Sun, Aug 01, 2010The Nation/Asia News Network It was a close call as far as Thailand is concerned. On the other hand, the decision by the World Heritage Committee of Unesco to delay considering Cambodia's management plan for the Preah Vihear Temple to next year must have felt to Phnom Penh like a sucker punch. A diplomatic time bomb has been defused, but barely just, and the most important question is: What's next?
Blame took place in Brazil. Thailand was accused of trying to rock the boat and cling to something that no longer belongs to it. But to the Bangkok government, although the World Court ruled more than four decades and a half ago that the temple was on Cambodia's territory, things are not as simple as it looks. The management plan, the Thai delegation in Brazil insisted, would at least refuel territorial claims around the temple because the plan incorporated some information that Bangkok did not agree on.
Unesco must have been worried. This is not the first time a World Heritage site has become a source of neighbourly conflict. But given the on-and-off military tension at the Thai-Cambodian border and the stormy ties between the two countries, the international organisation must have felt it was best to postpone the Preah Vihear issue to next year.
But can everyone hope things will have calmed down by then? Nationalism aside, the issue has been complicated by the fact that Thailand's two main political parties have different stances on Preah Vihear. In fact, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been forced to resort to uncharacteristically belligerent diplomacy because he used to take a very tough stand against his political rivals' perceived compromise toward Cambodia over the temple.
So whatever will happen next year in Bahrain when the World Heritage Committee meets again to consider the management plan will depend largely on who's in power in Thailand at the time. The Pheu Thai Party's stand, as shown by the Samak Sundaravej government, is that Thailand should lend full cooperation to Cambodia in its promotion and management of the site because the 1962 World Court ruling means any resistance will be futile. The Democrats, on the other hand, as demonstrated in Abhisit's scathing speech in Parliament in 2008, are against any move that will embolden Cambodia about its rights over the temple and claims over surrounding disputed areas.
Some academics have proposed handing over the whole matter to some sort of an independent commission so that domestic politics will have the least impact on where the country stands regarding the Preah Vihear Temple, its listing as a World Heritage site and its management plan. The proposal may be rejected outright, as the issue involves sensitive matters like bilateral ties, national sovereignty and so on. However, some things have to change because otherwise the Bahrain meeting will be a repeat of the Brasilia one.
Most importantly, both countries must talk more and play less politics. Thai officials claimed they had been kept in the dark over what information was in Phnom Penh's management plan submitted to Unesco until the Brasilia meeting was about to take place. Whether the claims are true or not, obviously there has not been a communications line between the two countries over this sensitive and potentially explosive issue, and this has to change.
Territorial disputes can last years, or even decades. They sometimes encompass generations. This, however, should never be used as an excuse for not trying enough to find a common solution, or for not talking to each other when we can. This is not an issue that can be solved through passing messages through a third or fourth party or lobbying. Of course, direct talks will be hard and possibly acrimonious, but if Thailand and Cambodia are sincere about ending the conflict, there's nothing else they can do but try.
