive/cabinet (the UNSC).

A domestic equivalent is that you would be blaming all the civil servants working in Finance, Agricultural and Commence depts for the obvious wastage of funds for the rice pledging scheme when it is clearly the policy of PT has decided upon by the Cabinet as policy. They make the policy decision, not the civil service who implement policy.

Well you're right, I do have an entrenched view.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Bluespunk

[thaicbr]

The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that.

Only problem is the ICJ awarded the temple to the Khmer. Easiest way out is to relocate the Temple a few km North into Cambodia. Case close.

Possibly because that part of Thailand was Khmer when the temple was built. There is a reason why the border is contested and that is arrogance and lazyness back in the 60's on behalf of the Thai government. It's a Khmer temple.. no dispute on that.

[Lakegeneve]

The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that.

Only problem is the ICJ awarded the temple to the Khmer. Easiest way out is to relocate the Temple a few km North into Cambodia. Case close.

Possibly because that part of Thailand was Khmer when the temple was built. There is a reason why the border is contested and that is arrogance and lazyness back in the 60's on behalf of the Thai government. It's a Khmer temple.. no dispute on that.

To my understanding, most of the Thai Cambodian border still has not been demarcated. Thus in areas where the border has not been demarcated - such as here in the section to the north of the temple - it is not possible to state clearly where the border is and thus which area of land is in Cambodia and which is in Thailand. Stating, "The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that" is patently foolish.

Both Thailand and Cambodia established a Joint Border Committee in late 90s/early 2000.

That a normal process for states to engage in to demarcate their borders. It is worth noting that much of the Thai Burma border is yet to be demarcated for obvious reasons. Still the Laos Thai border has a small section to be demarcated as it was 93% complete as of April this year. (I think to be completed by early next year). The only completed section of Thailands land border is the south border with Malaysia!

The JBC actually could have easily had finished the sections of the Thai-Cambodian land border that have been demined, (some of it is still mined and awaiting demining before it can be demarcated) sometime ago had petty politics not been allowed to disrupt the process. Most of it would be demarcated and would have thus avoided much of the disputes that we have seen in this specific area in the last few years.

Politics got involved and then stupid nationalism especially in reaction to Cambodia 2009 application for the Temple to be accorded World Heritage Listing by UNESCO - which it subsequently received. (it was silly of Thailand to oppose this as in the long run it only benefits Thailand and the region). Thailands stance back then also helped Hun Sen to be re-elected which was unfortunate.

There are a few other contentious areas of the border where demarcation will be contested but the most difficult area will be the maritime border which contrary to some of the above posts is yet to be demarcated.

[whybother]

The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that.

Only problem is the ICJ awarded the temple to the Khmer. Easiest way out is to relocate the Temple a few km North into Cambodia. Case close.

Possibly because that part of Thailand was Khmer when the temple was built. There is a reason why the border is contested and that is arrogance and lazyness back in the 60's on behalf of the Thai government. It's a Khmer temple.. no dispute on that.

It's irrelevant what it was when the temple was built. The area has probably changed hands a hundred times.

What is important and the only thing that is relevant is the agreements between governments.

[whybother]

The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that.

Only problem is the ICJ awarded the temple to the Khmer. Easiest way out is to relocate the Temple a few km North into Cambodia. Case close.

Possibly because that part of Thailand was Khmer when the temple was built. There is a reason why the border is contested and that is arrogance and lazyness back in the 60's on behalf of the Thai government. It's a Khmer temple.. no dispute on that.

To my understanding, most of the Thai Cambodian border still has not been demarcated. Thus in areas where the border has not been demarcated - such as here in the section to the north of the temple - it is not possible to state clearly where the border is and thus which area of land is in Cambodia and which is in Thailand. Stating, "The land is in Thailand; no one dispute about that" is patently foolish.

Both Thailand and Cambodia established a Joint Border Committee in late 90s/early 2000.

