Nationalists threaten violence if ICJ verdict goes in favour of Cambodia

[silent]

For goodness sake! This is temple land we're talking about! Very easy to resolve. Have it jointly administered by Thailand and Cambodia, make it a piece of 'holy' land and encourage Buddhist pilgrims from both sides to freely use it for spi ritual activities and tourists for, well.... sightseeing I guess. Such an easy solution.

That's the secret. Ya. Why have these idiots wasted so much time and haven't come up with something as simple as, "Let's all just be friends, what's in a name and who cares who owns it".

Let's pray to God that's the solution. Got a sneaky suspicionion ain't gonna happen, no way no how.

[Thaddeus]

To the extent that the most recent 'visit' to protest was halted by the Thai locals who appear just to wish to live in peace

As some may know, I live very close to the border, and quite close to some other temples of interest and we could feel the ground shake the last time it all kicked off, some villages a little closer to Surin Provence were evacuated.

The general feeling from the locals here is that they don't wan't to go through it again, especially as it isn't them doing the sabre rattling, and the ones that are doing it don't live here ...... they just wish that some should just drop a worthless cause.

Of course, I doubt they even know that the real issue isn't the temple and bit of scrub-land, the real issue is a few hundred kilometres SW of here.

[MAJIC]

Like most things I suspect this is all about money,on the Tourist trail Preah Vihear would be a huge money spinner,so why not joint ownership between Cambodia and Thailand. One month the takings could go to Cambodia and the next month to Thailand. Barring Security measures to prevent fiddling,it should work out well!

[473geo]

Seems quite easy to understand

The International court will rule based on history, fact and documented historical evidence,

Why arrange protest when the verdict is unknown?

The damage this issue can attract for various goverments has long been a more important feature for the reactionaries/nationalists than the land ownership

To the extent that the most recent 'visit' to protest was halted by the Thai locals who appear just to wish to live in peace

Why arrange a protest when the verdict is unknown?

Why hand out the judges' personal details when the verdict has not been arrived at?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Somebody handed out the personal details of the International court judges? you sure? don't understand how you expect me to know the answer....I missed the details..perhaps many others did too!

[jdinasia]

Perhaps this info can help you understand what is really going on with this piece of rock and the surrounding forest.

From another similar thread with thanks to waza.

This issue may be the downfall of the Thaksin proxy government, they want the anti-amnesty protestors off the street before the verdict, as it has the potential to explode into a large scale anti-government protest too popular and disruptive for them to control. Thaksin and his proxy governments have a long political history with this emotive issue.

"Following military skirmishes along the Thai-Cambodian border, Cambodia asked the court in 2011 to interpret the previous judgement and to make clear the vicinity of the temple. However, the border dispute became the centre of a political dispute as opposition and conservative groups accused the government under the Thaksin Shinawatra camp of making a deal with Phnom Penh over the temple, for personal interests."

Thaksin's involvement began in 2001......."In 2001, officials from both nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the joint development of the 26,000-kilometre area, believed to be rich in oil and gas. The potential for a windfall is tantalising for both countries, not to mention the companies holding concessions for the extraction, which won’t start until 2016." http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/cambodia-thailand-eye-overlapping-claims-area

Then in 2006 rumour has it Thaksin did a deal with Hun Sen to divide the Gulf of Thailand resourses between Thailand and Cambodia, with him and Hun Sen holding the concessions....

"CAMBODIA and Thailand were nearing a resolution over the disputed oil blocks in the Gulf of Thailand just as Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted from office in 2006, a US embassy cable revealed yesterday.......“He said they had agreed on a formula for dividing the revenue: 80% for Thailand and 20% for Cambodia in the tier nearest Thailand, 50%-50% in the middle and 20% for Thailand and 80% for Cambodia in the area closest to Cambodia,”.http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/thaksin-oil-deal-interrupted

Sounds like a fair and equitable deal, but in reality the Thai tier is described as.........."not significant enough to make exploitation of that block alone profitable”. While the Cambodian tier is described as..........“one of the best areas for exploration in the world” and it could “revolutionise Cambodia."

