Saturday, February 19, 2011

Negotiate toward success, not stalemate

The Preah Vihear Temple, awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice on June 15, 1962.
A resident of Thailand’s Ban Phumsarol village near the temple chases a PAD activist on Sept 9, 2009.
Villagers felt the activists from the People’s Alliance for Democracy were a nuisance that upset their livelihood, which depended on trade with their Cambodian fellow villagers.
19/02/2011
William Roth
Bangkok Post

The saga over the Temple of Preah Vihear continues to drag on, seemingly without an end in sight. Blood has been spilled and lives lost on both sides of the border, with the United Nations Security Council now calling for a "permanent ceasefire".

Yet Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva "has rejected Cambodia's proposal for the two countries to sign a ceasefire agreement", because "it was too early to talk about such a move".

The Security Council further asked that the parties negotiate an end to their dispute, but the current imbroglio is further complicated by opposing views on the form negotiations should take. Thailand insists that any talks be strictly bilateral, although allowing for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations "facilitation", but rejects Cambodia's desire for third-party mediation or active involvement by other countries or any "regional framework".

But what is the objective of the negotiations?


Presumably it is "the demarcation of land boundary" between Thailand and Cambodia, for which the Joint Boundary Commission was established in 2000. Indeed, Thailand has been strenuously urging the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation not to proceed with its listing of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site until the border there has been demarcated.

But, like the proverbial elephant in the room, what no one seems able to mention is that no amount of negotiation, however it might be structured, will ever result in an agreed upon demarcation of the border in the area of Preah Vihear.

The reason is quite straight-forward: each country has an extremely good argument for why the so-called 4.6-square kilometre disputed area is theirs, and political and emotional considerations on both sides of the border make it absolutely impossible for either country to budge from their respective position.

Thus, any further negotiation to demarcate that border will only prove fruitless.

But is demarcation really necessary? The border in the temple area has been in dispute for well over 100 years, but for much of that time both sides have co-existed along it in relative peace. Demarcation of land boundaries is, in fact, primarily a Western (read "colonial") concept. As Canadian scholar Andreas Buss pointed out in a 2010 article about Preah Vihear and regional customary law, "Traditionally, the king was a king over people rather than over a defined area of territory; territorial jurisdiction could not be strictly defined by permanent boundaries, but was characterised by fluidity and flexibility, dependent on the power of the central government."

An earlier Bangkok Post article about the temple dispute, "A fine line" on May 22, 2008, reported comments by anthropologist and archaeologist Srisakra Vallibhotama. According to him, "Watershed lines were traditionally considered by ancient people as no man's land, belonging to no one. Crossing the areas required the performing of rituals... People from both sides came to Preah Vihear to perform rituals, as they do to this very day."

Well, maybe a "no man's land" is not a viable idea today, as some might see that as conceding Thai territory - a definite non-starter.

But why not simply leave the disputed area "disputed", and include it within a larger area administered by Unesco for the benefit of both countries?

The earlier article also reported comments of Tharapong Srisuchat, director of the Fine Arts Department's Office of Archaeology. According to him, "Each World Heritage site must consist of its nucleus, core zone and buffer zone, which should be circular, but Preah Vihear in Cambodia's proposal is in the shape of a fan with the core zone at its lowest end. The temple's surroundings located in Thai territory... are also important and should go together with the sanctuary in the nomination."

As it stands now, the temple remains closed, military forces are massed against one another, and both countries continue to lose out on the potentially immense benefits of tourism to the area. And over what?

Is it not time to take a step back and focus on what the benefits can be to both countries, rather than continue to be influenced by Western concepts of boundaries?

As pointed out by Mr Srisakra the anthropologist, "Ancient people just looked for a symbol before crossing from one zone to another but France drew the line for us to accept."

Why not negotiate toward a joint management area, under the oversight of Unesco, into which visitors from both countries could freely enter, see the temple and its surrounding areas, and then return the same day to the country from which they came?

It need not be a border crossing, and no need for a marked border, but only signs that read: "Welcome to the Preah Vihear Historical Park, a Unesco World Heritage Site." (Or maybe, on the Thai side, the sign could read, "Welcome to the Phra Viharn Historical Park.")

To exit, visitors would follow signs that said either "To Thailand" or "To Cambodia" and, at the respective document checking posts, a sign would simply say, "Leaving the Preah Vihear (Phra Viharn) Historical Park. Thank You for Visiting."

As for maps, both countries could continue to draw their respective boundary lines as they see fit, though it would make more sense to just have the lines end at the junction with the line surrounding the historical park, leaving the "real" boundary lines inside disputed. Both Thai and Cambodian flags, however, should be flown together as an equal pair throughout the park, regardless of whether a particular area of the park was or was not concededly a part of one country or the other.

The one and only exception would be at the very summit of the temple itself, where a single Cambodian flag would be allowed to fly. After all, the International Court of Justice did declare that "This is Cambodia", albeit with greater grammatical correctness.
---------
William Roth teaches international law at Chulalongkorn University.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do Kos Trol, sea and lands proximately over 10 000 km2 have been lost to Vietnam by who treaty? Why don't Cambodia goverment transparency explain to cambodia army at front line and the whole nation about this? Why don't they include this into education system? Why?

Cambodian army are fighting at front line for 4.6 km2 and what's about over 10 000km2 of cambodia to Vietnam. Nobody dare to talk about it! Why? Cambodian army you are decide the fade of your nation, Cambodian army as well as cambodian people must rethink about this again and again. Is it fair?

