July 30, 2010
By Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation
Many people have observed that it was very "un-Abhisit" for the prime minister to threaten to burn the bridges with Unesco without eloquently explaining what on earth was going on in Brazil.
Abhisit Vejjajiva's scathing attacks on the Samak Sundaravej government two years ago over its support for Cambodia's attempts to register Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site have limited the prime minister's options. In the 2008 showdown, Abhisit and other Democrats deplored the Samak administration's move as something that might undermine the future Thai stand when it comes to the controversial temple and surrounding areas.
Defending its decision to support Cambodia's registration efforts, the Samak government pointed to two basic legal points. The first was the World Court ruling in 1962 declaring that the temple was on Cambodian territory. The second was Article 61 of the World Court ruling, which states: "No application for revision may be made after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgement." Article 61 featured prominently in Cambodia's application document to Unesco, with "LAPSE OF TEN YEARS" written in capital letters.)
The Democrat camp led by Abhisit at the time pointed out Article 60 of the court's ruling. This article allows warring parties to reserve doubts and observations concerning rulings and, unlike Article 61, this one does not spell out any time frame. Which article carries stronger weight is debatable, but the battle line was clearly drawn. The Democrats were saying that any Thai move that could weaken Thailand's "silent protest" against the World Court ruling had to be avoided.
Now that the temple has become a World Heritage Site and the Cambodians are seeking to submit its management plan to Unesco, the Democrats, now in government, find themselves in an awkward position. Supporting the management plan could easily be regarded as hypocrisy and everything could blow up in Abhisit's face.
Ironically, the Abhisit government has found itself more or less in the same situation as the Samak administration. On one hand, there is nothing Thailand could have done to change the fact that the temple belongs to Cambodia. On the other hand, any act to directly or indirectly support Cambodia's sovereign rights could dash any lingering hope for Thai-land to re-file the temple dispute case and, probably worse, embolden Cambo-dia to make related territorial claims.
The Thai delegation led by Natural Resources Minister Suwit Khunkitti went to Brazil somewhat in the dark, not knowing if the Cambodians had sneaked in any sensitive territorial information when they proposed the management plan. When the People's Alliance for Democracy staged a sit-in in front of the Unesco Bangkok office on Wednesday, Abhisit had no choice but to act tough.
In fact, there are considerable safeguards. It is stated clearly in Unesco rules that declaration of a World Heritage Site is not legally binding when overlapping territorial claims are concerned. And a management plan for a World Heritage Site is even less likely to enable one party to assert new territorial claims.
But it doesn't matter now whether concern that Phnom Penh could gain the upper hand over disputed areas surrounding the temple if Thailand supports the management plan is solid or not. The issue has become politically charged, with nationalism about to simmer. One wrong move and what Abhisit said in Parliament to the Samak government in 2008 would come back to haunt him big time. The Pheu Thai Party, surely, must be combing the video and audio archives of the Thai Parliament right now. Abhisit can only hope Unesco will delay the issue, or he will come under great pressure to make good his threat, regardless of whether the management plan is Cambodia's secret tool to gain more ground, literally, or not.
Abhisit Vejjajiva's scathing attacks on the Samak Sundaravej government two years ago over its support for Cambodia's attempts to register Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site have limited the prime minister's options. In the 2008 showdown, Abhisit and other Democrats deplored the Samak administration's move as something that might undermine the future Thai stand when it comes to the controversial temple and surrounding areas.
Defending its decision to support Cambodia's registration efforts, the Samak government pointed to two basic legal points. The first was the World Court ruling in 1962 declaring that the temple was on Cambodian territory. The second was Article 61 of the World Court ruling, which states: "No application for revision may be made after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgement." Article 61 featured prominently in Cambodia's application document to Unesco, with "LAPSE OF TEN YEARS" written in capital letters.)
The Democrat camp led by Abhisit at the time pointed out Article 60 of the court's ruling. This article allows warring parties to reserve doubts and observations concerning rulings and, unlike Article 61, this one does not spell out any time frame. Which article carries stronger weight is debatable, but the battle line was clearly drawn. The Democrats were saying that any Thai move that could weaken Thailand's "silent protest" against the World Court ruling had to be avoided.
