The Way to Improve Relations with Cambodia

By Bangkok Pundit Jun 18, 2009 12:00AM UTC

0 Comments and 0 Reactions

Bangkok Post:

Thailand will ask the World Heritage Committee to review the decision to register Preah Vihear temple, on the border of Si Sa Ket province, as a World Heritage site under the sole supervision of Cambodia, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Wednesday.
…
The prime minister said a World Heritage site is supposed to be an area where traces of culture and history are preserved, allowing tourists to see and admire them. But the registration of Preah Vihear had caused more conflict between the peoples of Thailand and Cambodia.
Mr Abhisit said Preah Vihear should be registered jointly as a World Heritage site by Thailand and Cambodia, not just by one country.
“I want to see the temple a peaceful area so that the people of the two countries can jointly benefit from this site of high historical importance,” said the prime minister.
Panithan Wattanayakorn, the PM’s deputy secretary-general and acting government spokesman, said Mr Suwit would attend the WHC meeting as a member of the Thai world heritage committee. He would submit the protest letter in the name of the committee, not the Thai government.
Thailand was not protesting against Cambodia’s application that Preah Vihear be listed as a World Heritage site, but against the decision approving the insciption of the temple, which had caused more problems, he said.

The Nation:

Thailand’s objection would not jeopardise relations with Cambodia as the government could explain its stance, Abhisit said. He did not discuss the matter with his Cambodian counterpart Hun Sen when visiting Phnom Penh last week but hoped Cambodia would understand Thailand.

BP: Is Abhisit in fairyland? The argument is that Preah Vihear shouldn’t be listed as hurts relations between the two (Dems were part of the nationalist campaign whipped up last year), but he thinks that Thailand’s opposition won’t affect relations with Cambodia. If ever there was an issue that Cambodians care about it is Preah Vihear.

Thai Foreign Ministry tells UNESCO to stay away

By Bangkok Pundit Feb 10, 2011 11:30AM UTC

Comments Off

After Cambodia reported that Thai shelling had damaged a wing of Preah Vihear temple, UNESCO announced:

The Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, today reiterated her call for calm and restraint around the Temple of Preah Vihear, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008. A border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand caused several deaths and damage to the site in recent days.
“I intend to send a mission to the area as soon as possible to assess the state of the temple,” she said. “World Heritage sites are the heritage of all humanity and the international community has a special responsibility to safeguard them. This requires a collective effort that must be undertaken in a spirit of consultation and dialogue. Heritage should unite people and serve as an instrument of dialogue and mutual understanding and not of conflict.”

BP: Now, reporters who have been to Preah Vihear say the damage is only minor although Cambodia is still insisting there was significant damage. However, the Thai Foreign Ministry is not happy that UNESCO will visit per The Nation:

Thai Foreign Ministry said Wednesday it was not proper for Unesco to send its mission to visit the disputed Preah Vihear Temple.
Ministry’s spokesman Thani Thongpakdi said the present situations at the border was still tense.
“It is not an appropriate time for the Unesco’s World Heritage Committee to dispatch its mission to visit the temple. The situation along the border is still tense,” he said in a press briefing.
Moreover the UN agency has to ask permission from the Thai side to go there, he said.

BP: Is Thani really saying (or is that The Nation editoralizing) that Preah Vihear is “disputed” given the ICJ decision clearly ruling that Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia. Again, it is hard to tell whether he is just saying that it was not an appropriate time to visit now due to the fighting (which for safety reasons is not unreasonable) or that it was just not proper to go. The Bangkok Post though provides some additional information:

Former ambassador to the United Nations Assada Chaiyanam will explain to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) why Thailand objects to it inspecting Preah Vihear temple, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya’s secretary Chavanont Intarakomalyasut said on Wednesday.
Mr Chavanont said Mr Assada will fly to France to meet Unesco representatives on Friday (Feb 11).

BP: Why object to UNESCO inspecting Preah Vihear? Ok, of course, the nationalists will hate it, but if you are trying to point out that the Cambodians are exaggerating the extend of the damage wouldn’t an independent assessment of the actual damage be a good thing? Then again, some many not want to encourage independent investigations of anything….

