ABC Radio Australia
Cambodian and Thai negotiators have wrapped up two days of talks aimed at resolving a border dispute which last week flared into deadly gunbattles. They say they have made progress but there appears to be little substantive agreement between the two sides.
Three Thai troops were killed following clashes on Friday over disputed land around the ancient Preah Vihear temple - the deadliest fighting for six months. The World Court gave ownership of the temple to Cambodia in 1962, but tensions flared last July when it was awarded UN World Heritage status.
The latest skirmish comes just days before the countries' leaders meet face to face at the ASEAN summit in Thailand.
Presenter: Joanna McCarthy
Speaker: Professor David Chandler, research fellow in Cambodian history, Monash Asia Institute
McCARTHY: Professor Chandler, is it any surprise to you that this dispute has flared into violence once again?
CHANDLER: Oh not really, because there are a lot of trigger happy soldiers on both sides who feel that they are protecting their national heritage. The Thais feel this temple really belongs to them and the Cambodians think the temple belongs to them and they are not being restrained by their governments to any great extent, I don't think. And also as Ms Percy was saying earlier, that Thailand is a period of considerable instability at the moment. That means that probably people are not paying as much attention to this as they should at the central level.
McCARTHY: Well, these latest talks of course are part of the process that was started after last October's clashes, to try and demarcate the border once and for all, but is there the political will on both sides to resolve this issue?
CHANDLER: It doesn't seem like it, I mean it seems to me if you have political will on both sides, you could resolve it quite quickly. It's not that crucial an issue. But of course matters of national pride are very hard to pin, to keep under control, and this is a matter of national pride on both sides.
McCARTHY: There are key issues that remain unresolved here. Even the official spelling of the temple's name is in dispute. In your view, what are the major obstacles to an agreement?
CHANDLER: Well, I think the major obstacles are the fact that the Thais really don't accept the 1962 ruling that put the temple in Cambodian hands and if the temple is in Cambodian hands, then this World Heritage site thing is another sort of slap in the face for the Thais, who feel that this temple and this whole area belongs to them and would be a prosperous tourist site. I have visited the temple myself, it is very beautiful and there is a tension there between the two countries. I don't see that this is really very soluble, frankly.
McCARTHY: Well, this latest skirmish comes just days before the countries' two leaders are due to meet face-to-face at the ASEAN summit in Thailand. In the longer term, what's it going to mean for the relationship between the two countries?
CHANDLER: I have a feeling the two leaders might be able to iron something out, because they don't want to have this thing go on forever, either of them. Both of them are quite sensible in many ways on issues like this. So it is not in their interest for this thing to drag on, but again I am not sure whose going to have to blink first, if you like. I don't think they are going to go to the meeting blaming each other, but let's just see what happens.
Three Thai troops were killed following clashes on Friday over disputed land around the ancient Preah Vihear temple - the deadliest fighting for six months. The World Court gave ownership of the temple to Cambodia in 1962, but tensions flared last July when it was awarded UN World Heritage status.
The latest skirmish comes just days before the countries' leaders meet face to face at the ASEAN summit in Thailand.
Presenter: Joanna McCarthy
Speaker: Professor David Chandler, research fellow in Cambodian history, Monash Asia Institute
McCARTHY: Professor Chandler, is it any surprise to you that this dispute has flared into violence once again?
CHANDLER: Oh not really, because there are a lot of trigger happy soldiers on both sides who feel that they are protecting their national heritage. The Thais feel this temple really belongs to them and the Cambodians think the temple belongs to them and they are not being restrained by their governments to any great extent, I don't think. And also as Ms Percy was saying earlier, that Thailand is a period of considerable instability at the moment. That means that probably people are not paying as much attention to this as they should at the central level.
McCARTHY: Well, these latest talks of course are part of the process that was started after last October's clashes, to try and demarcate the border once and for all, but is there the political will on both sides to resolve this issue?
CHANDLER: It doesn't seem like it, I mean it seems to me if you have political will on both sides, you could resolve it quite quickly. It's not that crucial an issue. But of course matters of national pride are very hard to pin, to keep under control, and this is a matter of national pride on both sides.
McCARTHY: There are key issues that remain unresolved here. Even the official spelling of the temple's name is in dispute. In your view, what are the major obstacles to an agreement?
CHANDLER: Well, I think the major obstacles are the fact that the Thais really don't accept the 1962 ruling that put the temple in Cambodian hands and if the temple is in Cambodian hands, then this World Heritage site thing is another sort of slap in the face for the Thais, who feel that this temple and this whole area belongs to them and would be a prosperous tourist site. I have visited the temple myself, it is very beautiful and there is a tension there between the two countries. I don't see that this is really very soluble, frankly.
McCARTHY: Well, this latest skirmish comes just days before the countries' two leaders are due to meet face-to-face at the ASEAN summit in Thailand. In the longer term, what's it going to mean for the relationship between the two countries?
CHANDLER: I have a feeling the two leaders might be able to iron something out, because they don't want to have this thing go on forever, either of them. Both of them are quite sensible in many ways on issues like this. So it is not in their interest for this thing to drag on, but again I am not sure whose going to have to blink first, if you like. I don't think they are going to go to the meeting blaming each other, but let's just see what happens.
