The Nation
Published on August 17, 2010
A vast number of Thai citizens may find that the Preah Vihear Temple controversy causes feelings of wounded pride, but dwelling on the past will only bring grief and misery to all parties concerned.
Thailand must come to terms with its past and move forward instead of trying to right an "unrightable" wrong. Cambodia too must learn to overcome pettiness to be an understanding neighbour.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in 1962 that the temple was on Cambodian land. And Unesco's World Heritage Committee agreed to list the temple as a World Heritage site in 2008.
What is the urgency to stir up an international dispute over the site management plan for a temple that has survived the elements since the 11th century?
It is regrettable that Ayuth Panananda, like Abhisit Vejjajiva and his people in Thai government, keeps on engaging in Thailand’s wholesale malicious campaign of intoxication by writing just anything he wanted without consulting the World Heritage Committee’s Decisions. He is writing in English, therefore he can read those Decisions involving the Temple of Preah Vihear. When Ayuth Panananda pretended to be ignorant, there will be no cure. Simple as 1, 2, 3, Cambodia had just implemented the World Heritage Committee Decisions. There is no urgency to stir up international dispute as alleged Ayuth Panananda. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
If the two neighbouring countries opt to quarrel on what they see as their rightful territory, then the verbal spat might soon escalate into a war, with regrettable and tragic consequences.
Ayuth Panananda could be right about Thailand that sees Cambodian land as its rightful territory. But for Cambodia, we do not see it as our rightful territory. The Temple of Preah Vihear and its vicinity areCambodia’s rightful territory. When war is imposed on us unfairly and unjustly, Cambodia must fight and fight to win, even if Cambodia despises the horrors of war, and more importantly even if Cambodia cherishes peace that gives her a chance to build and develop the country and get out of poverty. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
Regardless of what politicians say or do, Thais should heed the lesson of history before charting their next move on the temple.
Right on, and Thais must embrace also the lesson of legality and rule of international law. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
To put the controversy in context, it is necessary to trace the issue back to the Franco-Siamese War in 1863, to a time when France was expanding into Indochina and Thailand had to cede territory in Laos and Cambodia. Two Franco-Siamese treaties in 1904 and 1907 formalised the hand-over of Thai territory in exchange for safeguarding Thai independence from the colonial power.
Ayuth Panananda must have said, Siam (that is Thailand now) had to withdraw from invaded and occupied territory in Laos and Cambodia. He must have said also that two Franco-Siamese treaties in 1904 and 1907 formalized the hand-over of invaded and occupied territory by the Siameses to France being the protectorate power of Cambodia in virtue of the 11 August 1863 Treaty between France and Cambodia concluded at Oudong, capital of Cambodia, in speaking for Cambodia only. Ayuth Panananda must learn that something that is half true or partially true constitutes a great disservice to history and humanity (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
Based on provisions in the 1907 treaty, a mixed commission was formed to demarcate the border, relying on the watershed of the Dongrak mountain range. France, then the colonial power in the region, unilaterally deviated from the watershed principle to "carve out" the temple for its Cambodian protectorate.
Regrettably, Ayuth Panananda invented history to fit his reasoning. Like a magician he swept under the rug the 1904 Convention of which Article I and Article III are the foundation for the delimitation and the demarcation of the frontier line between French Indo-China and Siam. It is necessary to send Ayuth Panananda back to the library so he can read the “Franco-Siamese Treaties in 1904 and 1907”, with the hope that he would understand their contents and would be able to write properly. Unless he abandons his mentality of a thief and a liar, the attempt to educate Ayuth Panananda to respect historical facts is useless. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
Although Thailand attempted to rectify this injustice of boundary demarcation, its fighting with Vichy France in 1940-41 and the outcome of World War II failed to alter the colonial legacy.
Ayuth Panananda has gone too far in his campaign of intoxication. He is carrying on his mastery to distort historical facts to the point of becoming an intellectual criminal. Actually, on 9 May 1941, under Japanese “mediation” France signed a Peace Agreement with Thailand that accorded Thailand the two Lao provinces to the West of the Mekong and a third of Cambodia territory ( in short all Cambodian territory ceded to French Indo-China since the beginning of the century). Only after five years and a half, on 17 November 1946, a Settlement Agreement was signed in Washington D.C. USA under which France repudiated the 9 May 1941 Peace Agreement and all the territories covered by this Agreement were transferred back to the French authorities. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
The advent of the Vietnam War prompted the United States to produce a 1:50,000-scale map for battle purposes. It happened that this map, using proper cartographic technology, showed the temple's location as inside Thailand.
