Wednesday July 23, 2008
DR. SOMKIATI ARIYAPRUCHYA
Bangkok Post
The recent military buildup along the Thai-Cambodian border is proving to be very disturbing because both sides have a lot to gain and a lot more to lose if the matter is not quickly brought to a peaceful end.
One must look at the big picture. Continued good relations between the two countries would reap huge benefits for Cambodia and Thailand in terms of increased tourism, cross-border trade and investment, and people-to-people contact.
Conflicts among neighbours in Indochina on border issues are nothing new, however. They are often the legacy of brutal, schematic and unjust colonialism in the 19th century.
France came to Indochina in the mid-19th century and by 1862 had subdued most of Vietnam. It then cast its greedy eyes over all of Southeast Asia right up to Yunnan, with an aim to rival England's colonial influence in Burma and India.
The Franco-Cambodian Treaty of 1863 made Cambodia a French Protectorate. Next, it was Siam (as Thailand was known then). By the Treaties of 1893, 1904 and 1907, parts of Siam were ceded to France which would later become known as the territories of Laos and Cambodia. This explains why there were treaties between Siam and France regarding the borders between Siam and her neighbours, Laos and Cambodia. These treaties were unequal treaties, one-sided, and imposed upon the weak by the strong.
For a clear understanding of thePhra Viharn Preah Vihear temple case, it is necessary to delve into the details.
The 1904 Treaty stipulates that the watershed would form the borderline between Siam and France's Cambodia around the region where the temple is located. The Treaty of 1904 leaves the demarcation of the actual watershed line to the Mixed Delimitation Commission.
The so-called Annex I map drawn up by the Delimitation Commission placed the temple within the border of Cambodia even though it did not conform to the principle of the watershed line.
The watershed line, as determined by experts, would place the temple within the Siamese border.
The International Court of Justice on June 15, 1962, by 9 to 3 votes, declared that sovereignty over the Temple ofPhra Viharn Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia.
The Court, while recognising the principle of the watershed line, placed more importance on the Annex 1 map, which it believed was based on the work of the Mixed Delimitation Committee.
The Court also noted that Siam, and later Thailand, had never protested against the inaccuracy of Annex 1 when it had several opportunities to do so until 1958.
The Court therefore ruled that Thailand was stopped from claiming territorial sovereignty overPhra Viharn Preah Vihear temple.
However, the Court's decision was considered by the government and the public of Thailand to be contrary to international law, the principles of justice and the facts of the case. It was deemed as yet another injustice inflicted on Thailand.
The Court's decision, while awardingPhra ViharnPreah Vihear temple to Cambodia, was silent on the frontier demarcation. Thus, the border demarcation issue remains. Cambodia and Thailand remain at loggerheads over the demarcation of the frontier.
The temple issue must be viewed in the right historical context. Prior to the colonial encroachment of France and England in the late 19th century, there was no fixed and clear border demarcation among countries in the Southeast Asian region.
The region was loosely structured under a tributary system. The practice of clear territorial demarcation was then alien to both Cambodia, Thailand and indeed the non-Western world.
The issue ofPhra Viharn Preah Vihear should be considered by both Cambodia and Thailand as an unwanted legacy of colonialism. The past should not be allowed to cloud the bright future ahead for all concerned.
Both countries have tremendous benefits from peace, bilateral cooperation and regional cooperation through the various regional mechanisms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), GMS (Greater Mekong Subregion) and ACMECS (The Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy).
What, then, is the win-win way forward?
In my view, the Asean way should be utilised. In other words, disputes should be settled through diplomatic means.
At present, Cambodia has gone ahead with its unilateral inscription of thePhra Viharn Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage Site.
Looking at the big picture, Cambodia should be magnanimous enough to invite Thailand to jointly inscribe the temple. Such an action would be in the national interest of Cambodia. Phnom Penh may still invite a joint inscription even at this late hour.
