Nationalists threaten violence if ICJ verdict goes in favour of Cambodia

[Jose T]

For those unacquanted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Thai_border_dispute

I liked this bit in the first paragraph:

"By August 2008, the dispute had expanded to the 13th century Ta Moan temple complex 153 km west of Preah Vihear, where Cambodia has accused Thai troops of occupying a temple complex it claims is on Cambodian land. The Thai foreign ministry denied that any troops had moved into that area until several were killed in an encounter in April 2011."

Edited November 10, 2013 by Jose T

[Thaddeus]

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!

No, it's about the lines drawn up in 1962, to which both sides said "yeh, whatever" and continued to take that stance for a very long time

Many years later, a spokesman for the Thai government at the time gave the go ahead to turn this worthless temple into a World Heritage site, no problem, good for the image, the border wasn't even considered then, it was just another "yeh, whatever"

Then a few years later, oil was discovered in the Gulf of Thailand, oopsy, that area wasn't Thai, despite the name Gulf of..... as defined in 1962.

The powers that be on both sides didn't have a care in the world about the borderlines in 1962, as then a bit of land here a bit of land there made very little difference....... but then black gold, Texas tea was found, nowhere near the temple, but in an area under the same agreement.

Hence the commotion now, it isn't about the temple, hasn't been for years, that is just smokescreen, and a handy little tool to use whenever Hun Sen and Thaksin both have problems at home .

Guess who signed the original World Heritage agreement, his name begins with 'N' playing the Thai name game, possibly the most loyal but least effective of the lackeys at Khun T's command.

I'll say it again just for those that got bored with this post and skipped to the last line, it isn't about the temple, it's about oil.

[NeverSure]

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.

I have friends in Kantharalak. A village school some 25 kms away has been closed as have the dorms for the staff. They have gone to a refugee camp so school can continue.

I'm told that most adult inhabitants of Kantharalak are still there and planning to stay, but are worried. They see military personnel and vehicles every day. I haven't been there and seen this, I just have friends there who email me daily.

The people I know are devout Buddhists, and they don't care about that land and temple. They care about their peace and security and hope only there isn't a conflict.

[mca]

"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.

All the ICJ would have to do is post a pic of a cute kitten doing something amusing on their homepage and the dilemma between hitting the "like" and "dislike" button would cause many Thai Rath readers brains to melt.

Of course I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure the ICJ website doesn't have a "dislike" button. It's not bloody youtube.

[Thai at Heart]

And they will lock you up for endangering national security by writing something on the internet.....

[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.

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.

I agree, but would add that the presence of British citizens on the Falklands who wanted to maintain that status simply gave the British a higher moral ground (read: a justification) for prosecuting the war. The British also took military action to retake/protect the South Sandwich islands which, as you say, do not have a resident population.

Re "people and their wishes should always be more important than their land".... makes complete sense in principle, but can open a can of worms. Look at the history of Texas. Basically, Mexico allowed immigrants from the US to settle in that part of their territory, and those immigrants (and their descendents) eventually decided that they wanted nothing to do with Mexico, declared a republic, and eventually accepted annexation by the US. Mexico lost a large portion of its territory because of the wishes of residents who felt an affiliation to a neighbouring state.

[phitsanulokjohn]

No more than expected,just like all narrow minded nationalists,can't see further than the end of their noses.

Pea-sized brain comes to mind.

[Thait Spot]

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.

If you think that Thaksin will come out of this any better than a horrible smell in the room that everybody wants to go away, you're deluding yourself!!!

[Lakegeneve]

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.

Great response to a rather very bemusing query.

[DocN]

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.

You know what I mean, don't you?!

[siampolee]

kimamey post # 87

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.

As a matter of interest and perhaps slightly off of topic. Argentina did not exist as a sovereign state when we British actually first colonized and settled on the Falkland islands.

Much the same scenario applied to and could be said of the disputed temple area of on what is now seen as the modern border twixt Cambodia and Thailand.

Looking back in time that border area didn't exist. So in reality in what country was the temple originally built ? That question of course if brought up in any further legal moves would complicate the current border issue even more..

Edited November 11, 2013 by siampolee

[JetsetBkk]

Cambodia got the decision:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24897805#TWEET951874

[atyclb]

"Historic site ! don't think so. These old ruins of a Hindu temple"

Just give it to India.

[mca]

When it comes to LOS the lines between satire and reality become very blurred....

http://notthenation.com/2010/09/thailand-cambodia-sign-10-year-nationalist-fervor-incitement-pact-2/

[Thaddeus]

So, Thailand lost and Cambodia won.

Unless The Thai Army decide to make a move at the now undisputed border (I really hope they don't) what are these 'Nationalists' going to do now, throw rocks?

[mca]

So, Thailand lost and Cambodia won.

Unless The Thai Army decide to make a move at the now undisputed border (I really hope they don't) what are these 'Nationalists' going to do now, throw rocks?

They could always roll out the 5th Panzer Division" Chamlong"

( God this pic never gets old)

[KRS1]

Its not just about preah vihear, its about which map will be officially used to demarcate the entire border...this is only the beginning.

The cambodian translation of the valid map also demarcates a large oil reserve in the gulf of thailand.

[bigbamboo]

kimamey post # 87

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.

As a matter of interest and perhaps slightly off of topic. Argentina did not exist as a sovereign state when we British actually first colonized and settled on the Falkland islands.

Much the same scenario applied to and could be said of the disputed temple area of on what is now seen as the modern border twixt Cambodia and Thailand.

Looking back in time that border area didn't exist. So in reality in what country was the temple originally built ? That question of course if brought up in any further legal moves would complicate the current border issue even more..