As stated the 1:50,000 – scale map was produced for battle purpose, and has nothing to do with the delimitation and demarcation of the frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand. In fact, there is an internationally recognized frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand, accepted by Thailand more than one hundred years ago up to today, and resulted from the works of the Mixed Commissions composed of French commissioners and Thai commissioners, established in virtue of the 1904 Convention and the 1907 Treaty between France and Siam. The Dangrek Map, known also as the ANNEX I MAP is one among the eleven maps produced in virtue of the 1904 Convention, and confirmed by the ICJ in 1962 to be “an integral part of the Treaty settlement”.(Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
In the midst of the Cold War when France was forced to retreat from Indochina, Prasat Khao Phra Viharn, as the temple is known in Thai, was briefly returned to Thai sovereignty, as part of what is now Si Sa Ket's Kantharalak district.
Whether Ayuth Panananda is getting confused or he intentionally confuses the public at large as part of Thailand’s campaign of intoxication, there was no notion of “cold war” in the midst of World War II when Thailand formed an alliance with Japan to fight against the French in Indo-China and force the French authorities to sign the 9 May 1941 Peace Agreement. The “cold war” era existed after World War II characterized mainly by the arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union.(Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
But a spat between the Sarit Thanarat government and King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia led to an international dispute over the temple. The ICJ decision returned ownership of the temple back to Cambodia.
Ayuth Panananda is completely wrong and out of his mind. In fact the 17 November 1946 Settlement Agreement signed in Washington D.C. USA under which France repudiated the 9 May 1941 Peace Agreement caused Thailand to return all the taken territories back to French authorities, including the Temple of Preah Vihear. And in 1954, not even one year after Cambodia acquired full independence from France, and taking full advantage of a weaker Cambodia, Thailand occupied the Temple of Preah Vihear, illegally in defiance of international rule of law. Rightfully, the ICJ returned ownership of the Temple of Preah Vihear and its vicinity back to Cambodia, and the ANNEX I MAP has been confirmed to be “an integral part of the treaty settlement” by the ICJ. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
Even though the Sarit government conceded defeat in the International Court, it said its conditional acceptance of the ICJ verdict was a decision that had nothing to do with the national boundary and that the area surrounding the temple remained in Thai territory.
Only an outlaw, a thief and a criminal the type of Ayuth Panananda, Abhisit Vejjajiva and people in his government, lives outside the realities of the universal legality. As it had been said time and again by her leader, Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Cambodia will take the case of Thailand insatiable territorial ambition to the ASEAN and the UNITED NATIONS for many good reasons. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
As a World Heritage site, the main temple structure is about 800 metres in length. But the problem arises from the temple's management plan, because it covers 4.6 square kilometres. The temple perimeter is unclear, but is estimated to link a series of sanctuaries stretching about 2 kilometres into Thailand.
Ayuth Panananda should read Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add.3 and Decision 34 COM 7B.66 before he spoke about the Temple’s Management Plan. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
Pending agreement on the boundary between Thailand and Cambodia based on map-making technology and not colonial legacy, the two neighbours have no irrefutable evidence to back up their respective claims on territory.
Ayuth Panananda repudiates past treaties and the rule of international law. This is the common character of an outlaw, a thief, and a criminal. This is the reflection of the same attitude expressed by Abhisit Vijjajeva, and the people in his government. For that reason Thai government refuses the involvement of ASEAN or/and the UN. Thais have unveiled their condescending attitude with regards to well established world order, which explains why they lose their supporters one by one, and why Thai reputation went from good to bad, and from bad to worse on the international arena on the issue of the Temple of Preah Vihear. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
In lieu of sabre-rattling, the two ought to keep calm to pave the way for work on border demarcation. All the necessary mechanisms to settle the border dispute are already in place and just await a green light to go into operation.
Ayuth Panananda should be aware that it is Thai parliament that has caused the current stalemate on border demarcation under the framework of the MOU 2000. Three minutes of JBC meetings between Cambodian and Thai members in 2008 and 2009 have been stalled in Thai parliament. It is the Thai parliament that hangs the red line on the JBC works. Ayuth Panananda is very far behind the realities on the border demarcation and the works of the JBC. This is intentional. It is a part of Thai campaign of intoxication. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
It would be sheer folly to squabble over a temple built to uplift human spirits to the heavens
It would be wonderful if Ayuth Panananda can tell Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Thais of the type of Ayuth Panananda to get lost and leave Cambodia alone to carry on the conservation and the sustainable development of the Temple of Preah Vihear in conformity with the World Heritage Decisions and UNESCO standards. (Comment by Pen Ngoeun)
Pen Ngoeun
Advisor to the Office of the Council of Ministers (OCM) of the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), and a member of the Advisory Council of the Press and Quick Reaction Unit (PRU) of the OMC.
This comment is personal and does not reflect the the opinion or idea of the PRU and OCM under any shape and form.