Cambodia Should Invoke The 1991 Paris Peace Agreements To Ensure The Respect For Its Territorial Integrity

(Photo: Reuters)

Sam Rainsy's letter to The Cambodia Daily, August 20, 2010

CAMBODIA SHOULD INVOKE THE 1991 PARIS PEACE AGREEMENTS TO ENSURE THE RESPECT FOR ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

Your article “Asean Weighs Mediation Role in Cambodia-Thailand Border Row” (August 19, page 21) underscored the recent effort by the Cambodian government to seek an international mediation in order to reach a peaceful solution to the Preah Vihear conflict with Thailand.

After two years of fruitless bilateral negotiations with Bangkok, this new approach must be welcomed. Earlier this month Phnom Penh suggested that the Secretary-General of the United Nations act as a mediator while also calling on Asean for diplomatic help.

It was reported that “Asean has begun consulting with member nations about whether the regional body should step in and help mediate negotiations between Cambodia and Thailand over their border dispute near Preah Vihear temple.” However, “a statement made [by Bangkok] on Sunday made it clear that Thailand was not willing to engage in multilateral dialogue over the border dispute.”

In order to remind the international community of their obligations to respond to Cambodia’s call, Phnom Penh should evoke and invoke the Paris Peace Agreements signed in 1991, in the presence of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by eighteen friendly countries including all the world’s major powers and all Asean current members (except Burma).

The Paris Peace Agreements not only recognize the right of Cambodia to call upon the international community when it feels threatened -- let alone aggressed -- by any other country, but they also spell out the obligations of all the signatories to respond to such a call. Moreover, they specified the mechanisms whereby the international community has to effectively, actively and quickly respond.

Here are the most relevant provisions of the “Agreement Concerning the Sovereignty, Independence, Territorial Integrity and Inviolability, Neutrality and National Unity of Cambodia”:

- Article 2 (excerpt), which Thailand has reportedly violated: The other parties [besides Cambodia] undertake to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Cambodia, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, [and] to settle all disputes with Cambodia by peaceful means.

- Article 5 (excerpt):

1. In the event of a violation or threat of violation of the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality or national unity of Cambodia (…) the parties to this agreement undertake to consult immediately with a view to adopting all appropriate steps to ensure respect for these commitments and resolving any such violations through peaceful means.
2. Such steps may include, inter alia, reference of the matter to the Security Council of the United Nations or recourse to the means for the peaceful settlement of disputes referred to in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The parties to this Agreement may also call upon the assistance of the co-Chairmen of the Paris Conference on Cambodia [France and Indonesia].

The 1991 Paris Peace Agreements on Cambodia must be faithfully respected if any possible international peace treaties on other countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan are to be respected in the future.

Sam Rainsy
Member of Parliament

In Defence of Sound Defence

‘We know how to deal with the Khmers. We know when to be flexible and when to be decisive with them’ - Le Duan (right seen with Ho Chi Minh)

Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Op-Ed by MP

THE National Assembly must make it a matter of urgency to re-evaluate the conscription law.

The view held by some MPs that since the country is at peace (100%) there is no cause to increase military spending is misplaced at best and dangerously complacent at worst. It is not just on-going issues with Preah Vihear and other land as well as maritime disputes that demand increased military capability. Peace or the absence of it is a far broader, more complex reality than the absence of armed conflict or the prevalence thereof. The argument in favour of having or building strong defence is paramount.

First, historically, Cambodia has lagged behind all of its neighbours in defensive capability with the exception, perhaps, of Laos with whom it rarely has any major dispute. However, this luxury does not apply to the other 2 of her main neighbours. In 1975, for instance, the Khmer Rouge military was estimated to be between 55,000 to 60,000 troops strong with 230 mostly under-strength battalions. The North Vietnamese army was 685,000 strong, supported by a 3,000-man navy and 12,000-man air force equipped with 268 combat aircrafts, including 1 light bomber squadron and 6 fighter-bomber squadrons(Source: Stephen J. Morris, Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia: political culture and the causes of war, p.92). This blatant disparity, however, did not deter the Khmer Rouge from attacking Vietnamese controlled islands in the Gulf in May 1975. By June the same year the Vietnamese recaptured the islands and attacked and occupied the Cambodian island of Poulo Wai. This incident could still be repeated anytime between Cambodia and any of her neighbours with familiar consequences.

Second, Cambodia has to learn to plan her defence mechanism and capability beyond her demographic disadvantage vis as vis her traditional adversaries. This major disadvantage has been one of the historical by-products of the country’s weak defensive organisation in the first instance in both military and political fields. A nation’s contraction or expansion in its population size is directly congruous with its ability to safeguard and retain its population and territory. It was Cambodia’s inability to defend herself against her adversaries that had seen her huge territories and population seized off by neighbouring powers rather than her relatively small population being the reason behind that inability in the first place. These demographic losses are still recurring today owing to the state’s inability or unwillingness to create favourable conditions for overseas Cambodians to return to settle in their homeland, for younger generations to resist emigrating through various means and so forth. Remember how the Israeli government dramatically airlifted Ethiopian Jews to Israel whose ancestors must have left Palestine 4 thousand years ago?

To address this long term phenomenon, a campaign of mobilisation and modernisation of existing resources - demographic as well as non-demographic – is called for. The key to this duel reform process lies, of course, in ‘revolutionising’ social administrative institutions through democratic processes. This will ensure that the state’s main pursuits or enactments of any of its priorities such as national security and defence do not involve the loss of, or impede upon, due rights and obligations of the citizenry. I realise that it is easier to propose than to dispose of institutionalised corruption, for example. But somehow if the country is to wrestle itself out of that familiar experiences of dependency upon external patronage (and all its costly consequences) as well as inherent internal tension and friction, it may have little choice but to accept democratic reform as the only rational step forward.