Thai PM to UNESCO: Delist Preah Vihear as World Heritage Site

By Bangkok Pundit Feb 14, 2011 9:00AM UTC

Comments Off

The Temple of Preah Vihear was designated as a World Heritage Site in 2008 and, according to the Bangkok Post, Thai PM Abhisit states that delisting Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site will defuse tensions:

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is calling on Unesco to help defuse the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia by delisting the Preah Vihear temple as a world heritage site and scrapping a Cambodian management plan for the temple.
Mr Abhisit said the two sides had come under pressure because of the listing and the management plan and this was the source of the problem.
It was therefore up to Unesco to ease the pressure stemming from the management plan, which is due to be tabled with the Unesco World Heritage Committee in June.
“I believe if Unesco manages to defuse tensions, the two sides would agree to hold talks without pressure. The two countries want their people on the border to live peacefully,” Mr Abhisit said.
…
Mr Suwit said yesterday the Foreign Affairs Ministry had told the Thai ambassador to France, as head of Thailand’s permanent delegation to Unesco, to explain the facts to Unesco authorities.
He said he was also preparing information to explain to the Unesco director-general the adverse repercussions the listing of Preah Vihear as a world heritage site had had on relations between Thailand and Cambodia.
Mr Suwit said the listing of the temple was not in line with the requirements of the World Heritage Convention in that the border land where the temple is located is not clearly demarcated and no proper management plan is ready.
Most importantly, the Hindu temple is on an overlapping border area claimed by the two countries and the listing should have been given approval by both Thailand and Cambodia, Mr Suwit said. He also said the Unesco plan to send a mission to inspect the Preah Vihear temple must receive consent from Thailand.
Mr Suwit warned that Unesco could be seen as lacking neutrality by not obtaining Thailand’s consent.

BP: Perhaps, Suwit should read the ICJ ruling that stated that Preah Vihear is located on territory which Cambodia has sovereignty over.
Atiya in an op-ed in the Bangkok Post puts the blame* on the World Heritage Committee:

I am sure Unesco’s World Heritage Committee must be very proud of its achievement at Preah Vihear. Two Thais and three Cambodians were killed and scores injured in the latest skirmish along the troublesome border shared by the two countries where the ancient ruin is perched – its perimeter seemingly straddles both countries.
…
What did you say? That Unesco director-general Irina Bokova has expressed her “deep concern” at the “sudden” escalation of border tensions? Of course, I have no doubt that Unesco must be troubled, even shocked, at the recent shoot-out and use of heavy weapons. It definitely could not have seen it coming, considering the history of amicability that the two countries have publicly displayed, at least not from the Unesco’s vantage position at Place de Fontenoy.
…
The report must be a cause for even deeper concern for Unesco. But then again, for the sake of the heritage issue it specialises in, why not leave the ruin in ruins? Leave the marks of destruction and traces of fighting, if there are any, the way they are so that the international agency can tell the world and the people who will surely throng to visit the place once it can be opened to the outside world what a precious heritage it is, that people from the two adjacent countries had to drag their heavy weapons and fight head over heels on how it would be managed.

UNESCO has named an envoy that it is sending for a preliminary/advance visit to arrange a visit to Preah Vihear who will come to Bangkok as per ANN:

WITH its mission to inspect damage done to Preah Vihear Temple during the border skirmish blocked, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) said on Friday that it would send a special envoy to Bangkok and Phnom Penh soon to pave the way for a visit to the temple.

BP: The reason for the visit to Bangkok is that Thailand opposes UNESCO sending someone to inspect Preah Vihear. Let’s imagine a parallel universe where Preah Vihear was not listed or is not delisted then the two sides would be able to hold talks without pressure. Perhaps, Abhisit may want to consider that the Cambodians would be upset if they were not able to list Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site.
BP would argue that the issue of Preah Vihear is a much more emotive issue on the Cambodian side than the Thai side. Does Abhisit really believe that if Thailand had been able to block the listing of Preah Vihear or that if Preah Vihear is delisted that the Cambodians would be happy and there would not be a domestic political problem in Cambodia? If Preah Vihear was delisted, would the Thai parliament approve the JBC minutes? Supalak in The Nation notes on the lack of progress on border demarcation:

Thailand and Cambodia have a joint boundary committee (JBC) and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed since 2000 to handle land boundary demarcation.
However the JBC has not worked properly for a period of time since its previous meeting in April 2009 as Thai parliament has not yet approved its minutes of three previous meetings to give nod to the body to go ahead the survey and demarcation tasks.
Having JBC to settle the boundary conflict with Cambodia is an uphill task for Abhisit’s government as nationalists protesting on streets and working in the parliament would not allow the government to implement the 2000 MOU as they feared Thailand could lose territory to Cambodia.
Abhisit-once friendly People’s Alliance for Democracy, which has been camping near Prime Minister Office since last month, wanted the government to scrap the MOU and used armed forces to remove Cambodian people, troops and property out of the disputed area.
Cambodia’s JBC chief Var Kimhong rejected a Thai proposal to call a JBC meeting later this month saying the bilateral mechanism cannot resolve the issue.
Meanwhile, Thailand’s JBC chief Asda Jayanama did not focus on boundary work but was busy with lobbying the Unesco in Paris to have the UN cultural body stayed away from the Preah Vihear.

