Thailand must come to terms with its past and move forward instead of trying to right an "unrightable" wrong

Some history on that border temple

August 17, 2010
By Avudh Panananda
The Nation

"KI-Media Note: The author seems to forget that Preah Vihear was built by Cambodians and the territory surrounding the temple was illegally annexed and occupied by Thailand prior to 1863. If Thailand wants to revise its territorial claim to historical periods, then Cambodia has also the rights to claim back the majority of Cambodian territories currently illegally occupied by Thailand since the 13 and 14th century! Shall Cambodia do that?"

A vast number of Thai citizens may find that the Preah Vihear Temple controversy causes feelings of wounded pride, but dwelling on the past will only bring grief and misery to all parties concerned.

Thailand must come to terms with its past and move forward instead of trying to right an "unrightable" wrong. Cambodia too must learn to overcome pettiness to be an understanding neighbour.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in 1962 that the temple was on Cambodian land. And Unesco's World Heritage Committee agreed to list the temple as a World Heritage site in 2008.

What is the urgency to stir up an international dispute over the site management plan for a temple that has survived the elements since the 11th century?

If the two neighbouring countries opt to quarrel on what they see as their rightful territory, then the verbal spat might soon escalate into a war, with regrettable and tragic consequences.

Regardless of what politicians say or do, Thais should heed the lesson of history before charting their next move on the temple.

To put the controversy in context, it is necessary to trace the issue back to the Franco-Siamese War in 1863, to a time when France was expanding into Indochina and Thailand had to cede territory in Laos and Cambodia. Two Franco-Siamese treaties in 1904 and 1907 formalised the hand-over of Thai territory in exchange for safeguarding Thai independence from the colonial power.

Based on provisions in the 1907 treaty, a mixed commission was formed to demarcate the border, relying on the watershed of the Dongrak mountain range. France, then the colonial power in the region, unilaterally deviated from the watershed principle to "carve out" the temple for its Cambodian protectorate.

Although Thailand attempted to rectify this injustice of boundary demarcation, its fighting with Vichy France in 1940-41 and the outcome of World War II failed to alter the colonial legacy.

The advent of the Vietnam War prompted the United States to produce a 1:50,000-scale map for battle purposes. It happened that this map, using proper cartographic technology, showed the temple's location as inside Thailand.

In the midst of the Cold War when France was forced to retreat from Indochina, Prasat Khao Phra Viharn, as the temple is known in Thai, was briefly returned to Thai sovereignty, as part of what is now Si Sa Ket's Kantharalak district.

But a spat between the Sarit Thanarat government and King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia led to an international dispute over the temple. The ICJ decision returned ownership of the temple back to Cambodia.

Even though the Sarit government conceded defeat in the International Court, it said its conditional acceptance of the ICJ verdict was a decision that had nothing to do with the national boundary and that the area surrounding the temple remained in Thai territory.

As a World Heritage site, the main temple structure is about 800 metres in length. But the problem arises from the temple's management plan, because it covers 4.6 square kilometres. The temple perimeter is unclear, but is estimated to link a series of sanctuaries stretching about 2 kilometres into Thailand.

Pending agreement on the boundary between Thailand and Cambodia based on map-making technology and not colonial legacy, the two neighbours have no irrefutable evidence to back up their respective claims on territory.

In lieu of sabre-rattling, the two ought to keep calm to pave the way for work on border demarcation. All the necessary mechanisms to settle the border dispute are already in place and just await a green light to go into operation.

It would be sheer folly to squabble over a temple built to uplift human spirits to the heavens.