But why would Hun Sen want to give Thaksin a share of his pie? Rumours that Thaksin had sold out Prea Vihear for oils and gas concessions gained momentum when he became economic advisor to the Cambodian government.....

.......Three years later, the MoU was shelved by then-Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, after Shinawatra was named an economic adviser to the Kingdom.

Then, "In 2008, Cambodia proposed its intention to apply for the inscription of the Preah Vihear in the UNESCO World Heritage site list...... The application sent by Cambodia referred to an adjacent land to the temple under Cambodia’s jurisdiction which was actually Thailand’s territory. The Thai opposition party protested on this plan and argued that Cambodia had the ownership rights only over the temple and not the adjacent territory.......... There was widespread dissatisfaction with the (PPP) government when the then- Foreign Minister of Thailand Noppodon Pattama signed a communiqué with Cambodia accepting the proposal to UNESCO in 2008 (The Constitutional Court, 2008). The oppositions claimed that Noppodon and the then-Prime Minister Sumak had business concessions with the Cambodians due to which they sacrificed the nation’s sovereignty and prestige. " http://www.ipcs.org/special-report/southeast-asia/the-dispute-over-prea-vihear-seen-problems-unseen-stakes-129.html

So after 13 years of political involvement and concessions by Thaksin and his proxy government in the Prea Vihear affair, they then have the gall to say......

"Surapong,.....urged Thais not to politicise the Preah Vihear issue. "Please don't use it to fuel anti-government sentiment," he said.....He added that the government had fought in the national interest of the country over the case and denied rumours that the administration's close ties with Cambodia were paving for way for their collusion on the issue.....Surapong blamed the previous Democrat government for Cambodia's decision to revive the Preah Vihear issue at the ICJ."

This is what has Thaksin running scared, protestors on the street when the ICJ hands down a verdict that casts him in a poor light.

More evidence of the outright rape of this country's resources and assets courtesy of public enemy number 1 in Dubai.

So a few cut and pastes of parts of a couple of articles over the past 13 years which in themselves use words such as 'rumor', now constitutes proof that Thailand have been maliciously represented by the Government? If you are such a 'know all' why don't you point out this malicious representation which has suddenly changed the likely outcome of the ICJ ruling which was being referred to by 'Soundman'.Why have the opposition, the PAD, the various other against Thaksin groups ever really raised this issue?or the army or the Navy, or PTT? Have you got insight which they dont?

Also using 'Waza' as a source to back up a point!!! Really scraping the barrel of legitimacy there, because his posts are so rational and devoid of bias

Smutcakes --- apparently the press in Cambodia and an NGO links in what Waza posted are not good enough for you and you still add nothing to the discussion except scorn. Pity.

[10Yen]

Seems to be the Thai way, if you don't get what you want then turn to violence.

Who do these Thai's think they are, Farangs ?

[FangFerang]

This timing has been orchestrated. No surprises. I am Buddhist and hold human life to be sacred. Why am I the only one in my neighborhood that is concerned with the lives of those living in the area near the temple?

This issue seems synthetic altogether. No one raising alarms live there, it is a small piece of land. Everyone is concerned with the acreage and numb to inhabitants.

Everyone else, Thais and Frang, are fixed on pro or anti Thaksin. Nobody seems to care about the residents.

I am baffled.

[smutcakes]

Smutcakes --- apparently the press in Cambodia and an NGO links in what Waza posted are not good enough for you and you still add nothing to the discussion except scorn. Pity.

I asked a question to an original post about what the Govt has done different to the previous Govt and how they have 'maliciously represented' Thailand. To now know one including the original poster of that comment, a moderator no less has provided an answer, other than repeated hearsay on alleged this and that completely irrelevant to the query in the post i asked to be clarified. I presume this is because it was just a spurious comment based on nothing but dislike of one person. There is plenty to dislike the guy for and plenty he has done wrong, and still does, but not sure how it adds to any discussion just making stuff up.

