9th February, 2009
By Khmerization
The sensitive issues of Khmer-Thai border relations have generated heated, and sometimes, controversial debates among those who felt passionately about these issues. For the Cambodian side, the Preah Vihear issues have been settled once and for all under the 1904-1907 Franco-Siam Treaty and the 1962 verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For the Thai side, who never wanted to let go of the Preah Vihear temple, the issues have never been settled.
Some foreign observers seem to buy into the Thai theory that the 1904-1907 treat and the ICJ verdict have left many unanswered issues and unsolved territorial disputes. Mr. Norbert Klein is one such believer. After reading my translated article titled “Thai troops crossed into Cambodia at Phnom Trop”, Mr. Klein had left a very diplomatic comments in my blog. But his rationale seem to be at odds with the Khmer views, but in line with the Thai view. He seem to buy into the Thai theory that the areas surrounding the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand under the 2008 Joint Communique. I hereby wish to publish his comments in its entirety. Here it is:
“There are again confrontations at the border - west of Preah Vihear. This is dangerous, deplorable, it has to be defused, avoided in future.
But I continue to be surprised, time and again, that the Joint Communique of 18 June 2008, including the map produced by the Cambodian side, and the declaration of the Cambodian side is never referenced in such Cambodian reports.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/pdf/jointcommunique.pdf
In some mail exchanges before, I have been accused to disregard documents of 1904/1907/1962/2000 - this is not what I said; I just point to the fact that there is a document signed later, by a Deputy Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, saying that the 18.6.2008 map "supersedes" the former maps "at this stage."
- And the Thai troops, mentioned in the present posting, are in "territories at the foot of Phnom Trop Mountain west of the Preah Vihear temple" - where the Cambodian side said, at that time, that "a buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple" is not part of the Cambodian claims when applying for World Heritage listing.
I am not a legal expert, I am not "taking sides" - I just share my observation that there is never an official clarification how the 18.6.2008 Cambodian map and declarations relate to the ongoing conflict, and how the Cambodian side in the present and future border discussions intends to handle the Cambodian statements in the Joint Declaration.
Just to say "forget it" is not appropriate for a document signed by a Deputy Prime Minister. Norbert Klein”
I am of the opinion that the Joint Communique Mr. Klein mentioned is just a communique signed for the purpose of listing the temple only, it is not a border treaty document for the purpose of border demarcations. Therefore the document cannot be used in regard to border issues, but the listing of the temple only. As far as international law is concerned, the 1904-1907's Franco-Siam Treaty is still in force.
Furthermore, both the Thai (present Thai administration) and the Cambodian sides have reiterated on numerous occasions that both the 1904-1907 treaty and the 2000’s MOU will be used to resolve the Khmer-Thai border disputes. Mr. Klein has also mentioned the 1962 ICJ's verdict. The Thai side seem to interpret that the ICJ has not judged on the ownership of the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. If one reads and analyses of one of the ICJ’s verdict thoroughly one would understand that the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple have been judged. Here is one of the ICJ’s verdict:
“Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory”. The verdict stated clearly that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw troops from “the Temple, or its vicinity on Cambodian territory.”
Maps from the 1904 treaty put the temple and the areas, or the temple’s “vicinity”, claimed by Thailand inside Cambodia. So, the 1962 ICJ verdict was clear. The areas or the temple’s “vicinity” currently claimed by Thailand have been judged to belong to Cambodia. My understanding seem to be in line with Mr. Chan Veasna’s view who had a few exchanges with Mr. Klein through the Phnom Penh Post recently. Here I wish to re-publish his last exchange with Mr. Klein below:
"Letter to the editor
Phnom Penh Post
6th December, 2008
newsroom@phnompenhpost.com
Dear Sir, Nobert Klein’s letter (Cambodia must use its own maps too, 25 Nov.) has totally missed the points of my previous letter (Thailand must use Cambodian maps, 14 Nov.). While Mr. Klein might be correct in his views, his letter certainly has confused your readers of the points I was trying to make in my letter. While I was talking about the maps of the 1904-1907 Khmer-Thai Border Treaty, Mr Klein was talking about the maps of the 2008 Joint Communique or the agreement to list the Preah Vihear temple. T
here is no comparison between these two agreements because one is a border treaty and the other is an agreement to list the temple on the world heritage list. While Mr. Klein was correct to spell out the details of the 2008 Joint Communique, he is incorrect in drawing its connections to the issue of the border demarcations between Thailand and Cambodia. The distinction between these two agreements must be made:
1) The maps of the 2008 Joint Communique are for the purpose of inscribing the Preah Vihear temple on the world heritage list, not for the purpose of border demarcations as has been the point of my letter.