Now that the temple has become a World Heritage Site and the Cambodians are seeking to submit its management plan to Unesco, the Democrats, now in government, find themselves in an awkward position. Supporting the management plan could easily be regarded as hypocrisy and everything could blow up in Abhisit's face.
Ironically, the Abhisit government has found itself more or less in the same situation as the Samak administration. On one hand, there is nothing Thailand could have done to change the fact that the temple belongs to Cambodia. On the other hand, any act to directly or indirectly support Cambodia's sovereign rights could dash any lingering hope for Thai-land to re-file the temple dispute case and, probably worse, embolden Cambo-dia to make related territorial claims.
The Thai delegation led by Natural Resources Minister Suwit Khunkitti went to Brazil somewhat in the dark, not knowing if the Cambodians had sneaked in any sensitive territorial information when they proposed the management plan. When the People's Alliance for Democracy staged a sit-in in front of the Unesco Bangkok office on Wednesday, Abhisit had no choice but to act tough.
In fact, there are considerable safeguards. It is stated clearly in Unesco rules that declaration of a World Heritage Site is not legally binding when overlapping territorial claims are concerned. And a management plan for a World Heritage Site is even less likely to enable one party to assert new territorial claims.
But it doesn't matter now whether concern that Phnom Penh could gain the upper hand over disputed areas surrounding the temple if Thailand supports the management plan is solid or not. The issue has become politically charged, with nationalism about to simmer. One wrong move and what Abhisit said in Parliament to the Samak government in 2008 would come back to haunt him big time. The Pheu Thai Party, surely, must be combing the video and audio archives of the Thai Parliament right now. Abhisit can only hope Unesco will delay the issue, or he will come under great pressure to make good his threat, regardless of whether the management plan is Cambodia's secret tool to gain more ground, literally, or not.
6 comments:
it is naive to say that siem goal is not to gain ownership of preah vihear temple. why don't siem just say it out loud to cambodia and the world to hear that thay want cambodia's preah vihear temple; that's their main goal since day one! why they play beat around the bushes and pretend that it's not cambodia's preah vihear temple that they are after. what, they insult cambodia and the world for pretending not to know siem's illegal dream? give me a break, siem monkey! mabye we are right to call them monkeys because apparently they do not understand the international law, etc...! it's like explaining to an adhd(attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) child! i hope unesco will reconsider siem's membership from this professional world body and replace it with cambodia member on the committee instead. enough already with siem pad thugs!
Abhisit government is illigal and a hyjacker from their very own people right. Thai cut their body and drop blood to splash at the government building should really mean something, but...
It's the abhisit's game to lose more Cambodian interest in Thailand.
What a major embarrassment to Thailand in the eyes of the world!
Even Thai academics view what the Abhisit administration is doing is shameful all other Thais who truly belive the temple was built by Cambodian King on Cambodian land...and the ICJ verdict some 48 years ago was fair based on the evidents which were presented at the time.
Sok An declared: "We have given Thailand too much already"!!
Absolutely true...where was Thailand 900 years ago? Haven't Thailand got enough of Khmer already? In all about 198,115 sq. mi. or 513,120 km2.
One may not know, the current Thai language contains about 2500 Khmer words or 40% of the Thai language.
No other other cultures on the planets are closely similar than Thai and Khmer (perhaps Laotian)
Thai and Khmer use the same numerals.
No other Monarchy are related or in close contact to each other than Khmer and Thai.
Isn't it time that we get along instead of fostering hate and greed toward one another?
As Thaksin puts it...wouldn't it good if we all progress together?
God Bless HM Bhumibol and HM Sihanouk as both share Khmer-Thai ancestry!
Botra Souvannaphoum
Since Hun Sen was a Khmer Rouge commander, now a Khmer Rouge leader and had many of his political opponents and journalists assassinated, I wonder if he have any plan to assassinate the Thai Prime Minister (Ahbullshit Vejjajiva)?
Thai think and talk Monkey just like the Thai Monkey King because Thai are Monkey Alip Alop.
Post a Comment