This Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn U. is a complete IDIOT when it comes to knowledge of Preah Vihear history

The politics of Preah Vihear and Phra Viharn Preah Vihear

Friday July 25, 2008
THITINAN PONGSUDHIRAK
Bangkok Post

While the military build-up between opposing Thai and Cambodian armed forces over the Preah Vihear temple controversy has reached a standstill following inclusive talks between the two sides, Phnom Penh's diplomatic offensive is well under way. After its unsuccessful bid to put the issue for regional discussion among Asean members, Cambodia is now seeking a multilateral solution to this longstanding bilateral territorial dispute, threatening to put the United Nations Security Council on the spot.

It has become a foreboding tussle between Cambodia's legal merits and Thailand's historical claims that has far-reaching repercussions. Although the narrative of what Cambodians have referred to as Preah Vihear and Thais as Phra Viharn is complicated and technical, the main points of contention are not difficult to discern.

Phnom Penh insists that the 4.6 square kilometres adjoining the temple complex has been under Cambodia's territorial sovereignty since the International Court of Justice's landmark adjudication in 1962. In its 9-to-3 verdict, the ICJ ruled that Cambodia's submitted map, drawn up by French surveyors during 1904-07, put the temple area in Cambodia proper because Thailand (then known as Siam until 1939) did not object. Without Siam's visible and vigorous objections during the interim, the ICJ ruled that Cambodia's map carried the day.

Sensing an opportunity during the hearings in 1962, Cambodia further requested the ICJ's adjudication over the adjacent land area but the judges placed their jurisdiction only over the temple as per Cambodia's original case submission.

This French-made map thus became the core of contention because it defied and manipulated natural geographic divisions. Siam then did not, as Thailand now does not, accept the French-made and Cambodian-peddled map over ''Phra Viharn'' because it contravenes the Franco-Siamese agreement of 1904, which stipulated that the map was to be demarcated along a watershed line separating the two countries.

French mapping also took place just a decade after Siam ceded a clutch of territories to France. It was a period when France lorded it over Indochina as a colonial master and when Thailand was compelled to trade off a host of unequal treaties with European powers for its independence.

Unsurprisingly, none of the judges in 1962 said that the French map was fair and just. Their point was that the absence of Siam's explicit rejection of the map was tantamount to an implicit acceptance. A dissenting judge from Australia, Sir Percy Spender, in fact stipulated in his opinion that the temple area was in Thai territory due to the watershed line.

Over the past century of Preah Vihear controversy, Thailand has never recognised this map but it did accept the ICJ ruling on the temple complex itself. Cambodia's ongoing manoeuvres to claim the adjacent 4.6 square kilometres of territory to be under its sovereignty, are ironically intended to benefit from the fruits of French imperialism, from which the country itself suffered for decades.

Yet the Cambodians are unlikely to cease their claims. Phnom Penh knows it has the upper hand both on the legal merits and on the domestic divisions in Thailand.

Bangkok is still without a foreign minister after the incumbent Noppadon Pattama resigned in disgrace following the Thai Constitution Court's ruling against the joint communique between Bangkok and Phnom Penh agreeing to let Cambodia unilaterally register Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage Site.

Thailand is also deeply polarised, stuck in a protracted political crisis. Another Cambodian submission to the ICJ to rule on the sovereignty over the 4.6 square kilometres, based on the 1962 precedent, would be a blow to Bangkok.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his embattled government have suggested that the controversy will dissipate after Cambodia's general election this Sunday.

This is a misplaced assumption.

Cambodia 's bid for the temple's designation as a World Heritage Site goes back to 1992 and actively took hold well before the Thai political crisis and Cambodia's elections. Phnom Penh's claim is thus likely to continue after Sunday.

If Cambodia fails at the UNSC due to Thailand's staunch and longstanding friendships with the majority of the Permanent Five, it will still press the case on a bilateral basis.

What Mr Samak must do now is to de-politicise the Preah Vihear controversy by appointing an autonomous team of diplomats and relevant officials and experts who are insulated from the cut-and-thrust of the Thai political crisis, to mount Thailand's case.

If the new foreign minister must come from the patronage party quota system, then a deputy or equivalent should appointed who should be a respected outsider.

He then should be given a green light and full support to direct Thailand's legal and diplomatic efforts.

Equally important, the People's Alliance for Democracy and other anti-government groups bent on overthrowing Mr Samak's government, must lay off the Preah Vihear issue. If they continue to exploit this matter to bring down the government, it would play into Cambodia's advantage.

Preah Vihear should be off-limits to both the PAD and Prime Minister Samak's lieutenants and other proxies of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Indeed, the Preah Vihear temple belongs to Cambodia, but the adjacent land should be jointly developed, supervised and managed. While legality gives Cambodia an edge, geography is firmly on Thailand's side.

The status quo of joint use by both Thais and Cambodians has worked well until recent weeks. It should be restored.

The writer is Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.