That a normal process for states to engage in to demarcate their borders. It is worth noting that much of the Thai Burma border is yet to be demarcated for obvious reasons. Still the Laos Thai border has a small section to be demarcated as it was 93% complete as of April this year. (I think to be completed by early next year). The only completed section of Thailands land border is the south border with Malaysia!

The JBC actually could have easily had finished the sections of the Thai-Cambodian land border that have been demined, (some of it is still mined and awaiting demining before it can be demarcated) sometime ago had petty politics not been allowed to disrupt the process. Most of it would be demarcated and would have thus avoided much of the disputes that we have seen in this specific area in the last few years.

Politics got involved and then stupid nationalism especially in reaction to Cambodia 2009 application for the Temple to be accorded World Heritage Listing by UNESCO - which it subsequently received. (it was silly of Thailand to oppose this as in the long run it only benefits Thailand and the region). Thailands stance back then also helped Hun Sen to be re-elected which was unfortunate.

There are a few other contentious areas of the border where demarcation will be contested but the most difficult area will be the maritime border which contrary to some of the above posts is yet to be demarcated.

The French-Siamese treaty of 1904 clearly puts the temple in Thailand. Unfortunately, the maps added to the treaty a couple of years later put the temple in Cambodia.

[DocN]

Why is it interesting to anyone what is was and who belonged to in the past?

The ruling of the ICJ (and any following rulings) will hopefully state where it IS and who it belongs to , NOW...and all sides should be okay with that!

...should...

[Lakegeneve]

The French-Siamese treaty of 1904 clearly puts the temple in Thailand. Unfortunately, the maps added to the treaty a couple of years later put the temple in Cambodia.

Which is why the ICJ made it original decision to state that the temple was within the territory of Cambodia. No real point here is there?

What you seem to be implying is that had not the treaty of 1904 thus been enacted by subsequent surveys which demarcated the border and produced maps which were then accepted by the then Kingdom of Siam and followed for decades, then the temple would potentially be in Thai territory using the Dangrek watershed boundary.

Similar to the contemporary argument of some Thai nationalists who state had Thailand not accepted the original 1962 ICJ decision then we could still argue today that the temple is within the territorial boundary of Thailand. That boat sailed when Thailand accepted the court decision as it should have.

International law is meant to resolve disputes and lead to greater clarity between states. We can't have a situation where states then want to pick and choose a moment in history and ignore all the rest of their practices in order to benefit a current disposition or assertion of claim.

Why is it interesting to anyone what is was and who belonged to in the past?

It is important as that is how international territorial law works. That is how the ICJ made it original decision and how it will make the current one. Based upon the past actions, practices, statements and documents of the respective states. That is how all law works, with reference to the past.

You can't really have a NOW without the past....or can you???

[whybother]

The French-Siamese treaty of 1904 clearly puts the temple in Thailand. Unfortunately, the maps added to the treaty a couple of years later put the temple in Cambodia.

Which is why the ICJ made it original decision to state that the temple was within the territory of Cambodia. No real point here is there?

What you seem to be implying is that had not the treaty of 1904 thus been enacted by subsequent surveys which demarcated the border and produced maps which were then accepted by the then Kingdom of Siam and followed for decades, then the temple would potentially be in Thai territory using the Dangrek watershed boundary.

Similar to the contemporary argument of some Thai nationalists who state had Thailand not accepted the original 1962 ICJ decision then we could still argue today that the temple is within the territorial boundary of Thailand. That boat sailed when Thailand accepted the court decision as it should have.

International law is meant to resolve disputes and lead to greater clarity between states. We can't have a situation where states then want to pick and choose a moment in history and ignore all the rest of their practices in order to benefit a current disposition or assertion of claim.

<snip>

If Thailand had rejected the 1908 maps at the time, then maybe the temple would be in Thailand. But they didn't reject them. Because of that, they lost the 1962 case, and, rightfully, accepted the decision. Now they will have to live with whatever decision the court comes up with this time.