[jdinasia]

So you did not read the posted links .......

You were answered. You just did not like the answers you got,

[Benmart]

Seems to be the Thai way, if you don't get what you want then turn to violence.

This type of behavior happens worldwide and is not just a "Thai way". Likewise, bigotry knows no national, racial or ethnic boundary.

Perhaps a spiritual inventory would be in order for those advocating violence. I believe nonviolence was the essence of what Budda taught.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Benmart

[bigbamboo]

This timing has been orchestrated. No surprises. I am Buddhist and hold human life to be sacred. Why am I the only one in my neighborhood that is concerned with the lives of those living in the area near the temple?

This issue seems synthetic altogether. No one raising alarms live there, it is a small piece of land. Everyone is concerned with the acreage and numb to inhabitants.

Everyone else, Thais and Frang, are fixed on pro or anti Thaksin. Nobody seems to care about the residents.

I am baffled.

The very same people who were getting along just fine until politicians decided they could make capital out of it.

[ballpoint]

I think people are overestimating the value of the temple as a tourist magnet and "spiritual" site. The temple was freely accessable from the Thai side for many years, yet attracted only a trickle of tourists, and, even should the Cambodians build a new access road and improve transportation in the area, I can't really see it drawing too many visitors. After all, the granddaddy of Khmer Temples is just in the next province, and far easier to get to. The main thing it has going for it is its spectacular location, but, in my opinion, driving hundreds of kilometres to sit on the edge of a cliff is not that great an attraction. Been there, done that, but only because I was already in the area.

As for its "sacredness" to the local population, balderdash. It's a hindu temple in what is now a buddhist country, and although carrying historical value, and a sense of whipped up national pride, is as sacred to the present day inhabitants as the Roman temple of Diana is to a modern day Italian. Or, for a nearer to home example, as the ruins of Borobudar are to the local Indonesians.

Lastly, although there is some debate over the exact extent of the Khmer empire, all maps agree that more of it was actually outside present day Cambodia than in.

Present day Khmer dialect speakers may be found in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam, as well as Cambodia, obviously. Any talk of handing Panom Rung, or any other of the Khmer temples well inside the Thai border, "back" to the Cambodians displays ignorance, as the Cambodians have never owned the land they are on. The Khmer empire breaking up into what is now Cambodia, most of Thailand and Laos, part of Vietnam, and even a bit of Burma.

This is in no way trying to say Thailand shoulkd take the temple back. The ICJ made their decision and the country must live with it. The contentious issue is which map is to be used to delineate the border, as a decision based on one map sets a precedent for further settling of disputes in other locations along the border. As many have discussed, that is probably the real reason for the current struggle. After all, two buddhists fighting over a hindu temple isn't that far off two bald men fighting over a comb. But two car drivers fighting over a drum of petrol? Now that I can believe.

[473geo]

So you did not read the posted links .......

You were answered. You just did not like the answers you got,

Should Thailand lose the frontier judgements on both counts, then Thaksin will look like a shrewd guy, that was prepared to pass off a small piece of mined shrubland to bring millions of oil revenue in the Thailand bank account. Of course you may not have read this explanation into the links provided by oracle WAZA, this was perhaps not the impression he was looking to provide.

[bigbamboo]

I think people are overestimating the value of the temple as a tourist magnet and "spiritual" site. The temple was freely accessable from the Thai side for many years, yet attracted only a trickle of tourists, and, even should the Cambodians build a new access road and improve transportation in the area, I can't really see it drawing too many visitors. After all, the granddaddy of Khmer Temples is just in the next province, and far easier to get to. The main thing it has going for it is its spectacular location, but, in my opinion, driving hundreds of kilometres to sit on the edge of a cliff is not that great an attraction. Been there, done that, but only because I was already in the area.