Kos Trol, Sea and lands over 10 000km2 have been lost to Vietnam by who treaty at 1979 to 1985 treaty! treaty! Cambodian army at front line as well as all cambodian people must rethink again about these issues. Are cambodian army fighting to protect the Cambodia Nation or protect a very small group that own big lands, big properties or only protecting a small group rather in the real name of protecting khmer nation?

Cambodian army at front line suffer under rain, wind, bullets, bombs,lack of foods, lack of nutrition, their families have no health care help, no securities after they die but a very small group eat well, sleep well, sleep in first class hotel with air conditioning with young girls message, have super health care from oversea medical treatment, they are billionairs, millionairs who sell out the country to be rich and make cambodian people suffer everyday as cambodian people know already.

Who signed the treaty 1979-1985 that result lost over 10 000 km2 of Cambodia??? Why don't they transparency inform all Cambodian and cambodian army at front line about these issues? Why don't include Kos Trol ( Kos Trol size is bigger than the whole Phom Phen with planty of natural resources ) in education

Smart Khmer Girl Ms.Rattana Keo,

Anonymous said...

why siem continue to disrespect the 1907 map as if it never existed as an international treaty is beyond anyone's comprehension, you know!

there is no doubt in every khmer person that siem wanted badly to steal from cambodia our ancient temple, lands, territories, etc! the siem need to get over it and get used to the changing world, ok! so, stop making illegal demand for something that doesn't belong to them, ok! i'm sure if our khmer great ancestor kings who built these temples were to live forever, siem wouldn't have a chance at stealing our temples, let alone gaining independence to become what we know today as thailand, you know! so, there! that's a small gesture, considering what siem stole from cambodia if they were sincere about wanting to mend fences and be friends with khmer people! in actuality, it is khmer people who should lament and resent about losing lots of lands, territories, seas e.g. old khmer provinces, temples, etc to siem; it is khmer's call, not siem, really!

Anonymous said...

This guy is crazy! He works in Thailand, for Thailand and speaks for Thailand. Why didn't Thailand give up the land? If it thinks of itself as a civil nation. Why fight for the 4.6m so fiercely. Cambodia has all the evidence that the land belongs to her.Would Thailand share anything with Cambodia. Cambodia shared much of its land with Thailand and Vietnam by allow their people to settle in among Khmer people and at the end Cambodia lost the land. Try to share your home with a greedy baster and see how you feel.

Anonymous said...

It would be a conflict of interest to
have the ASIAN leader to act as a mediator in the Cambodian-Thailand
border row, because the current ASIAN
leader is a Thai national and the Indonesian Foreign Minister married to a Thai woman. Their decisions will not be fair to Cambodia. They cannot be neutral in this matter.

Anonymous said...

i think if someone wants to help settle conflict between thailand and cambodia, they must be neutral from another country, not one that works in thailand and teach in thailand and vacation in thailand and likes to eat thai food, etc; because we have no doubt that this type of person is biased toward cambodia as he/she does not understand much about cambodia, not to mentioned the person might be brainwashed by siem corruption to play favoritism, etc, you know! khmer person just cannot trust this type of person, period! it's in the tone of their writing, their voice, etc; real biased toward cambodia for sure, really!

Anonymous said...

Srisakra Vallibhotama,a Thai anthropologist and archaeologist, proposed on ASTV 07 Jan 2011: 1) dismiss Khmers from 4.6 square km 2) withdraw from UNESCO and MOU 2000

Anonymous said...

Thailand is a perverted country and William Roth who working for Thailand also a perverted scholar! Just say no to Siem twisted logic and say no Siem style of negotiation!

What belong to Cambodia will belong to Cambodia! What belong to Thailand will belong to Thailand!

Anonymous said...

http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/thai-cambodian-border-dispute-could-portend-greater-dangers-for-asia

Do China and US really behind the conflict?

Anonymous said...

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0072+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

European Parliament calls for Cambodia and Thailand to respect the ICJ verdict.

Anonymous said...

9:38 AM
Could you please translate the word
"Smart Khmer Girl"
in higher academic Khmer language.

Anonymous said...

Phumsarol is a Khmer name phum srol

Anonymous said...

The reason is quite straight-forward: each country has an extremely good argument for why the so-called 4.6-square kilometre disputed area is theirs.

What extremely good reson Thailand has? by drawing a fake map is call a extremly good reason?

Anonymous said...

Abhisit A dog of Thai king, pad and Y.shirt, not reject the sign, people in the world know you are too bad.

Abhisit
Go to the hell!!!
Go to the hell!!!
Go to the hell!!!

You havr to accept the UN request on the 14th feb,2011 in New York.

Anonymous said...

This is not wrong proposal and is not acceptable. We should never reward the bad guy - it is wrong. Cambodia must not and will not do anything stupid to joint management with Thailand. We know it all too well that they will eventually take over the whole thing.

No foreigners know it better than us though out our history and we ought to wait for no one to defending for our cause, not the U.S or UN. The UN is the mouthpiece of the U.S and the U.S only care for Thailand, because Thailand is its ally and customer for ammunition. Since Cambodia is not U.S' customer for ammunition the U.S and the U.N could careless, but what they care from Cambodia is, security in their homeland, to fight terrorism.

The way U.S treats Cambodia is like the way they treat the Middle Eastern countries. I wonder where is the U.S and UN's moral values?