Prince Sisowath Thomico weighed in to support Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres over Preah Vihear issue

Prince Sisowath Thomico greeted by his supporters.

Dear Readers,

The debates over the issue of Preah Vihear have gotten interesting by the day. Since Khmerization published a translated article from everday.com about new Thai incursions into the Preah Vihear precinct, Khmerization has received emails from at least three high-profile and eminent personalities. Mr. Norbert Klein, a high profile NGO executive in Cambodia, has weighed in by raising the issue of the 2008 Joint Communique which, according to Mr. Klein's understanding, seems to concede that the territories around the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand. Mr. Klein's rationales have attracted Khmerization's detailed response.

Khmerization's exchanges with Mr. Klein seem to attract the attention of Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres, an official biographer of ex-king Sihanouk, who then weighed in the debates with his very thoughtful analysis.

The latest email has been particularly of great interests to me because it came from a Khmer royalty who is very proficient in the history of Khmer borders, particularly the history of Koh Tral Island. Prince Sisowath Thomico, a son of Prince Sisowath Methavi, has been a controversial figure in the not-so-kind and cut-throat politics of Cambodia but, when it comes to Khmer borders and history, he should be commended for his uncompromising patriotism and his unquestionale knowledge. Below is his email to Khmerization:

Dear Sir,

I would like to weigh in the debate regarding the official name of Preah Vihear. As my friend Ambassador Julio rightly pointed out, up to now, all official notes issued by the Royal Government of Thailand referred to Preah Vihear as Preah Vihear not "Khao Phra Viharn" as now surprisingly demanded by Thailand.

As a matter of fact, international relations are ruled by international laws, international/bilateral treaties and international/bilateral conventions. As far as Preah Vihear is concerned, the last official treaty/agreement/judgement refer to the Temple as Preah Vihear, including the infamous June 18, 2008 Joint Communiqué.

There is no mention of "Khao Phra Viharn" in any international document ever since the June 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice of the Hague. So, it is clear that Preah Vihear is the only name that ought to be used while referring to the Temple in any international negotiation/treaty/convention/agreement.

Last but not least: Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. It has to be referred to under its Cambodian name. It would be laughable and irrelevant if Cambodia ever wanted to refer to Ho Chi Minh City as "Prey Nokor" in official bilateral/international document. The same goes for Preah Vihear.

Regards

Sisowath Thomico

Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres on Khmerization vs. Norbert Klein regarding Preah Vihear issues

The letter below from Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres was sent to Khmerization in response to exchanges between Khmerization vs. Norbert Klein regarding the Preah Vihear issue. I wish Ambassador Jeldres for his interests in the discussions - Khmerization

-----------------------------------------------

Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres

Official Biographer of H.M. the King Father

Samdech Preah Upayuvareach Norodom Sihanouk

of Cambodia

9 February 2009

Dear Sir:

Thank you for drawing to my attention the exchange of views on Preah Vihear between yourself and Mr. Norbert Klein.

May I point out that for all intents and purposes the Joint Communiqué between Cambodia and Thailand of 18 June 2008 seems to have been conceived purely to comply with the requirements of World Heritage Listing. I am inclined to believe so for the following reasons:

1. In all subsequent diplomatic notes between Cambodia and Thailand, as well as on their separate communications to other countries and the United Nations regarding Preah Vihear (and I think I have an almost complete set of these written communications), neither kingdom has mentioned the 18 June 2008 Joint Communiqué.
2. The Thai Parliament never approved the Joint Communiqué of 18 June 2008 and the Thai Foreign Minister at the time –Mr Noppadon PATTANA, was forced to resign as Foreign Minister for having signed the Joint Communiqué. At the time, the Thai Democrat Party, then in opposition, was strongly opposed to the Thai Foreign Minister having signed the said document.
3. Concerning the use of maps, both countries have used the maps their respective delegations used in presenting their countries’ cases to the International Court of Justice in 1962. Again, no mention has been made of the map annexed to the Joint Communiqué of 18 June 2008.

Lastly, as a matter of further interest and in view of recent Thai requests that the name of Preah Vihear be also described as Khao Phra Viharn in official documents of the two countries, may I point out that in previous written communications by Thai officials and diplomats, up to 17 October 2008, they had used the wording “Temple of Preah Vihear”, for instance in the notes to the President of the UN Security Council by Thai Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Don Pramudwinai. I fail to understand why Thailand is now insisting on the use of “Khao Phra Viharn” in official documents when Preah Vihear is well known and has been accepted as the proper name for the temple by the international community for many years.

Yours sincerely,

(JULIO A. JELDRES)

Preah Vihear: Khmerization vs. Norbert Klein

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.