2) The maps attached to the 2008 Joint Communique will only supersede other maps concerning the zonage/zoning of the Preah Vihear temple boundary, not superseding the maps concerning the demarcations of territorial borders between Thailand and Cambodia.
The 2008 Joint Communique, of which Mr. Klein was talking about, spelled out that the border demarcations will only be carried out pending the results of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary which in turn, according to previous agreements, will use the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2000 which both Thailand and Cambodia recognised to use the 1904-1907 Treaty as a base for their border resolution.
The 2008 Joint Communique stated that “the inscription of the Preah Vihear temple on the World Heritage List shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand on the demarcations work of the Joint Commission of Land Boundary of the two countries.”
With the provisions in the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Cambodia and Thailand, recognising the 1904-1907 Treaty, there is no doubt that the maps of the 1904-1907 treaty must be used by the Joint Commission of Land Boundary for the border settlements, not the Preah Vihear zoning maps that Mr Klein was talking about. Yours sincerely, signed Chan Veasna Cabramatta, NSW, Australia"
I would like to end this post by reiterating that the 2008 Joint Communique raised by Mr. Klein was only a communique for the purpose of listing of the Temple only. The map, or as the Cambodian side called it, a drawing, attached with this communique is a zoning/zonage map for the inscription of the temple, and not a treaty map. As such, it cannot be used for the resolution or demarcation of the borders. By this definition the 1904 treaty maps, which put all the lands claimed by Thailand inside Cambodia, are till in force. Therefore, the lands surrounding Preah Vihear temple currently occupied by Thailand since 15th July 2008 belong to Cambodia.
By Khmerization
The sensitive issues of Khmer-Thai border relations have generated heated, and sometimes, controversial debates among those who felt passionately about these issues. For the Cambodian side, the Preah Vihear issues have been settled once and for all under the 1904-1907 Franco-Siam Treaty and the 1962 verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For the Thai side, who never wanted to let go of the Preah Vihear temple, the issues have never been settled.
Some foreign observers seem to buy into the Thai theory that the 1904-1907 treat and the ICJ verdict have left many unanswered issues and unsolved territorial disputes. Mr. Norbert Klein is one such believer. After reading my translated article titled “Thai troops crossed into Cambodia at Phnom Trop”, Mr. Klein had left a very diplomatic comments in my blog. But his rationale seem to be at odds with the Khmer views, but in line with the Thai view. He seem to buy into the Thai theory that the areas surrounding the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand under the 2008 Joint Communique. I hereby wish to publish his comments in its entirety. Here it is:
“There are again confrontations at the border - west of Preah Vihear. This is dangerous, deplorable, it has to be defused, avoided in future.
But I continue to be surprised, time and again, that the Joint Communique of 18 June 2008, including the map produced by the Cambodian side, and the declaration of the Cambodian side is never referenced in such Cambodian reports.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/pdf/jointcommunique.pdf
In some mail exchanges before, I have been accused to disregard documents of 1904/1907/1962/2000 - this is not what I said; I just point to the fact that there is a document signed later, by a Deputy Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, saying that the 18.6.2008 map "supersedes" the former maps "at this stage."
- And the Thai troops, mentioned in the present posting, are in "territories at the foot of Phnom Trop Mountain west of the Preah Vihear temple" - where the Cambodian side said, at that time, that "a buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple" is not part of the Cambodian claims when applying for World Heritage listing.
I am not a legal expert, I am not "taking sides" - I just share my observation that there is never an official clarification how the 18.6.2008 Cambodian map and declarations relate to the ongoing conflict, and how the Cambodian side in the present and future border discussions intends to handle the Cambodian statements in the Joint Declaration.
