Preah Vihear in The Hague: Thailand strikes back
About 4,6 members of the South Isan Land Protection Network tried yesterday to invade the XNUMX square kilometers of Hindu temple Preah Vihear, which is currently being examined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. They wanted to hoist the Thai flag, but a combined force of police and soldiers stopped them.
Meanwhile, Thailand took the floor in The Hague, after Cambodia had given an explanation to its petition submitted in 2011 on Monday. In it, Thailand's neighbor asks to reinterpret the Court's 1962 judgment that awarded the temple to Cambodia and rule on the ownership of the 4,6 square kilometers at the temple, which is disputed by both countries.
Thailand argued yesterday that it fully complied with the Court's 1962 verdict: it withdrew its troops from the temple and returned the ancient artifacts Cambodia had asked for. However, the Court did not rule on the border (which Cambodia had asked for).
After half a century, Cambodia returns to the Court to defy the meaning and scope of the 1962 verdict. That is a total change of attitude. It asks the Court to do something it refused to do in 1962: to consider the border line," said one of Thailand's lawyers. According to him, Cambodia wants to use the country as a management area, a requirement that Unesco made when the temple was placed on the World Heritage List. However, the control area desired by Cambodia overlaps the 4,6 square kilometers.
The conflict over the border, argued the lawyer, should be resolved bilaterally, something that was agreed in 2000 in a Memorandum of Understanding by both countries. "But Cambodia refuses."
Bangkok Post notes that many words of admiration and confidence are expressed about the Thai legal team on social media. A senator said of one of the lawyers' plea: "Her presentation makes my hair stand on end."
Cambodia will speak again today, Thailand again on Friday and then we have to wait for the verdict that is expected in October.
(Source: Bangkok Post, Apr 18, 2013)
The whole thing is a textbook example of a political smokescreen, a ploy used by politicians worldwide to divert public attention from important issues such as the economy, the environment, corruption, social wrongs, etc.
The Bangkok Post fails to mention that Thailand's initial response, requesting the International Court of Justice to remove the case from its list, was unanimously rejected by the 12 members of the Court. That was a very bad start for Thailand (July 18, 2011).
Now there is a substantive response and Thailand actually wants a bilateral solution. They have now had 50 years to find it.
The whole temple thing is - as Cor Verhoef points out - a means to divert attention from the powerlessness of Thai politicians to tackle problems. People are busy with each other in a childish way, instead of with the affairs of the country.
I hope that there are also critical Thai journalists who follow the case at the International Court of Justice. That hosanna shout from the Bangkok Post isn't really informative.
It seems to me that there will be another ruling this year very soon.
The sad thing is that you can assume that neither side will want / can accept a negative outcome of this case.
If you take a look at the map like that, you would almost say that the border is very, ehhhhh, weird, with some mental gymnastics you could speak of a “French joke”.
Why French?
Well France, like all colonial powers, have tried to bake future battles into the independence of the colonies when they lose their colonies.
Just because perhaps in the future, through all kinds of political and military conflicts, through the ingrained points of conflict, you will be able to exert influence again, read to regain power.
See elsewhere in the world, especially in Africa, the Middle East and also in Asia.
@ HansNL I think it is a bit shortsighted to claim that France has deliberately built in conflict points.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a joint committee of France and Siam (as the country was called at the time) agreed that the border at the Preah Vihear temple would consist of the watershed of the Dangrek chain. Two French officers have drawn a map, the so-called Dangrek map, which later turned out to contain errors. Seems almost inevitable to me because GPS didn't exist yet and neither did aerial photography; the map was drawn based on fieldwork and observation.
The Court assigned the temple to Cambodia based on that map in 1962 and now Cambodia is trying to add the 4,6 square kilometers to its territory based on the same map. If you are interested in the exact course of events (I have summarized it succinctly), see http://www.dickvanderlugt.nl/buitenland/thailand-2010/preah-vihear/
You also write that the colonial powers have lost their colonies. For some colonies, however, the colonial masters were only too happy to get rid of them, because they were a burden and began to cost money. Whether this applies to what was then French Indochina, I do not know.
Dick,
You're absolutely right, indeed, the card, that's what it's all about.
As I suggested, it LOOKS like….
But Dick, you don't want to say that the colonial powers didn't want to throw a spanner in the works when they lost their "influence".
Mind you, both France and England have acknowledged that almost all independences involved foul play, to one degree or another.
I note that the map, drawn according to you by two French officers, who were certainly and undoubtedly directed by Paris, is the basis for the border.
And I think that with a great degree of perfidity, the border has been very strikingly drawn by those French officers.