BP: The PAD and other nationalists are not saying delist Preah Vihear and we will be satisfied. Yes, they would be happy with the delisting, but they want the MOU scrapped and the Cambodians forcibly removed. The Democrats are afraid of the PAD and the nationalists so would they really have called on parliament to vote on the JBC minutes now? BP doesn’t know how Abhisit can say with a straight face that delisting Preah Vihear would defuse tensions. The PAD and the nationalists would still not be satisfied and the Cambodians would now be mad.
*One assumes Atiya is not trying to be ironic, but if she is the commenters aren’t picking up on it.

No Legal Basis for Thai Sovereignity Over Preah Vihear

By Bangkok Pundit Jul 02, 2008 12:01AM UTC

0 Comments and 0 Reactions

Supalak in The Nation:

Cambodia has officially occupied the Hindu temple for 46 years. Before the application to list it as a World Heritage site, nobody doubted the temple was under Cambodia’s sovereignty.
In its judgement on the merits of the case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962, by nine votes to three, found that the temple of Preah Vihear was “situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia”.
The wording seemed to be clear that the temple was under the sovereignty of Cambodia, but many people raised legal questions about whether Cambodia’s sovereignty covers only the ruins or includes its base and surrounding area.

BP: I think there are some questions from the judgment about the surrounding areas, but not on the territory where the temple is located.

Sovereignty is the burning issue for the case since the opposition has alleged that allowing Cambodia’s application to take the temple’s base and surrounding area into the World Heritage site could be deemed a loss of Thai sovereignty to Cambodia.
To learn about the rationale behind the argument, it is necessary to go back to 1962 when the Thai government interpreted the ICJ’s ruling.
By consequence of the ruling, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by the Kingdom at the temple or its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
In practice, the Cabinet in 1962 ordered the withdrawal of troops from the temple and its vicinity and drew a new line to determine the boundary for the temple.
Some academics and opposition Democrat Party members argue that the then foreign minister Thanat Khoman sent a note to the then acting secretary-general of the United Nations, U Thant, to express his government’s disagreement and reserve the right, if any, to resume its sovereignty over the temple.
“His Majesty’s government desires to make an express reservation regarding whatever rights Thailand has, or may have in future, to recover the Temple of Pra Viharn by having resource to any existing or subsequently applicable legal process, and to register a protest against the decision of the International Court of Justice awarding to the Temple of Phra Viharn to Cambodia,” Thanat said in his letter.
Thanat did not refer to any legal principle to back up his reservation. Unfortunately, a map annexed with his note to U Thant said clearly: “The map representing the area where the Temple of Pra Viharn is situated, over which Thailand has ‘relinquished’ her sovereignty.”
The Foreign Ministry’s Treaties and Legal Affairs Department and the military’s Survey Department since then have regarded the 1962 Cabinet’s resolution and the annexed map as their guideline. They deemed that Thailand had given up her sovereignty over the temple, its base and 250,000 square metres of surrounding area to Cambodia.
Another legal question: is the inherent right and the reservation made by Thanat still valid? Some legal experts say Thailand has the right and the reservation exists permanently in accordance with Article 60 of the statute of the ICJ.
However, the interpretation of Article 60 by some academics is misleading, since it only says the judgement is final and without appeal. In the event of a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgement, the court shall construe it upon the request of any party.
There is not a single word mentioning the inherent right and its prescription.
In fact, the parties in the dispute have the right to revise the court’s ruling but Article 61 of the ICJ’s statute suggests that any application for revision may be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgement.
De facto, Thailand retreated from the temple 46 years ago. The right to resume Thai sovereignty has no solid legal grounds to back it up.

BP: Finally! This is what I have been harping on about for the last week. Article 60 doesn’t help and the right of revision under Article 61 has long expired. I am grateful for Supalak’s translation of the note annexed with the map. Does anyone have the Thai text? Or even better a scan of the original note?
btw, Prachatai has an interesting article with a Q and A on Preah Vihear.