Just to say "forget it" is not appropriate for a document signed by a Deputy Prime Minister. Norbert Klein”
I am of the opinion that the Joint Communique Mr. Klein mentioned is just a communique signed for the purpose of listing the temple only, it is not a border treaty document for the purpose of border demarcations. Therefore the document cannot be used in regard to border issues, but the listing of the temple only. As far as international law is concerned, the 1904-1907's Franco-Siam Treaty is still in force.
Furthermore, both the Thai (present Thai administration) and the Cambodian sides have reiterated on numerous occasions that both the 1904-1907 treaty and the 2000’s MOU will be used to resolve the Khmer-Thai border disputes. Mr. Klein has also mentioned the 1962 ICJ's verdict. The Thai side seem to interpret that the ICJ has not judged on the ownership of the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. If one reads and analyses of one of the ICJ’s verdict thoroughly one would understand that the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple have been judged. Here is one of the ICJ’s verdict:
“Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory”. The verdict stated clearly that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw troops from “the Temple, or its vicinity on Cambodian territory.”
Maps from the 1904 treaty put the temple and the areas, or the temple’s “vicinity”, claimed by Thailand inside Cambodia. So, the 1962 ICJ verdict was clear. The areas or the temple’s “vicinity” currently claimed by Thailand have been judged to belong to Cambodia. My understanding seem to be in line with Mr. Chan Veasna’s view who had a few exchanges with Mr. Klein through the Phnom Penh Post recently. Here I wish to re-publish his last exchange with Mr. Klein below:
"Letter to the editor
Phnom Penh Post
6th December, 2008
newsroom@phnompenhpost.com
Dear Sir, Nobert Klein’s letter (Cambodia must use its own maps too, 25 Nov.) has totally missed the points of my previous letter (Thailand must use Cambodian maps, 14 Nov.). While Mr. Klein might be correct in his views, his letter certainly has confused your readers of the points I was trying to make in my letter. While I was talking about the maps of the 1904-1907 Khmer-Thai Border Treaty, Mr Klein was talking about the maps of the 2008 Joint Communique or the agreement to list the Preah Vihear temple. T
here is no comparison between these two agreements because one is a border treaty and the other is an agreement to list the temple on the world heritage list. While Mr. Klein was correct to spell out the details of the 2008 Joint Communique, he is incorrect in drawing its connections to the issue of the border demarcations between Thailand and Cambodia. The distinction between these two agreements must be made:
1) The maps of the 2008 Joint Communique are for the purpose of inscribing the Preah Vihear temple on the world heritage list, not for the purpose of border demarcations as has been the point of my letter.
2) The maps attached to the 2008 Joint Communique will only supersede other maps concerning the zonage/zoning of the Preah Vihear temple boundary, not superseding the maps concerning the demarcations of territorial borders between Thailand and Cambodia.
The 2008 Joint Communique, of which Mr. Klein was talking about, spelled out that the border demarcations will only be carried out pending the results of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary which in turn, according to previous agreements, will use the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2000 which both Thailand and Cambodia recognised to use the 1904-1907 Treaty as a base for their border resolution.
The 2008 Joint Communique stated that “the inscription of the Preah Vihear temple on the World Heritage List shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand on the demarcations work of the Joint Commission of Land Boundary of the two countries.”
With the provisions in the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Cambodia and Thailand, recognising the 1904-1907 Treaty, there is no doubt that the maps of the 1904-1907 treaty must be used by the Joint Commission of Land Boundary for the border settlements, not the Preah Vihear zoning maps that Mr Klein was talking about. Yours sincerely, signed Chan Veasna Cabramatta, NSW, Australia"
I would like to end this post by reiterating that the 2008 Joint Communique raised by Mr. Klein was only a communique for the purpose of listing of the Temple only. The map, or as the Cambodian side called it, a drawing, attached with this communique is a zoning/zonage map for the inscription of the temple, and not a treaty map. As such, it cannot be used for the resolution or demarcation of the borders. By this definition the 1904 treaty maps, which put all the lands claimed by Thailand inside Cambodia, are till in force. Therefore, the lands surrounding Preah Vihear temple currently occupied by Thailand since 15th July 2008 belong to Cambodia.
