By Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation
The opposition and red-shirted protesters should not "politicise" the Thailand-Cambodia border issue for their own benefit in the battle against the government, since such a move could spoil the on-going border settlement efforts. Ads by Google
This country has already learnt from previous episodes of power struggle that nationalism and politicised border conflict can worsen relations with its neighbour.
The red-shirted Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) should not repeat this mistake because it would not bring any good to the country, only problems and trouble.
The yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesters employed the notion of bruised nationalism to politicise the border dispute at Preah Vihear to shoot down Noppadon Pattama from his post as foreign minister last year.
The PAD and its allies in Parliament accused Noppadon of claiming lost sovereignty over the disputed areas adjacent to the temple. The attack not only toppled Noppadon but also brought on a border skirmish in October 2008, which killed four soldiers on both sides.
Former foreign minister Tej Bunnag spent every minute of his one month in office fixing the problem. He reinstalled the Thai-Cambodia Joint Commission on Demarcation of the Land Boundary (JBC), a mechanism of negotiation for demarcation and provisional arrangement to handle the disputed areas.
The JBC is now working hard to lay out fundamental plans and infrastructure to demarcate the boundary and settle the dispute.
However, the task is still at an early stage and the boundary is not yet clear. Some disputes still remain since both sides have not stopped developing the border for economic benefit. Cambodia has built a new road to the Preah Vihear through an overlapping area, prompting diplomatic protests from Thailand.
Of course, making any change in the overlapping area is against the Memorandum of Understanding signed by both countries in 2000, but such a violation should not lead to a major conflict between the two sides.
The JBC could handle the issue. It can use diplomatic negotiation and technical methods to settle the problem provided the issue is not over-politicised.
Unfortunately, the opposition Pheu Thai Party during the censure debate last week borrowed the PAD and Democrat's tactics to turn the tables, using the Thai-Cambodian border issue to attack Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. The opposition, together with DAAD, accused Kasit of losing 250 metres of territory as he ignored Cambodia's road construction in the overlapping area. They demanded that Kasit adopt the very same rhetoric he used when he joined the PAD protest last year.
They know, like Kasit and the PAD, that nationalism is nonsense in this context and never helps settle a border dispute with a neighbouring country; it could even worsen the situation. A worse border situation would mean trouble for the government in domestic political affairs.
The JBC is scheduled to have the next round of meetings in Phnom Penh on April 6-7 to continue negotiations on boundary demarcation and a provisional arrangement for the disputed area near Preah Vihear. Political pressure at home could jeopardise the talks.
The JBC has some differences to overcome in the next meeting - seeking a common term to call the Hindu temple on the cliff, which Thailand wants to call Phra Viharn while Cambodia prefers Preah Vihear. They also need a single name for a security unit to take care of the area.
Vasin Teeravechyan, head of Thai JBC, said he could not expect the next meeting to yield a breakthrough, since both sides have no point of compromise.
As long as terms for the temple are not settled, the minute of agreement could not be signed and other tasks could not be started, he said.
However, negotiators and technicians could find a solution eventually, he said, as long as politicians and protesters don't pressure the talks.
"I always say that the boundary demarcation is time-consuming work. If we rush to get the result, we will lose everything," he said.
This country has already learnt from previous episodes of power struggle that nationalism and politicised border conflict can worsen relations with its neighbour.
The red-shirted Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) should not repeat this mistake because it would not bring any good to the country, only problems and trouble.
The yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesters employed the notion of bruised nationalism to politicise the border dispute at Preah Vihear to shoot down Noppadon Pattama from his post as foreign minister last year.
The PAD and its allies in Parliament accused Noppadon of claiming lost sovereignty over the disputed areas adjacent to the temple. The attack not only toppled Noppadon but also brought on a border skirmish in October 2008, which killed four soldiers on both sides.
Former foreign minister Tej Bunnag spent every minute of his one month in office fixing the problem. He reinstalled the Thai-Cambodia Joint Commission on Demarcation of the Land Boundary (JBC), a mechanism of negotiation for demarcation and provisional arrangement to handle the disputed areas.
The JBC is now working hard to lay out fundamental plans and infrastructure to demarcate the boundary and settle the dispute.
However, the task is still at an early stage and the boundary is not yet clear. Some disputes still remain since both sides have not stopped developing the border for economic benefit. Cambodia has built a new road to the Preah Vihear through an overlapping area, prompting diplomatic protests from Thailand.
Of course, making any change in the overlapping area is against the Memorandum of Understanding signed by both countries in 2000, but such a violation should not lead to a major conflict between the two sides.
The JBC could handle the issue. It can use diplomatic negotiation and technical methods to settle the problem provided the issue is not over-politicised.