As for its "sacredness" to the local population, balderdash. It's a hindu temple in what is now a buddhist country, and although carrying historical value, and a sense of whipped up national pride, is as sacred to the present day inhabitants as the Roman temple of Diana is to a modern day Italian. Or, for a nearer to home example, as the ruins of Borobudar are to the local Indonesians.

Lastly, although there is some debate over the exact extent of the Khmer empire, all maps agree that more of it was actually outside present day Cambodia than in.

khmer empire.jpg

Present day Khmer dialect speakers may be found in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam, as well as Cambodia, obviously. Any talk of handing Panom Rung, or any other of the Khmer temples well inside the Thai border, "back" to the Cambodians displays ignorance, as the Cambodians have never owned the land they are on. The Khmer empire breaking up into what is now Cambodia, most of Thailand and Laos, part of Vietnam, and even a bit of Burma.

This is in no way trying to say Thailand shoulkd take the temple back. The ICJ made their decision and the country must live with it. The contentious issue is which map is to be used to delineate the border, as a decision based on one map sets a precedent for further settling of disputes in other locations along the border. As many have discussed, that is probably the real reason for the current struggle. After all, two buddhists fighting over a hindu temple isn't that far off two bald men fighting over a comb. But two car drivers fighting over a drum of petrol? Now that I can believe.

Driving a long way to sit on the edge of a cliff doesn't sound like much of an attraction to me either.

Some people in England who might are going to Beachy Head.... but in Thailand there are balconies for that.

Edited November 10, 2013 by bigbamboo

[Docno]

The Thai delegation is led and directed by Surapong Towichukchaikul, Sukampol Suwannatha & Phongthep Thepkanjana amongst others. All men with higher allegiances to a certain fugitive than anybody else, proved over and over by their actions in the past.

Hardly transparent.

Has the likely outcome of the ICJ decision changed at all since the PTP came to power? Perhaps you can expand what has changed so much with regards this issue since they have come to power, which you believe would back up your assertion that Thailand has been maliciously represented.

Perhaps this info can help you understand what is really going on with this piece of rock and the surrounding forest.

From another similar thread with thanks to waza.

This issue may be the downfall of the Thaksin proxy government, they want the anti-amnesty protestors off the street before the verdict, as it has the potential to explode into a large scale anti-government protest too popular and disruptive for them to control. Thaksin and his proxy governments have a long political history with this emotive issue.

"Following military skirmishes along the Thai-Cambodian border, Cambodia asked the court in 2011 to interpret the previous judgement and to make clear the vicinity of the temple. However, the border dispute became the centre of a political dispute as opposition and conservative groups accused the government under the Thaksin Shinawatra camp of making a deal with Phnom Penh over the temple, for personal interests."

Thaksin's involvement began in 2001......."In 2001, officials from both nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the joint development of the 26,000-kilometre area, believed to be rich in oil and gas. The potential for a windfall is tantalising for both countries, not to mention the companies holding concessions for the extraction, which won’t start until 2016." http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/cambodia-thailand-eye-overlapping-claims-area

Then in 2006 rumour has it Thaksin did a deal with Hun Sen to divide the Gulf of Thailand resourses between Thailand and Cambodia, with him and Hun Sen holding the concessions....

"CAMBODIA and Thailand were nearing a resolution over the disputed oil blocks in the Gulf of Thailand just as Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted from office in 2006, a US embassy cable revealed yesterday.......“He said they had agreed on a formula for dividing the revenue: 80% for Thailand and 20% for Cambodia in the tier nearest Thailand, 50%-50% in the middle and 20% for Thailand and 80% for Cambodia in the area closest to Cambodia,”.http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/thaksin-oil-deal-interrupted

Sounds like a fair and equitable deal, but in reality the Thai tier is described as.........."not significant enough to make exploitation of that block alone profitable”. While the Cambodian tier is described as..........“one of the best areas for exploration in the world” and it could “revolutionise Cambodia."

