Court ruling is temporary relief

July 27, 2011
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS

Deciding by an overwhelming majority (11 votes to 5) on July 18, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, ordered Cambodian and Thai authorities to "immediately withdraw their military personnel" from what the court defined as the "provisional demilitarized zone," around the 11th century Khmer-built Preah Vihear Temple, "to ensure ... no irreparable damage" to the temple.

The decision brought a breath of fresh air to a mindless, politically motivated military standoff -- a welcome, if temporary, relief.

The Cambodian Center for Human Rights welcomed the decision: "Reason has at last ruled the day." It hopes the order will "ensure an end to the bloodshed and mass displacement" of Cambodian and Thai civilians on both sides of the border. It sees the order as a "breathing space to resolve the border issue once and for all" by Cambodia and newly elected Thai leaders.

However, Cambodian legislators of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party declared, "We are deeply disappointed" with the ruling, which orders Cambodian troops to withdraw from the area that "indisputably stands on Khmer territory and was placed under Cambodia's sovereignty" by the same International Court of Justice in 1962. The SRP lawmakers called the ruling "a shameful defeat for the Hun Sen government"; called on the government to step down; and called for the implementation of the 1991 Paris Agreements on Cambodia.

Thailand's "Yellow Shirts," the People's Alliance for Democracy, called on the Thai government and the military to reject the ruling, to keep Thai troops in the disputed area and to push Cambodian troops out.

If left in place, soldiers from Cambodia and Thailand, supplied with heavy weapons and equipment, will put the world's cultural heritage at a "real and imminent risk of irreparable damage." It won't matter who fires the first shot or why.

The court's "orders indicating provisional measures" do have "binding effect" and create "international legal obligations with which both parties were required to comply," the ruling said.

Those provisional measures include: No obstruction by Thailand to Cambodia's free access to, nor prevention of Cambodia's provision of fresh supplies to her "non-military personnel" at the temple; allowing observers appointed by ASEAN access to the Temple; and no action that might aggravate or extend the dispute or make it more difficult to resolve.

It's time to put the people's welfare and well-being above politics.

The Court voted by 15 to 1 "that each of the parties should inform it as to its compliance with the above provisional measures."

On April 28, Cambodia asked the International Court of Justice to clarify its judgment rendered on June 15, 1962, in the case concerning the temple. Cambodia also submitted an urgent request for the indication of provisional measures. Thailand asked the court to dismiss Cambodia's request, but the court "unanimously rejected" Thailand's request.

The Cambodian-Thai dispute over who owns the 1.8-square-mile area around the temple intensified after July 2008, when the temple was declared a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. But the Cambodian-Thai dispute involves "the entire Cambodian-Thai border (that) needs to be definitively demarcated," the CCHR stated.

I am encouraged by the CCHR's suggestion of a partnership between the incoming Thai government and the Hun Sen government to "put an end to the violence and resolve the border conflict once and for all."

I remain concerned about incoming Thai Premier Yingluck Shinawatra's and Cambodian Hun Sen's intention and capacity to keep each country's nationalist sentiment over Preah Vihear under control, and desist from stoking destructive nationalist fervor.

Both former Thai premier Abhisit Vejjajiva and Hun Sen have made use of nationalist extremism to serve their political interests.

Nationalism is not a bad thing. A person's love for, attachment and devotion to his/her nation or state is the definition of "nationalism." It's a feeling of kinship with the other "like" people who make up the nation; a sentimental attachment to the land where one is born, raised and lives; a sense of identity and self-esteem one has when one identifies with the nation and the land of one's birth. These factors motivate a person to act to help one's native land. Many leaders rally their people through appealing to their sense of nationalism/patriotism.

But love can be blind, they say; too much feeling and too strong an attachment can result in an us-vs.-them mindset. This can create a feeling of xenophobia -- suspicion, dislike, fear of people of other ethnic, racial, religious backgrounds -- which can lead to a sense of national superiority and superpatriotism.

Cambodians, Thais and Vietnamese are generally inclined to see one another in this way. Never mind that Lord Gautama Buddha teaches: "Fill your mind with compassion."

Despite the inclination of some Cambodians and Thais to focus on "who won" and what to do next, the court's decision gives no one a victory or a defeat. The decision provides both parties with a respite from tensions to concentrate on the best way to resolve the border issue until the court renders its judgment on Cambodia's request.

In the final analysis, Cambodians and Thais can choose the shootout and risk damaging the Temple irreparably, or work through the court's "provisional measures" to reach a peaceful resolution to the border problem.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.