There are more reasons in favour of Cambodia embracing this alternative than there are in her continuing to accept the status quo – but that remains the subject of future discussion. For now though, it should be borne in mind that the unity and discipline of the CPP today as a compact organic movement and structure had been designed and retained primarily to advance not Cambodia’s own national purposes and priorities, but rather to ensure that Cambodians are in a position (or see themselves in such a position) to engage priorities and goals peacefully and independently, with a dash of nationalistic conviction or fervour even, without actually doing substantive violence to Hanoi’s hegemonic designs. One needs to recall Vietnamese Communist Party leader Le Duan’s conversation with a Soviet diplomat prior to the collapse of Democratic Kampuchea in which he reassured the latter that Cambodia would sooner or later come under Vietnamese political influence, for in his words: ‘We know how to deal with the Khmers. We know when to be flexible and when to be decisive with them’. Such patronising, confident tone could only have been made by someone who clearly was in no doubt as to his country holding a firm vantage point or upper hand position in relations to another country.

As well, I am inclined towards the view that it is preferable for the nation to have a strong and sound defence and never having to go to war with anyone because of that defence’s deterrence factor than having a wretched one that does not provide for adequate national security, leaving the people and country exposed and vulnerable to external threats and perennial misery. The army should also be a place for young and mature alike to imbibe the value of service, sacrifice, patriotism, discipline and more, rather than being a martial institution that merely indoctrinates human beings to become efficient killers and torturers, particularly, of unarmed innocent civilians within the ranks of the home population, or those of foreign ones, for that matter.

King-Father's history lesson on territorial integrity for visiting F'pec delegation (Part 1)

Translated from French by Luc Sâr

Click here to read the original article in French

History

“Monday 12 May 2008: What I said on that day to the Funcinpec Delegation regarding our territorial Integrity in the 40s and our National Independence issues”
By N. Sihanouk

1941 – Before to the death of H.M. Preah Monivong, my maternal Grandfather. Within the framework of WWII, France was one the Superpower which was defeated and Japan was of one of the victorious Superpowers. Japan powerfully helped Thailand to obtain from France the cession to this Thailand (Siam) of a very important portion of our national Territory (land and maritime): the entire province of Battambang-Banteay Meanchey; a small portion of the Pursat province; a portion of the province of Siem Reap-Oddar Meanchey; a portion of the province of Kampong Thom-Preah Vihear; a portion of the province of Stung Treng-Rattanakiri. In 1945, at the end of WWII, France was one of the victorious Superpowers and Japan was one of the defeated Superpowers. The victorious (Gaullist) French returned back to Indochina and, consequently, to Cambodia. I let them know that (1) we, Khmer people, would never accept the return [to Cambodia] of the French Protectorate and that our Cambodia became, since April 1945, a country totally Independent. France accepted this non-return to the Protectorate, but, (because) of its strong “victorious” army, it called us “Autonomous State of Cambodia.” There was no French Superior Resident (Colonial Governor) in Cambodia anymore, but (there was) a High Commissioner of the French Republic. In 1949, I visited Paris to demand for a Franco-Cambodian Treaty formally abrogating [abolishing] the 1863 Protectorate Treaty and the 1884 Convention, which would include the legal recognition of the Independence of the Kingdom of Cambodia by the French Republic. Between 1949 and 1952, France gave back to Cambodia, “one drop at a time,” the attributes of our Independence which was formally recognized by the French Government through the 1949 Treaty.

In 1952, my “Royal Crusade for the total Independence of Cambodia” was initiated. However, before discussing about this very important Royal Crusade, I must tell you about this issue of vital importance for our Homeland: the return of our provinces, lands and sea, lost to Thailand in 1941, prior to my advent to the throne, because of Fascist Japan which forced the French to give these provinces, inalienable lands and sea, to Thailand (Siam). In 1946, I told the Gaullist French that a victorious France, within the framework of WWII, had the “sacred” duty to ask for the return of provinces, lands and sea, stolen from the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Gaullist France did so well that Thailand (Siam) accepted to return back to us these stolen provinces, lands and sea. In 1947, in Battambang city, Admiral Thierry d’Argenlieu, a hero of WWII, solemnly returned to me these provinces, recovered lands and sea, symbolized by the Battambang land which was presented to me, in front of our People, on a golden tray by Admiral d’Argenlieu.

(To be continued)

(Signed) Norodom Sihanouk
May 2008

Cambodians furious at Asean website

DPA
Phnom Penh

The apparent rounding down of Cambodia's total territory on the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) website drew fury from opposition politicians Saturday who claim the body is undermining Cambodia's sovereignty.

The Asean website lists Cambodia's total territory as 181,000 square kilometres - not good enough, according to the opposition, who say the total is actually 181,035 square kilometres.

In a telephone interview Saturday, opposition Sam Rainsy Party parliamentarian Keo Remy called on the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications to block the website and consider legal action if the problem was not rectified.

He said if the mistake was unintentional, it was sloppy work; if it was intentional, it could mean Asean was working for neighbouring nations.

"If it was intentional and perpetrated by a Cambodian, this is treason ... it is like not knowing your own parents," he said.

Government spokesman and Information Minister Khieu Kanharith called for calm and reason to prevail, saying he would look into the matter.

Alleged land encroachment by neighbouring nations, and particularly fellow Asean members Thailand and Vietnam, is a political hot potato in Cambodia.

In January 2003, unsubstantiated rumours that a Thai soap actress had claimed the Angkor Wat temple complex, which features on the Cambodian flag, was Thai led to attacks on Thai businesses and the burning of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh.

Asean consists of Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.