But why would Hun Sen want to give Thaksin a share of his pie? Rumours that Thaksin had sold out Prea Vihear for oils and gas concessions gained momentum when he became economic advisor to the Cambodian government.....

.......Three years later, the MoU was shelved by then-Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, after Shinawatra was named an economic adviser to the Kingdom.

Then, "In 2008, Cambodia proposed its intention to apply for the inscription of the Preah Vihear in the UNESCO World Heritage site list...... The application sent by Cambodia referred to an adjacent land to the temple under Cambodia’s jurisdiction which was actually Thailand’s territory. The Thai opposition party protested on this plan and argued that Cambodia had the ownership rights only over the temple and not the adjacent territory.......... There was widespread dissatisfaction with the (PPP) government when the then- Foreign Minister of Thailand Noppodon Pattama signed a communiqué with Cambodia accepting the proposal to UNESCO in 2008 (The Constitutional Court, 2008). The oppositions claimed that Noppodon and the then-Prime Minister Sumak had business concessions with the Cambodians due to which they sacrificed the nation’s sovereignty and prestige. " http://www.ipcs.org/special-report/southeast-asia/the-dispute-over-prea-vihear-seen-problems-unseen-stakes-129.html

So after 13 years of political involvement and concessions by Thaksin and his proxy government in the Prea Vihear affair, they then have the gall to say......

"Surapong,.....urged Thais not to politicise the Preah Vihear issue. "Please don't use it to fuel anti-government sentiment," he said.....He added that the government had fought in the national interest of the country over the case and denied rumours that the administration's close ties with Cambodia were paving for way for their collusion on the issue.....Surapong blamed the previous Democrat government for Cambodia's decision to revive the Preah Vihear issue at the ICJ."

This is what has Thaksin running scared, protestors on the street when the ICJ hands down a verdict that casts him in a poor light.

More evidence of the outright rape of this country's resources and assets courtesy of public enemy number 1 in Dubai.

Let's look at Waza's text more carefully...

• "opposition and conservative groups accused the government under the Thaksin Shinawatra camp of making a deal ..."
• "rumour has it Thaksin did a deal with Hun Sen..."
• "in reality the Thai tier is described as..." [by whom? it doesn't say]
• "Rumours that Thaksin had sold out Prea Vihear..."
• "the opposition claimed that Noppodon and the then-Prime Minister Sumak had business concessions with the Cambodians..."

What we see here is not evidence. These are only allegations and rumours. But, for some reason, this appears to enough for people here whom I assume are otherwise rational and intelligent. I don't get it.

BTW, I've also heard rumours that the world is in fact run by disguised reptile aliens. Maybe they're the ones behind this.

[siampolee]

473geo post # 73

Should Thailand lose the frontier judgements on both counts, then Thaksin will look like a shrewd guy, that was prepared to pass off a small piece of mined shrubland to bring millions of oil revenue in the Thailand bank account. Of course you may not have read this explanation into the links provided by oracle WAZA, this was perhaps not the impression he was looking to provide.

Now you do spend a fair amount of time out of Thailand so perhaps you missed the fact the bot Thaksin and Hun Sen were conspiring together a while back and working on assorted mineral rights deals..

The whole affair is designed to ensure that just two despots are able to line their and their family's pockets at the expense of the peoples and the countries they profess to love.

Never have so many been shafted for so much by so few.

[KRS1]

This was the ruling in 1962, and an explanation of the outcome of the ruling:

Its long be warned... http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS) Judgment of 15 June 1962

Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.

In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.

Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.

*

* *

In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission

In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range.

It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.

The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.

The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.

The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so.

The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.

From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

[Docno]

Before we (or some of us) go about saying that the Thais and Khmers are particularly childish for arguing over a speck of land on their border, let's remember that almost 1000 soldiers/sailors died not that long ago fighting over some rocks in the South Atlantic variously called the Malvinas or the Falklands. Humans are stupid the world over....let's not feel too superior on this one.