There is nothing in the rules and regulations of the World Heritage Committee that forbids joint inscription even after a unilateral inscription has been granted.
This magnanimous act would in one fell swoop cool down the current dispute and make the temple ofPhra Viharn Preah Vihear truly a world heritage site of universal value and a symbol of cooperation between the two countries for years to come.
Looking further into the future, the win-win way to cement good relations between Cambodia, Thailand and indeed Laos, would be to form a CALATHAI Community (acronym for Cambodia, Laos and Thailand), a la Benelux and the wider EU. Through positive functionalism, they will achieve a deeper integration in the areas of goods, capital and labour. The prosperity and destiny of these countries will thus become inextricably intertwined.
As citizens of the member countries find it easier to live and practice their profession wherever they want in the community, so would the question of territorial sovereignty decline in importance.
The greater goal of joint prosperity, stability and peace would therefore be achieved.
This win-win way forward is not easy; it requires magnanimity, bravery, vision and political will on the part of leaders. Now is the time to rise to this challenge.
The author is dean of the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies, Rangsit University. This article is based on his speech at the 6th IDIS Forum on July 11, 2008.
One must look at the big picture. Continued good relations between the two countries would reap huge benefits for Cambodia and Thailand in terms of increased tourism, cross-border trade and investment, and people-to-people contact.
Conflicts among neighbours in Indochina on border issues are nothing new, however. They are often the legacy of brutal, schematic and unjust colonialism in the 19th century.
France came to Indochina in the mid-19th century and by 1862 had subdued most of Vietnam. It then cast its greedy eyes over all of Southeast Asia right up to Yunnan, with an aim to rival England's colonial influence in Burma and India.
The Franco-Cambodian Treaty of 1863 made Cambodia a French Protectorate. Next, it was Siam (as Thailand was known then). By the Treaties of 1893, 1904 and 1907, parts of Siam were ceded to France which would later become known as the territories of Laos and Cambodia. This explains why there were treaties between Siam and France regarding the borders between Siam and her neighbours, Laos and Cambodia. These treaties were unequal treaties, one-sided, and imposed upon the weak by the strong.
For a clear understanding of the
The 1904 Treaty stipulates that the watershed would form the borderline between Siam and France's Cambodia around the region where the temple is located. The Treaty of 1904 leaves the demarcation of the actual watershed line to the Mixed Delimitation Commission.
The so-called Annex I map drawn up by the Delimitation Commission placed the temple within the border of Cambodia even though it did not conform to the principle of the watershed line.
The watershed line, as determined by experts, would place the temple within the Siamese border.
The International Court of Justice on June 15, 1962, by 9 to 3 votes, declared that sovereignty over the Temple of
The Court, while recognising the principle of the watershed line, placed more importance on the Annex 1 map, which it believed was based on the work of the Mixed Delimitation Committee.
The Court also noted that Siam, and later Thailand, had never protested against the inaccuracy of Annex 1 when it had several opportunities to do so until 1958.
The Court therefore ruled that Thailand was stopped from claiming territorial sovereignty over
However, the Court's decision was considered by the government and the public of Thailand to be contrary to international law, the principles of justice and the facts of the case. It was deemed as yet another injustice inflicted on Thailand.
The Court's decision, while awarding
The temple issue must be viewed in the right historical context. Prior to the colonial encroachment of France and England in the late 19th century, there was no fixed and clear border demarcation among countries in the Southeast Asian region.
The region was loosely structured under a tributary system. The practice of clear territorial demarcation was then alien to both Cambodia, Thailand and indeed the non-Western world.
The issue of
Both countries have tremendous benefits from peace, bilateral cooperation and regional cooperation through the various regional mechanisms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), GMS (Greater Mekong Subregion) and ACMECS (The Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy).
What, then, is the win-win way forward?
In my view, the Asean way should be utilised. In other words, disputes should be settled through diplomatic means.
