Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation
It is not a good idea to ask Cambodia to withdraw the Preah Vihear case from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s consideration, as it could lead to an escalation of the boundary dispute over the temple, rather than a permanent solution.
Conservative figures in Thailand have demanded the government exploit its good relations with Cambodia to end the ICJ's pending interpretation of its 1962 ruling.
Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul said earlier that he might seek a chance to raise the proposal with Cambodia when he visits the country later this week. If Cambodia agrees to withdraw the case, the two countries would try to settle the dispute through bilateral negotiations.
Thailand and Cambodia have been at loggerheads over the HinduKhmer temple for long time. The court ruled in 1962 that Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia. Thailand complied, but continued to argue that while the temple might belong to Cambodia, its vicinity was absolutely under Thai sovereignty. The two countries have an overlapping claim on an area of 4.6 square kilometres adjacent to the temple.
This overlapping claim had created little tension between the two neighbours until recently, when conservative nationalists in Thailand raised the question of Preah Vihear as a pretext in their political game against the government under late prime minister Samak Sundaravej in 2008. They, including the opposition Democrat Party, launched a campaign against Cambodia's move to list the temple as a World Heritage site on the grounds that Phnom Penh would take the temple's vicinity to be a buffer zone for the inscribed temple.
The situation became worse during the reign of the Democrat Party in early 2009, as the diplomatic dispute turned into a series of border skirmishes between the two nations, obstructing bilateral negotiations to clarify the boundary line.
Cambodia lost patience and requested the court in April to clarify the scope and meaning of the 1962 judgement to indicate whether the area adjacent to Preah Vihear is also under its sovereignty. The court is now in the process of making this interpretation. For safety reasons, the court ordered both sides in July to withdraw their military personnel from the court-determined provisional demilitarised zone of 17 square kilometres around the temple. Thai nationalist activists disagreed but they could do nothing. The border seemed to be peaceful now and the two governments are in the process of complying with the court's injunction.
Allowing the court to continue its process and make a final interpretation would benefit both countries for many reasons.
One, the court could keep the issue from being politicised as conservative nationalists could not intervene in the court judgement.
Two, the current government and concerned officials don't need to take any political responsibility for the consequence of the court decision. Nobody could shift blame to them as long as the legal team, line of argument and the case's handling are not changed.
Three, the interpretation of the 1962 judgement, no matter what it is, would be a guideline for the boundary demarcation. The ICJ's explanation and clarification regarding the boundary line would be legally binding for the two countries in their boundary-dispute settlement.
If the court says the 1962 judgement covered the boundary line as Cambodia understands it, the boundary conflict at the Preah Vihear portion could be settled in accordance with the court's ruling.
If the court agrees with Thailand's claim that the 1962 judgement had nothing to do with the boundary line, Cambodia could no longer use the court's ruling - and notably the France-made map on which it is based - to claim the disputed area. Negotiations on the boundary demarcation would be conducted on the basis of Siam-Franco treaties and geographical features.
It's better to let it go on as the court's work is one of the most effective ways to de-politicise the issue and keep it out of the hands of nationalists.
7 comments:
That is the way to go, Mr. Supalak Ganjanakhundee!
Let the ICJ rule once and for all so that the framework of reference on this contested area can be used to settle the border dispute in a fair and friendly manner.
You are right when you acknowledge it's better to allow the court's work to be one of the most effective ways to de-politicise the issue and keep it out of the hands of the crazy Thai nationalists.
The government of Cambodia MUST NOT agree to withdraw the case from the ICJ.
There is no need for the two countries to try to settle the dispute through bilateral negotiations which will never work.
Thailand has no reason to fear since ICJ is independent and will interprete or clarify its own 1962 verdict according to facts and agreements based on the Franco-Siamese Treaties signed and agreed upon by Thailand herself then.
Pissed off
Cambodians (the majority) inside the country should begin to put pressure on the government if it shows any sign or inclination to withdraw the case from ICJ.
If most of them just don't give a damn on whatever the CPP is doing including, let us say, the withdrawal of its request from ICJ and the going back to the table to negotiate with the Thais, then that is it; Cambodians deserve the loss of their ancestors' lands not because of the CPP and Hun Sen, but they, themselves since we have already known fully well that the CPP and Hun Sen care more for themeselves!
Pissed off
icj should go ahead with their court ruling so in the future, siem cannot steal from cambodia again! it will give permanent solution what is righteously cambodia's in the first place and prevent further dispute.
in the past we kept hearing siem say that the icj did not rule on the adjacent land, etc, now, it is a chance for icj to rule on the adjacent land so siem cannot use that pretext to steal from cambodia again in the future! we know from history that siem, etc will take the opportunity to steal from cambodia if given a chance. so, icj should not give siem that chance again. the borderlines must be well-defined from now on; no more gray line again!
We should ignore the Siems. These jungle tribes knows no civil laws.
Too late to negociate. Let the justice go on !
why siem thugs afraid of the icj?
Post a Comment