[473geo]

473geo post # 73

Should Thailand lose the frontier judgements on both counts, then Thaksin will look like a shrewd guy, that was prepared to pass off a small piece of mined shrubland to bring millions of oil revenue in the Thailand bank account. Of course you may not have read this explanation into the links provided by oracle WAZA, this was perhaps not the impression he was looking to provide.

Now you do spend a fair amount of time out of Thailand so perhaps you missed the fact the bot Thaksin and Hun Sen were conspiring together a while back and working on assorted mineral rights deals..

The whole affair is designed to ensure that just two despots are able to line their and their family's pockets at the expense of the peoples and the countries they profess to love.

Never have so many been shafted for so much by so few.

I guess you listened in on the conversations first hand Siampolee otherwise how could my life outside Thailand make any difference to information available, a rather silly comment from you there I feel.

My post is just too near the truth for you, are you telling me Thailand would not reap financial reward if oil exploration was successful, provided of course some person was smart enough to negotiate participation for the kingdom in the said exploration. Now take your mind away from Thaksin for a moment. Let us say Abhisit is PM, well Siampolee, Thailand would still need the frontier agrreement to be favourable, would it not? so you see once again you have clouded your own understanding by your intent to tarnish Thaksin.

Edited November 10, 2013 by 473geo

[bigbamboo]

473geo post # 73

Should Thailand lose the frontier judgements on both counts, then Thaksin will look like a shrewd guy, that was prepared to pass off a small piece of mined shrubland to bring millions of oil revenue in the Thailand bank account. Of course you may not have read this explanation into the links provided by oracle WAZA, this was perhaps not the impression he was looking to provide.

Now you do spend a fair amount of time out of Thailand so perhaps you missed the fact the bot Thaksin and Hun Sen were conspiring together a while back and working on assorted mineral rights deals..

The whole affair is designed to ensure that just two despots are able to line their and their family's pockets at the expense of the peoples and the countries they profess to love.

Never have so many been shafted for so much by so few.

I guess you listened in on the conversations first hand JD otherwise how could my life outside Thailand make any difference to information available, a rather silly comment from you there I feel.

My post is just too near the truth for you, are you telling me Thailand would not reap financial reward if oil exploration was successful, provided of course some person was smart enough to negotiate participation for the kingdom in the said exploration. Now take your mind away from Thaksin for a moment. Let us say Abhisit is PM, well JD, Thailand would still need the frontier agrreement to be favourable, would it not? so you see once again you have clouded your own understanding by your intent to continually tarnish Thaksin.

If he was suddenly Thaksin the Munificent don't you think he'd have been singing his own praises about his masterplan from the top of that tower in Dubai already?

Edited November 10, 2013 by bigbamboo

[siampolee]

473geo post # 79

I guess you listened in on the conversations first hand JD otherwise how could my life outside Thailand make any difference to information available, a rather silly comment from you there I feel.

My post is just too near the truth for you, are you telling me Thailand would not reap financial reward if oil exploration was successful, provided of course some person was smart enough to negotiate participation for the kingdom in the said exploration. Now take your mind away from Thaksin for a moment. Let us say Abhisit is PM, well JD, Thailand would still need the frontier agrreement to be favourable, would it not? so you see once again you have clouded your own understanding by your intent to continually tarnish Thaksin.

Well it seems that your comprehension skills like your judgement are a trifle clouded. You couldn't even get the correct name in your post .

Now we all can see plainly why you support Thaksin indeed you do seem to be challenged concerning the truth.

You really need to read slowly and not jump blindly to the defense of the despot Thaksin like a Rocky Mountain Canary every time you see more true facts concerning Thaksin his corrupt practices.

Well I see you corrected the matter after I pointed out your error to you. Indeed you should stop being a bull in a china shop.

Edited November 10, 2013 by siampolee

[473geo]

Ah yes similar posting methodology, Siampolee, JD, my mistake, occasionally happens when another chooses to ease into a live discussion line. Lucky I am the only one that this happens to, could be chaos!

