PAD Thai and Abishit could turn Thailand into an international laughing stock: The Nation

Nationalists risk making us a laughing stock

August 19, 2010
By Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation

The ICJ judgement is final and without appeal. Many nationalists might not like the ruling but raising the old argument these days in an attempt to do away with the MoU is absolutely ridiculous.

Nationalists, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva amongst them, should stop their rhetoric that the Kingdom has never accepted the French-made, 1:200,000-scale Thailand-Cambodia border map, otherwise it could turn the country into an international laughing stock.

The map was a key piece of evidence used by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in reaching its ruling in 1962 that the Hindu Khmer temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.

The nationalists have demanded that Abhisit's government revoke the memorandum of understanding on boundary demarcation signed with Cambodia in 2000 on the grounds that the pact recognised a map that in their view Thailand had never accepted.

Abhisit said he also believed Thailand had never recognised the map, but he cannot revoke the MoU since it was signed by the then Democrat-led government of Chuan Leekpai. If it had been signed by ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's government, like the 2001 maritime MoU with Cambodia, perhaps this government would not hesitate to scrap it.

Abhisit said the 2000 MoU recognised all other French-made maps with the exception of the one indicating the boundary line at the Dangrek mountain range, in which Preah Vihear Temple is situated.

He reasons, therefore, that his government will definitely not terminate the MoU.

The PM did the right thing but gave the wrong reason to justify it.

Like it or not, Thailand has already accepted all French-made maps, including the one for the Dangrek mountain that Cambodia annexed as evidence to back up its claim to sovereignty over Preah Vihear more than 50 years ago.

The ICJ reasoned in its ruling that it was the then Siamese government that had requested French officers in the Franco-Siam Mixed Commission on the boundary of Siam-French Indochina to produce the maps.

Thai lawyers in the court argued that the maps were not official products of the commission. The court, however, argued that "it was clear from the record 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."

Moreover, the then interior minister Prince Damrong, who was keen on history and archaeology as well as boundary matters, thanked the French Embassy in Bangkok for the maps and requested more copies to send to provincial governors, including the then Khu Khan province, which took care of the border areas near Preah Vihear.

The argument over the map's inaccuracy was not deemed valid. The ICJ argued that "if the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map [of the Dangrek] without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent".

It is true that the boundary line indicated in the map did not correspond with the watershed line. The 1904 Franco-Siam Treaty indicated that the watershed of the Dangrek range was the boundary line between Siam and French Indochina (Cambodia). But the ICJ in its ruling said the Siamese authorities and later Thailand had never intended to correct it despite many chances to do so.

The court assumed that the country "had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line".

Moreover, Siam failed to react when Prince Damrong, during his visit to Preah Vihear in 1930, received a welcome from the French Resident there. So the court concluded that Siam had accepted the boundary as it was detailed in the map.

The ICJ judgement is final and without appeal. Many nationalists might not like the ruling but raising the old argument these days in an attempt to do away with the MoU is absolutely ridiculous.