Do people really want to be prisoners of the past? Whipping up this issue could easily result in chaos if not handled carefully and properly.
---------
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
By Piyaporn Wongruang
Bangkok Post
Even though Preah Vihear has joined the ranks of places listed as World Heritage sites, former Cambodian soldier Wan, 60, may not play his fiddle in exchange for money from tourists at the temple.
Due to fears of a Thai-mobilised rally against Cambodia's inscription of the temple on the World Heritage List, the border around the temple has been closed. No tourists are allowed until further notice. It is not difficult to imagine how tough the life of the ex-soldier could become. He only has one leg, his musical talents and Preah Vihear to rely on after the war in Cambodia some 30 years ago.
Uncle Wan is but one among the potential losers from this conflict at the moment. Many more are likely to follow his path as resentment among people in both countries has heightened to the point that some academics believe no side can afford to be seen as losing, now that the 11th-century Hindu temple has been listed as a new World Heritage site.
Since the Cambodian government first lodged its application for World Heritage status in 1991, people of the two countries have been drawn into a conflict they did not directly cause. Amid the increasingly politicised dispute, a boundary line which has never been clearly seen on the site has emerged as the crux of the problem caused by the past, unsettled border demarcation.
Historian Srisakra Vallibhotama believes that the site at the temple of Preah Vihear conformed to the ancient concept of using landmarks associated with spiritual belief as boundary marks. Considering the landscape, the promontory of Dangrek Range where Preah Vihear is located, clearly separates the Cambodian plain from the Korat plateau stretching down towards the Thai side.
Historical evidence suggests that the area had long been used as a sacred site before Preah Vihear was built on top of it around the early 11th century.
The ancient concept of organic boundary started shifting toward one that is more fixed - a line on a map - when Western imperialists arrived in the region and took over some parts of it, according to Surachart Bamrungsuk.
The political scientist and military expert at Chulalongkorn University added that the concept of a modern state and clear demarcation lines was a crucial tool for the Western powers to differentiate between states that came under their protection.
"What happened was that those imperial countries tended to have more power over other states in the region. The imbalance led to a forced acceptance of some disadvantages in demarcation, and Thailand, or Siam back then, was no different," said Dr Surachart.
The Preah Vihear case reflects the larger demarcation problem left over from the past. It is a common problem in several areas around the world, Dr Surachart said.
Even though some people keep referring to the fact that Thailand had reserved the right to revive the case regarding ownership of Preah Vihear temple (which it lost to Cambodia in 1962) should new evidence emerge, Dr Surachart cautioned that it is virtually impossible to try to claim lost territory back.
The country functions as a modern state at present. It is bound by international legal and diplomatic mores which it has to respect, or face the consequences.
These "consequences" can take the shape of sanctions, or even war. A war between neighbouring countries could be very painful as the conflict and suffering will be passed on from one generation to another. Such a rift cannot be healed in a short space of time, Dr Surachart said.
The academic views the court case concerning Preah Vihear as being over, especially after Thailand itself drew another boundary line in compliance with the watershed line which excludes the temple, following the 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice.
Instead of letting emotions run high and clouding the issue, Dr Surachart called on both Thai and Cambodian people to exercise reason and find the wisdom required to get out of the conflict.
Whipping up this issue could easily result in chaos if not handled carefully and properly.
He reminded society that there are established diplomatic channels for countries with overlapping boundaries to explore to settle their disputes. The process can result in a re-drawing of the boundary line. In cases where a dispute cannot be settled, options are available for different ways of joint management. One of the concepts can be applied to the case of Preah Vihear, the surrounding area of which remains disputed as it is claimed by both Thailand and Cambodia.
"I have to emphasise here that the listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site will not affect any country's boundary as the World Heritage Convention clearly sets such a condition to prevent conflicts between concerned countries," said Dr Surachart.
In fact, the two countries have 15 more overlapping locations which need to be settled, and they need to move on with the work, he said.
"The question we have to ask ourselves really hard is whether we really want a war, and whether a war would really bring us back territory perceived as being lost," said Dr Surachart. "Do we still want to be 'a prisoner of the past'? Or do we want to help one another break the 'barrier' imposed by the past?"