If I then also see how, around the turn of the century and especially after 1914-1918, France and England did everything they could to ensure their interests (?) of influence in the distant future, and did not delay in drawing boundaries which would automatically cause misery later on, I think it may very well be that the border between Thailand and Cambodia was also exposed to this treatment.
Let's face it, of course the great powers would rather lose some colonies than get rich.
However, the colonies bordered on other colonies, or had ties with other colonies, so in general the great powers, and actually also the Netherlands with the Indies, were not at all happy to lose their colonies, or to make them independent.
England, for example, has set up its commonwealth just to exert influence, and if I am not mistaken, France has also set up such things, although France has its "Overseas Provinces" of course.
A nice piece of reading material, well piece, about the machinations of the British in Arab countries can be read in a book by T, E, Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.
Indeed, Lawrence of Arabia.
If I am not mistaken, a book was also written about the machinations of France in the period of World War I in the Arab world, but whatever the title was, J,M,H,W,
In short, though, I suppose the border fixation may have been subject to some massage, and Thailand and Cambodia are now reaping the bitter benefits of that.
As for France, why do you think La Douce France fought a fairly large war in Indochina?
Because they cost money?
Because they would rather lose Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam than get rich?
Well, for the influence in the future.
@ HansNL The International Training Center for Aerial Survey in Delft has determined that the river O'Tasem is drawn in the wrong place on the Dangrek map, so that the border does not match the watershed and Preah Vihear is on Cambodian territory. Why would French perfidity be involved here? Remember that cartography was still in its infancy at the beginning of the 20th century. Also don't forget that the Dangrek map has a scale of 1:200.000. That is quite a large scale for such a small area.
'Her presentation makes my hair stand on end' – this statement by a senator about a member of the Thai legal team apparently sees the Bangkok Post as an expression of admiration and confidence. Is that correct? When someone says that his hair stood on end at a presentation – because that is the meaning of the English expression – in my opinion it expresses something completely different from admiration and confidence…………
@ Cornelis Let me give you the literal text from Bangkok Post. Among admirers were Senator Kamnoon Sitthisammarn who saw Ms Miron's [the lawyer] explanation about the the maps of the Thai-Cambodian border as a clear response to the Cambodian legal team.
Her presentation “makes my hair stand on end”, Mr Kamnoon posted [on Facebook or Twitter].
I assume Kamnoon wrote in Thai, so there may be a translation error and the editor doesn't know the exact meaning of the phrase.
Hi Dick,
In my opinion, the expression "makes my hairs stands on end" can be used in both positive and negative ways.
One can also sometimes get the chills when he hears someone say something very emotional if the chills get that someone can be so malicious.
Greetings,
Louise
The question is of course why the conflict around the Preah Vihear and the adjacent piece of land of 4,6 square km is so persistent and escalating. I think it has a lot to do with (ultra)nationalist feelings, which both countries suffer from, and in this case not only the (political) elite but also the common people, although no one wants a war, except for a few minor groups after that. It's basically about hurt nationalistic feelings where the card business, interesting as it is, is just a way to express those feelings in a civilized way.
Cambodia has been occupied for centuries by the Siamese, who conducted many campaigns to Cambodia, taking kings hostage and demanding tribute. The French protectorate over Cambodia (1863) was felt as a kind of liberation. Cambodia considers its big neighbour, Thailand, a bully, which is why it won't budge an inch.
Thailand has never really put up with the fact that parts of Laos and Cambodia were taken over by the French (and later the three northern provinces of Malaysia by the British). They have resigned themselves to it but still experience it as injustice. This injustice is constantly taught to poor Thai children at school and in the media. All school books show the full extent of Siam, from about 1800 with maps on which Siam covers almost all of South-East Asia. They were forced to cede large areas to the two colonial powers, France and England. That is the reason that Thailand is now putting its foot forward: also give up that 4,6 square km? That never! I think the Court is not going to rule on that piece of land, and then it depends on whether both countries can keep their cool.
Tino, thanks for this analysis! Now it has all become a bit clearer. I was a bit lost on this topic!
A temple should be a symbol of peace and tolerance, apparently they think differently in Thailand and Cambodia.
It reminds me more of neighbors who have a disagreement because one thinks the other's fence is 1 cm too high and therefore make a lawsuit out of it.
Can you understand the border residents of both countries who live in the vicinity, because they are essentially the victims of the conflict who have to tolerate (armed) skirmishes in their backyard, who can no longer go to work or school with the risk of having to go on through life with a severed limb.
That only for a handful of nationalists and some high-ranking politicians from Thailand as well as Cambodia who want to push through their will and patriotism at all costs.