Unfortunately, the opposition Pheu Thai Party during the censure debate last week borrowed the PAD and Democrat's tactics to turn the tables, using the Thai-Cambodian border issue to attack Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya. The opposition, together with DAAD, accused Kasit of losing 250 metres of territory as he ignored Cambodia's road construction in the overlapping area. They demanded that Kasit adopt the very same rhetoric he used when he joined the PAD protest last year.
They know, like Kasit and the PAD, that nationalism is nonsense in this context and never helps settle a border dispute with a neighbouring country; it could even worsen the situation. A worse border situation would mean trouble for the government in domestic political affairs.
The JBC is scheduled to have the next round of meetings in Phnom Penh on April 6-7 to continue negotiations on boundary demarcation and a provisional arrangement for the disputed area near Preah Vihear. Political pressure at home could jeopardise the talks.
The JBC has some differences to overcome in the next meeting - seeking a common term to call the Hindu temple on the cliff, which Thailand wants to call Phra Viharn while Cambodia prefers Preah Vihear. They also need a single name for a security unit to take care of the area.
Vasin Teeravechyan, head of Thai JBC, said he could not expect the next meeting to yield a breakthrough, since both sides have no point of compromise.
As long as terms for the temple are not settled, the minute of agreement could not be signed and other tasks could not be started, he said.
However, negotiators and technicians could find a solution eventually, he said, as long as politicians and protesters don't pressure the talks.
"I always say that the boundary demarcation is time-consuming work. If we rush to get the result, we will lose everything," he said.
11 comments:
i a muslim fighter will fight thai to the death with my khmer people
khmer/muslim in south thailand
Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962
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.
KI MEDIA YOU ARE JUST STIRRING THINGS UP MORE.....this article was posted by the thais.........we dont wanna hear there shit its PRASAT PREAH VIHEAR..........THAT HINDU TEMPLE IS A KHMER TEMPLE STOP GETTING IT TWISTED
To all brother in "YALA" don't give up the fight! your day is coming! you'll be free my brother and sister...
Khmer border/tmt.
For along time Thai had abuse my brother and sister in (SOUTHERN), and i wanted to say again and again to all dear brother in "YALA" to kept up the fight!!!!
khmer border/Trop mt.
Hi bros,
Count me in, I am khmer from Borey Rum (Buriram). We will free Borey Rum, Surin, Si sla ket, Chak cheong smao, Trach, Chul borey,Nokor Reachseima......from the siem, our former slaves..
Most Wanted:
Name: Anupong Paochinda
Sex: Gay
Age: Nearly gone to hell
Job: Commander in chief of the Killers, Gay Gang Rape Maniac
Supposed Location: Bangcock, capital of Gayfuckers.
Reward: you will receive as much as you can+one night with Siem Queen and her daughters.
From Hun Sen.
These fucken Siem leaders and people think that the Khmer-Siem conflict will only confine to the border conflict and before they know it and it will reach Southern in Yala, Patani...
Khmer people remembered how these Siem military thugs treat the Muslim like animal and Khmer people will refuse to be treated as such!
The Siem bring war to the Khmer and the Khmer will war to the Siem!
Siem try and Siem will die!
Cambodia did not build the new road to the Preah Vihear through an overlapping area. We build the road within our territory. It’s only Thai robber that always wants to steal Cambodian land.
Go to Hell Ah bias reporter, Supalak Ganjankhundee!
Anonymous said...
ពួកអ្នកឯងប៉ុន្មាននាក់នេះមិនគួរពួកពលពត
មិនយកជីវិតឲ្យអស់នៅក្នុងឆ្នំា១៩៧៥ទៅទល់
ឆ្នាំ១៩៧៩សោះពួកអ្នកឯងប៉ុន្មាននាក់ធ្វើ
ឲ្យប្រទេសខ្មែរក្រឡាប់ចាក់អស់ហើយ
ពួកអ្នកឯងទាំងអស់គ្នានេះគឺជាពួកអគតិ។
គ្មានការពិចារណាបន្តិចសោះដោយជឿតែ
ពួកជនបរទេស។ពួកអ្នកឯងទាំងអស់គ្នា
ហ្នឹងមិនមែនជាខ្មែរទេគឺពួកភេវរកម្មធ្វើ
ឲ្យប្រទេសខ្មែរបែកបាក់សាម្គីរដ្ធាភិបាល
គួរតែយកពួកនេះទៅញាត់កុកទៅ
ទើបអស់រឿង។ហើយទើបវាសំមុក។
11:05 AM,
You're so retarded and ignorant!!!
Post a Comment