---------
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
By Piyaporn Wongruang
Bangkok Post
Even though Preah Vihear has joined the ranks of places listed as World Heritage sites, former Cambodian soldier Wan, 60, may not play his fiddle in exchange for money from tourists at the temple.
Due to fears of a Thai-mobilised rally against Cambodia's inscription of the temple on the World Heritage List, the border around the temple has been closed. No tourists are allowed until further notice. It is not difficult to imagine how tough the life of the ex-soldier could become. He only has one leg, his musical talents and Preah Vihear to rely on after the war in Cambodia some 30 years ago.
Uncle Wan is but one among the potential losers from this conflict at the moment. Many more are likely to follow his path as resentment among people in both countries has heightened to the point that some academics believe no side can afford to be seen as losing, now that the 11th-century Hindu temple has been listed as a new World Heritage site.
Since the Cambodian government first lodged its application for World Heritage status in 1991, people of the two countries have been drawn into a conflict they did not directly cause. Amid the increasingly politicised dispute, a boundary line which has never been clearly seen on the site has emerged as the crux of the problem caused by the past, unsettled border demarcation.
Historian Srisakra Vallibhotama believes that the site at the temple of Preah Vihear conformed to the ancient concept of using landmarks associated with spiritual belief as boundary marks. Considering the landscape, the promontory of Dangrek Range where Preah Vihear is located, clearly separates the Cambodian plain from the Korat plateau stretching down towards the Thai side.
Historical evidence suggests that the area had long been used as a sacred site before Preah Vihear was built on top of it around the early 11th century.
The ancient concept of organic boundary started shifting toward one that is more fixed - a line on a map - when Western imperialists arrived in the region and took over some parts of it, according to Surachart Bamrungsuk.
The political scientist and military expert at Chulalongkorn University added that the concept of a modern state and clear demarcation lines was a crucial tool for the Western powers to differentiate between states that came under their protection.
"What happened was that those imperial countries tended to have more power over other states in the region. The imbalance led to a forced acceptance of some disadvantages in demarcation, and Thailand, or Siam back then, was no different," said Dr Surachart.
The Preah Vihear case reflects the larger demarcation problem left over from the past. It is a common problem in several areas around the world, Dr Surachart said.
Even though some people keep referring to the fact that Thailand had reserved the right to revive the case regarding ownership of Preah Vihear temple (which it lost to Cambodia in 1962) should new evidence emerge, Dr Surachart cautioned that it is virtually impossible to try to claim lost territory back.
The country functions as a modern state at present. It is bound by international legal and diplomatic mores which it has to respect, or face the consequences.
These "consequences" can take the shape of sanctions, or even war. A war between neighbouring countries could be very painful as the conflict and suffering will be passed on from one generation to another. Such a rift cannot be healed in a short space of time, Dr Surachart said.
The academic views the court case concerning Preah Vihear as being over, especially after Thailand itself drew another boundary line in compliance with the watershed line which excludes the temple, following the 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice.
Instead of letting emotions run high and clouding the issue, Dr Surachart called on both Thai and Cambodian people to exercise reason and find the wisdom required to get out of the conflict.
Whipping up this issue could easily result in chaos if not handled carefully and properly.
He reminded society that there are established diplomatic channels for countries with overlapping boundaries to explore to settle their disputes. The process can result in a re-drawing of the boundary line. In cases where a dispute cannot be settled, options are available for different ways of joint management. One of the concepts can be applied to the case of Preah Vihear, the surrounding area of which remains disputed as it is claimed by both Thailand and Cambodia.
"I have to emphasise here that the listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site will not affect any country's boundary as the World Heritage Convention clearly sets such a condition to prevent conflicts between concerned countries," said Dr Surachart.
In fact, the two countries have 15 more overlapping locations which need to be settled, and they need to move on with the work, he said.
"The question we have to ask ourselves really hard is whether we really want a war, and whether a war would really bring us back territory perceived as being lost," said Dr Surachart. "Do we still want to be 'a prisoner of the past'? Or do we want to help one another break the 'barrier' imposed by the past?"
