Bangkok Post: Court in The Hague gives peace a chance
“Preah Vihear is a fantastic historical temple, not a political object. It is time for both countries to work together to preserve, protect and defend the Temple.” writes in her editorial Bangkok Post today that the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague gives peace a chance.
The newspaper points out that Thailand is legally and morally obliged to respect the ruling, as it has agreed to refer the matter to the ICJ. The government should not tolerate protests. Cambodia is not responsible for the Court's decision, nor is Thailand, it just appeared before the Court.
The Court's decision is, somewhat astonishingly, an opportunity to move forward: with the Temple and with relations with our neighbors on the eastern border. 'Win-win' [as the paper wrote yesterday] may seem a little strong after the Court handed over territory to Cambodia. But any other description only makes matters worse.
The first task is to neutralize the ultra-nationalists. The ICJ is a non-political body. The media, in particular, should expose those who are politicizing the matter. It is now up to both countries to embark on a peaceful path.
More news about Preah Vihear later today in News from Thailand.
(Source: bangkok mail, Nov. 13, 2013)
Bird's eye view of Preah Vihear
- The Preah Vihear is a temple built between the 8th and 11th centuries.
- In 1962, the Court assigned the temple 'and its vicinity' to Cambodia.
- In 2008, Unesco awarded the temple World Heritage status.
- Two years ago, Cambodia went to the Court asking it to specify the 1962 verdict. Cambodia wanted to know how big that 'vicinity' is. That is what the Court has now done.
- The Court has assigned the so-called 'promondory' (cape, more like a mountain), on which the temple stands, to Cambodia. Thailand and Cambodia must agree on the exact border.
- The 'promondory' does not extend to the entire 4,6 square kilometer area disputed by both countries.
- The Court has not ruled on the border between the two countries.
Submitted communication
Looking for a nice gift for Sinterklaas or Christmas? Buy The Best of Thailand Blog. A booklet of 118 pages with fascinating stories and stimulating columns from eighteen bloggers, a spicy quiz, useful tips for tourists and photos. Order now
I don't know, I don't really like the pronunciation. I think they should have put the dots on the i and described everything clearly what exactly will be mine and thine.
Now that there are still ambiguities, I foresee some squabbling in the future. A missed opportunity to arrange everything in one go.
@ Hans K Het Hof has, as in 1962, refrained from saying anything about the border between the two countries. That is a matter for both countries, in which the Court does not interfere. The boundary of the 'promontory' on which the temple stands has been indicated by the Court with a geographical indication. Both countries will have to agree on the exact border. I will come back to this in News from Thailand.
Significant in this context is that after the ruling of the Court in The Hague not a word of discontent was spoken on both sides and that there were no riots, let alone an exchange of gunfire. Despite the preparations on both sides for possible unrest, it has been agreed behind the scenes to live peacefully, to determine the borders by mutual agreement and to silence the nationalists on both sides. Both the Hun Sen government and the Yongluck government do not benefit from a hotbed of conflict over what I believe is a more symbolic affair.
I do understand the positive mood in both countries. After all, she was spared the imminent loss of face. And losing face is the worst thing that can happen to a person, isn't it. What I do not understand is that the Court needs more than half a year (almost a year?) to reach this verdict. The facts weren't that complicated after all, or am I mistaken? Is that deliberate to calm things down? Or is that legal mill really that inefficient and unnecessarily costly?
I don't find it so strange that a court (the International Court of Justice) that is seated in the PEACE PALACE would like the peace to be kept after this ruling, I think this is also the whole idea behind the establishment of this court.
And hopefully both countries will give peace a chance and resolve this together without bloodshed.