Doesn't actually change the points I raise and your response clearly shows a desparate need to disguise the fact you guys never really thought this through at all. In or out of Thailand

[Thait Spot]

So you did not read the posted links .......

 

You were answered. You just did not like the answers you got,

 

Should Thailand lose the frontier judgements on both counts, then Thaksin will look like a shrewd guy, that was prepared to pass off a small piece of mined shrubland to bring millions of oil revenue in the Thailand bank account. Of course you may not have read this explanation into the links provided by oracle WAZA, this was perhaps not the impression he was looking to provide.

No. He will still look like a manipulative jerk. His followers will look like brown nosed lackeys

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Local Drunk]

This was the ruling in 1962, and an explanation of the outcome of the ruling:

Its long be warned... http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

(MERITS) Judgment of 15 June 1962

Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.

In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.

Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.

*

* *

In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission

In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range.

It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.

The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.

The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.

The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so.

The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.

From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

None of which is worth dying for, but it was a lovely read and thank you. Whatever decision is handed down by the ICJ tomorrow will have little or no bearing on those desiring a conflict. Cheers, and thanks for your post.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Local Drunk

[kimamey]

I still wonder if, as it is such a contentious issue, can there be no form of joint custody as an important historic site, and as a place of worship for both Thai and Cambodian?

As far as I know the temple is already Cambodian it's just the land that's being argued over. Would still be better as you say to come to some joint agteement.

[Jose T]

advised his readers to launch a cyber-attack on the ICJ's website in the hope of incapacitating the site and making their feelings known to the world.

"Use a modern means, click on the 'dislike' button at the court's website, say, 5 to 10 million clicks, so it will crash," Zoom wrote.

So basically willing Thais to act like some 13 year old boys who didn't get what they want.

On the international scene.

Well done for possibly educating the World about Thainess.

There probably isn't a Thai out there that doesn't look down upon the average Cambodian, the idea that the ICJ would choose them over Thailand would of course ignite a feeling of fury within many of those who consider themselves as true Thais.

[kimamey]

Before we (or some of us) go about saying that the Thais and Khmers are particularly childish for arguing over a speck of land on their border, let's remember that almost 1000 soldiers/sailors died not that long ago fighting over some rocks in the South Atlantic variously called the Malvinas or the Falklands. Humans are stupid the world over....let's not feel too superior on this one.

An interesting point.

The Falklands war wasn't about the land although I'm sure the UK government wouldn't want to give it up but was about the people. They were British and wished to remain so. If they were to decide they wanted to be Argentinian then the UK would find it near on impossible to retain the islands concerned. There are also the South Georgia and South Sandwich islands as well which I believe have no resident population so their position is more complicated but Argentina doesn't seem so worried about those.

People and their wishes should always be more important than land. Are there any people living on the land disputed by Thailand and Cambodia? I thought there weren't but if I'm wrong then it would be interesting to know their views as they would be relevant as in the case of the Falklands or for that matter Gibraltar.

[DocN]

What I still fail to understand: the TEMPLE belongs to Cambodia...how can the LAND, the temple stands on, NOT belong to Cambodia?

This is like someone has to take an urgent dump, knocks on my door and asks,if he can use my toilet.

I allow it and when is to enter my appartment, I go "Hey,hey,hey man...what are you doing? I said, you can use the toilet...not the space around it! Now...good luck, with hitting it from here...and please...don't make a mess!"

It is beyond idiotic!

[Jose T]

What I still fail to understand: the TEMPLE belongs to Cambodia...how can the LAND, the temple stands on, NOT belong to Cambodia?

Not the land it stands on, the land next to it.

[phantomfiddler]

Seems to be the Thai way, if you don't get what you want then turn to violence.

Thais have always been very poor losers, possibly because they have been protected so long by an administration that leads them to believe they are the world,s chosen people and superior to all others. Wise up, and get ready for 2015, when hordes of nearby asians are going to swamp this country and do a better job for less money. What happened in Europe ? It,s coming here (hopefully)