If the Scots get independence I wonder if they'll fight with the English over Berwick upon Tweed?

Nah, it'll never be a UN heritage site.

[Showbags]

Ok...time for all those members that stated they would stand up and fight for Thailand in another thread...can we start a list below here...

1.

[bigbamboo]

So, Thailand lost and Cambodia won.

Unless The Thai Army decide to make a move at the now undisputed border (I really hope they don't) what are these 'Nationalists' going to do now, throw rocks?

This is Thailand so they'll more likely just throw tantrums.

[Soutpeel]

The cambodian translation of the valid map also demarcates a large oil reserve in the gulf of thailand.

If you know this factually then one supposes a lot of O&G companies will employ you on very big bucks indeed as they will not need to do the seismic or exploration wells cos "KRS1" says so....... for the record the GOT doesn't have "large" oil reserves and the geology is very fragmented with small pockets of oil if there is anything in the disputed area it will be gas not oil

[blaze]

Rightyly or wrongly the ultranationalists may coat tail on the anti-govt protests. And the anti-gov't protests (enemy of my enemy is my friend) will have to support them- no?

This makes the entire situation a lot more dangerous than a couple of years ago.

I mean- is Suthep going to announce his support for the ultranationalists- or is he going to distance himself, risking losing a very important part of the anti-government coalition.

Of course in the short term, both sides will blame Thaksin and Co for this loss- but one side is going to demand action- at the very least symbolic action.

Suthep has to take into account that Abhisit could become PM again- and for him to be openly spurning an IJC ruling will do him no favors internationally.

So Mister Suthep might find himself trapped between a rock and a hard place.

Edited November 11, 2013 by blaze

[kimamey]

kimamey post # 87

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.

As a matter of interest and perhaps slightly off of topic. Argentina did not exist as a sovereign state when we British actually first colonized and settled on the Falkland islands.

Much the same scenario applied to and could be said of the disputed temple area of on what is now seen as the modern border twixt Cambodia and Thailand.

Looking back in time that border area didn't exist. So in reality in what country was the temple originally built ? That question of course if brought up in any further legal moves would complicate the current border issue even more..

If the Scots get independence I wonder if they'll fight with the English over Berwick upon Tweed?

Nah, it'll never be a UN heritage site.

Well I don't know about the Scots but we English are a civilised bunch so maybe we could just have a football match to decide it. If we really wanted to cover ourselves we could try cricket instead.

[bigbamboo]

kimamey post # 87

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.

As a matter of interest and perhaps slightly off of topic. Argentina did not exist as a sovereign state when we British actually first colonized and settled on the Falkland islands.

Much the same scenario applied to and could be said of the disputed temple area of on what is now seen as the modern border twixt Cambodia and Thailand.

Looking back in time that border area didn't exist. So in reality in what country was the temple originally built ? That question of course if brought up in any further legal moves would complicate the current border issue even more..

If the Scots get independence I wonder if they'll fight with the English over Berwick upon Tweed?

Nah, it'll never be a UN heritage site.

Well I don't know about the Scots but we English are a civilised bunch so maybe we could just have a football match to decide it. If we really wanted to cover ourselves we could try cricket instead.

I hope no one suggests we play Spain at football for Gibraltar.

[Thaddeus]

So, Thailand lost and Cambodia won.

Unless The Thai Army decide to make a move at the now undisputed border (I really hope they don't) what are these 'Nationalists' going to do now, throw rocks?

This is Thailand so they'll more likely just throw tantrums.

Forgot that bit, didn't really, I went past 'Go' and straight to 'Sulk'.......... it saves time.

[petedk]

I don't quite understand how Thais interpret the decision but nearly everyone i talk to says Cambodia lost out and Thailand won. They all seem happy with the decision.

[anon210]

So, Thailand lost and Cambodia won.

Unless The Thai Army decide to make a move at the now undisputed border (I really hope they don't) what are these 'Nationalists' going to do now, throw rocks?

This is Thailand so they'll more likely just throw tantrums.

Well, I almost went out in the streets to celebrate with a Cambodian flag.

Thailand needs more losses of this style to learn that they are just a miserable little country which has to abide by international rules and standards and cannot live its isolated "thai style" life.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. An inflammatory post was removed as well.

[MilesofSmiles]

This isn't the first time that Cambodia has taken this to court, and won.

This dispute speaks strongly to the disregard and disrespect Thais seem to have for other nations and their people.

like idiots crying and protesting over this. Stand up for yourselves and Sort out your government

The staff seem to see it for the distraction it is.

I've seen some comments resenting Europeans presiding over a dispute between 2 Asian nations.

"Delicate issue" It's not delicate at all, wanna be in our club, abide by the rules.

[Lakegeneve]

This isn't the first time that Cambodia has taken this to court, and won.

This dispute speaks strongly to the disregard and disrespect Thais seem to have for other nations and their people.

like idiots crying and protesting over this. Stand up for yourselves and Sort out your government

The staff seem to see it for the distraction it is.

I've seen some comments resenting Europeans presiding over a dispute between 2 Asian nations.

"Delicate issue" It's not delicate at all, wanna be in our club, abide by the rules.

Au contraire, with respect this last sentence is just as silly as those idiots who think it is 'Europeans ruling on an asian issue'.

It is not "our club". The ICJ is the court for all member states of the world. It was founded per the UN Charter in the post WWII period. It is composed of judges from all over the world who objectively apply the applicable international law to disputes bought before the court by members states. Parties agree to abide by decisions of the court for the good of all states.

The notion that it is 'our club' is a silly as the notion that a member state can ignore international law and operate in some kind of nationalist vacuum free of international obligations due to one ICJ decision.