At present, Cambodia has gone ahead with its unilateral inscription of the
Looking at the big picture, Cambodia should be magnanimous enough to invite Thailand to jointly inscribe the temple. Such an action would be in the national interest of Cambodia. Phnom Penh may still invite a joint inscription even at this late hour.
There is nothing in the rules and regulations of the World Heritage Committee that forbids joint inscription even after a unilateral inscription has been granted.
This magnanimous act would in one fell swoop cool down the current dispute and make the temple of
Looking further into the future, the win-win way to cement good relations between Cambodia, Thailand and indeed Laos, would be to form a CALATHAI Community (acronym for Cambodia, Laos and Thailand), a la Benelux and the wider EU. Through positive functionalism, they will achieve a deeper integration in the areas of goods, capital and labour. The prosperity and destiny of these countries will thus become inextricably intertwined.
As citizens of the member countries find it easier to live and practice their profession wherever they want in the community, so would the question of territorial sovereignty decline in importance.
The greater goal of joint prosperity, stability and peace would therefore be achieved.
This win-win way forward is not easy; it requires magnanimity, bravery, vision and political will on the part of leaders. Now is the time to rise to this challenge.
The author is dean of the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies, Rangsit University. This article is based on his speech at the 6th IDIS Forum on July 11, 2008.
9 comments:
Do you think hun sen wants to win about Preah Vihear's problem? No he never care about Khmer the real example is he signed land with ranaroth and give it to youn. He never thought to build a road to Preah Vihear why? No benefit for him if he did that Good road will give benefit to our Khmer people also easy to provide all needs to the troops to protech our land. Now you all should knew why? hun sen is a smart man and know well how to destroy.
Fuck you the dean. You are Thai that why you want Cambodia to put Preah Vihear in jointly with Thai to UNESCO.
How stupid you are thinking that Cambodia should jointly with Thai while the temple is 100% belong to Cambodia?
Idiot you....
Fucking the dean Rangsit University , every time your think about foolish idea?? you have no way to encroachment on Cambodia Land and think cannot win when United Nation settle this matter so want to share with Cambodia? The Siam (Thai) Dean are you doctor or dog? Did you know or don't know Cambodia Territory... ok Bangkok, Si Sa ket, Burirum and Other Province can share with Cambodia or not?
It's a win-win strategy to put Khmer style Prasat Phanom Rung, and Khmer former Sisaket province as joined-ownership between Cambodia and Thailand.
So its not okay for French colonialism but its A.O.K for Thai colonialism?
So its not okay to accept western idea of border demarcation but its A.O.K for Thai to draw border line to include Preah Vihear land in "Thai Territory"?
So your best idea is to make a region without the importance of border but stresses the dominance of calaTHAI and eliminate the significance of Cambodian and Laos?
Sorry, we Khmer are not O.K. with any Colonialism either. Be it from French or the yesterday born nation of Siam/Thailand.
did you know dean at this time don't have idea to cambodian people or our leader. you should take time to teach your student your people and expecially your leader which one is for thai which one is for Cambodia, or sorry don't from where to where of Khmer Empire.. the same as Myanmar history say Myanmar border close to Khmer Empire and Laos not Siam.
IS IT FAIR AND EQUAL TO CAMBODIA WHEN THE STRONG THAILAND INVADED THE WEAK KHMER AND ANNEXED KHMER'S PROVINCES SUCH AS SURIN,SI SA KET,BURRIRAM, ETC.?????.This question the DEAN at The Institute Of Diplomacy of Rangsit University.
There is no such thing as Thai colonial. They are just simple people who migrate from China like everyone else to seek a better place to raise their family, and got caught up in the Khmer-against-Khmer's dispute. Isn't that the truth?
yeah, right, in their dream only!!! damage has been done already! didn't thailand meddle with cambodia's listing of preah vihear for world heritage? and failed!!! and now thailand want to share bilaterally? year right!!!!! not in this life time or any other life time, thieves!!!!! god bless cambodia.
Post a Comment