9 comments:
FUCK YOU PROFESSER CHANDLER.........PRASAT PREAH VIHEAR BELONGS TO THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA.........THE KHMER EMPIRE...............SO FUCK YOU......FUCK YOU.......IAM COOL ....YOUR NOT..........WE DONT THINK , WE KNOW IT BELONGS TO US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have just lost all my respect for Dr. Chandler, the so-called Cambodian expert on a history of Cambodia.
The man has spent so many years studying Cambodian history and is for sure taking pride in considering himself an expert on Cambodia and yet he cannot say and is not sure that Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. This is really absurd!
On page 40 of his own book entitled "A History of Cambodia" 3rd edition published by Silkworm Books in Thailand in 2003, he wrote and I quote, "...Elsewhere throughout his kingdom, he (Yasovarman) ordered temples built on natural hills, the most notable being Preah Vihear on the edge of the precipice that nowadays forms part of the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand."
Having considered yourself a historian of Cambodia, you should have got enough decency to make it clear to your audience that Preah Vihear was built by Yasovarman, a Khmer king inside the Khmer territory. Your audience can decide for themselves in whose ownership Preah vihear should be.
Anet Khmer
Calm down this instant, Poster 9:58. The professor did not say anything about Preah Vihear belonging to Thailand at all. Please reread his comment. He simply interprets the Thai behavior of not accepting the 1962 International Court Ruling in favoring of Cambodia. That is all that he says. Now wouldn't you say the same thing as well if the Thais still want to change the Khmer name into their name and then on top of it demand that both the Thai and Khmer names be used at the same time. At least for me I learned a lot from the professor's interpreatation and comment. He is a very knowledgeable and intelligent man and he's really an enlightened expert who see how things are connected and will play out...
Cambodia side should suggest Thailand to Call Bangkok as " Beung Kok " (Beung Kak is a Lake full with Reed.....and Khmer name we have another Beung Kak in PPenh
I think it is YOU 1:40pm who needs to hold your horse, not 9:58. It is well known that Prof. Chandler is an expert of Khmer History. He knows very well whom Preah Vihear is belong too. My point, in addition to 9:58, is that Prof. Chandler is chicken and bias. He doesn't have a gut to say that Preah Vihear is belong to Cambodia. That is the truth behind his interview. He takes side on Thailand.
He is American whose country is closed ally with Thailand. He is just playing word, trying not to reveal the truth. I dare to say that AGAIN Prof. Chandler is just hopeless.
What I am arguing here is not against your personality with Prof Chandler, but in the matter of academic accountability which he should bear.
4:16
RTFA (Read the F***king Article)
All his comments that he made in the interview are accurate and relevant.
It is what he didn't say that is interesting, specifically that Preah Vihear was built by a Khmer King.
The reason for this we can only speculate on, but it is probably because he doesn't want to inflame tensions on the issue any further.
I mean, khmer kings built temples and palaces deep, in what is now known as Thailand, does this mean that it is khmer land.
Just bear in mind that this whole dispute is not over Preah Vihear itself, (though the Thais noses are out of joint because it is now a World heritage site), but it is about the land around it.
Also the Thais are pi**ed off with Hun Sen that he's letting Thaksin stay in Cambodia and throw stones at the Thai politicians from inside Cambodia
Have had very bad experiences with foreigner Cambodia Experts" most of them are Caucasians.
I think, Professor David Chandler lost his horizon and orientation. Maybe he was talking the Indian from Northern America and not about Cambodian.
5:06pm that's a bit nasty and rude. why don't you read my comment again, thoroughly. Did you?
what I am trying to say is just to argue about his interview which is not reflected to his academic related to Cambodian history. Of course I don't give a fuck what your personal rapport/relationship with Prof Chandler. I do also have good knowledge about temples and palaces built by the ancient Khmer Kings, and now located in Thailand. Thanks anyway for that!
Why are you so sure about him trying not to inflame the tension? You might to learn more about that professor. He is an academic who should reveal the truth. He is not a politician. That's what I am giving a shit.
Thailand wants more of our land.
Thailand cannot get enough of our land.
Thai military cross border into Cambodia intended to claims our territory.
Thai military occupied three of our temples and near by Preah Vihear temples.
Thailand have an ambition to claim Preah Vihear temples as their own.
Thailand wanted Prasat Preah Vihear temples to be call Prasat Khao Phra Vihan temple in Thai language.
Cambodia did not even take Thai's land.
Cambodian soldiers did not even cross the border into Thailand.
But ah Hun Sen give away our island Koh Tral to Vietnam.
Almost half of our ocean territory goes with Koh Tral island.
Almost half of our oil fields goes with Koh Tral island.
Thailand wants more of our land.
Ah Hun Sen give away our land.
This show that Ah Hun Sen have no interest in protect Cambodian territory.
Because Ah Hun Sen trade Koh Tral island for his power to Vietnam.
The Khmer peoples continue to have heartaches because Thai took our territories and our peoples.
The Khmer peoples continue to have heartaches because Vietnamese took our territories and our peoples.
This heartaches will go on for many more generations.
Post a Comment