ICJ: Preah Vihear and Thai Government Response UPDATE

By Bangkok Pundit Jun 25, 2008 12:02AM UTC

0 Comments and 0 Reactions

UPDATE: The Bangkok Post has a summary.
In regards to Preah Vihear, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued two judgments.
First, in its judgment of 26 May 1961 (PDF) the Court “upheld its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute” which it described in the following terms:

“In the present case, Cambodia alleges a violation on the part of Thailand of Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear and its precincts. Thailand replies by affirming that the area in question lies on the Thai side of the common frontier between the two countries, and is under the sovereignty of Thailand. This is a dispute about territorial sovereignty.”

BP: This was because Thailand had accepted Compulsory Jurisdiction under Article 36(2).
Second, the judgment of 15 June 1962 (PDF) dealt with the substance. Some screenshots from “Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear” (Cambodia v. Thailand), Covey Oliver, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1962), pp. 1033-1053 from pages 1044 and 1046 respectively (click on images for a more readable version)


Selected excerpts:

“The Court however considers that Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Pihear in Cambodian territory”
“FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,
by nine votes to three,
Finds that the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia
by nine votes to three,
that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory;”

Article 60 of the ICJ Statute, stipulates the following:

The judgment is final and without appeal.

Article 61, paragraph 5:

No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.

BP: Now, Thailand disputes whether the court decided on the 4.6km territory beyond Preah Vihear, but not Cambodia’s sovereignty of Preah Vihear.
A translation of a piece written by the Foreign Ministry published in Matichon in March 2008:

Recent media reports on the Temple of Preah Vihear have generated a wide ranging debate. Two issues in particular have been the subject of comments and criticism. First, some Cambodian media and Thai academics wonder why Thailand is attempting to block Cambodia’s application for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the UNESCO World Heritage List given that the International Court of Justice ruled long ago that the Temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia. Second, some Thai media and members of the public fear that the successful inscription of the Preah Vihear Temple would result in loss of Thai territory in the areas in the vicinity of the Temple and wonder what the Government is doing on the matter.
The Temple of Preah Vihear holds an important place in the history of Thai-Cambodian relations as the title over the Temple was once the subject of a dispute between the two countries. The dispute, however, was settled by a result of a judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands, on 15 June 1962, granting the title over the Temple to Cambodia. The Thai cabinet resolution of 1962 demonstrated her acceptance of the ICJ ruling. Therefore, the assumption implicit in the first question that Thailand does not accept Cambodia’s title over the Temple of Preah Vihear is categorically incorrect.
However, the ICJ did not decide on the exact location of the boundary line between Thailand and Cambodia in the area. The same cabinet resolution that accepted the ICJ’s ruling also reiterated Thailand’s understanding of the boundary line in the area. Then Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman also sent a Note to formally inform the United Nations in 1962 of Thailand’s acceptance of Cambodia’s title over the Temple building proper and the boundary line to which Thailand adheres. To date, Thailand still adheres to a different boundary line and a different map than that of Cambodia, resulting in overlapping territorial claims over the areas around the Temple of Preah Vihear.
…
The second question is whether Thailand will lose part of its territory as a result.
Up to this point, the process for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List has not been finalized. Whether or not the Temple will be inscribed on the World Heritage List, the work of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee are entirely unrelated to boundary issues. The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 specifically states: “The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute.” Furthermore, UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee themselves acknowledge that they do not have a mandate or authority regarding boundary matters, as they are interested in and responsible for cooperation on historical and cultural matters only.
Cambodia also confirms that the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear will not affect the boundary claims of both countries. During consultations at the prime ministerial level, between Mr. Samak Sundaravej and Somdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN on 3-4 March 2008, and at the foreign ministerial level, between Mr. Noppadon Pattama and Mr. Hor Namhong in Singpore on 20 February 2008, Cambodia sought Thailand’s support for the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. Cambodia has given an assurance that the inscription will not affect the on-going demarcation works between the two countries. Furthermore, Cambodia’s Foreign Minister has also sent a letter confirming that the inscription will not be considered as demarcation of the land boundary between the two countries.

Last year, when Surayud was PM and during its 31st regular session held in Christchurch, New Zealand, from 23 June to 2 July 2007, the World Heritage Committee examined all the documents relating to the proposal to inscribe the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. The Committee first of all took note of the following statement made by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, approved by the delegation from Cambodia and the delegation from Thailand (PDF):

“The State Party of Cambodia and the State Party of Thailand are in full agreement that the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear has Outstanding Universal Value and must be inscribed on the World Heritage List as soon as possible. Accordingly, Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand.”

BP: Evil Surayud! Is anyone unclear about this?