My comment to BKK on line Editorial “Crude remarks uncalled for”

Published: 10/02/2010
“His (Hun Sen) wish on the website for "evil events to befall" PM Abhisit is diplomatically indefensible."
Hun Sen had many reasons to make the "wish". The Thai troops intrusion deep inside Cambodia and the ocupation of the Cambodian territory on 15 July 2008 is one; the distortion of the facts that the Temple of Preah Vihear “is on the border,” that is 2; the disinformation, for example saying that there is an "overlapping area", then "a disputed area", and finally "Thailand's teritory of 4.6Km2". In fact it was just recently that Thailand drew a unilateral map, in the same manner as Hitler and Mussolini, and sent the Nazis and the Fascists to occupy the others Nations, that 3... and there are many others.

Did or din't Thai troops invaded Cambodia, recently, as of 15 July 2008? Abhisit must say and swear, and that is the end of it. The way Abhisit has been doing to Cambodia is it statesmanly and internationally acceptable, needless to quesion whether or not it is dipomatically defensible?

"The Thai prime minister did the right thing by ignoring the repeated and primitive verbal assaults; so it is Hun Sen who lost face." It was Hun Sen who unmasked the "devil" behind the diplomatic, but macchiavellan smile of Abhisit. If Abhisit is a master in disinformation, distortion of the facts, and misinformation, Hun Sen was right not to use something, some sort of methodologies that Abhisit is master at it. Abhisit ignored things behind the dead wall is the reason to receive bags of human excrements from his own people (the fact is that he received bags of human excrements in his guarded compound.) The recommendation of BKK to Abhist is inappropriate. Verbal assaults are not as bad as human excrements, for Abhisit.

Therefore, who lost face? I think that the guy who receives bags of human excrements as gift or sign of protest lost his face.

"He (Hun Sen)should reconsider this sort of distasteful rhetoric, which certainly fails to advance his own cause." Hun Sen's "cause" is to defend his country against foreign invasion. Verbal asaults and weapons must be used against invaders. In fact Thai troops invaded Cambodia on 15 July 2008. I found that Hun Sen has his ways to deal with Abhisit who is a liar, a master of disinformation and distortion of the facts.It must be recalled that Abhisit ascended to
become Prime Minister of Thailand by being one of the leaders of the "YELLOW SHIRTS" as well as Kasit, who now enjoyed a double standard treatment from the system created by the 2006 Coup.

It would be wiser for Abhisit to learn history and he must know that the WORLD will never allow Thailand to be the 21st century foreign land robber. 1962 at The Hague and 1946 at Washington DC are well recorded in history and the related rule of law applies.

William
11 February 2010

Commentary: Samdech Techo Hun Sen: “There is no Overlapping or Dispute Area”

by Sam Sotha
Samdech Hun Sen stated again to Abhisit on February 6, 2010, during his official tour to visit the troops and Cambodian people at Preah Vihear region that “Cambodia has never recognized the unilateral map produced by Thailand, and there has never been an overlapping area, the so-called 4.6 square kilometers”.

Abhisit the current Prime Minister of Thailand, born in England and educated at Oxford University has betrayed history and the principles of “International Law” and repeatedly insisted, as published in the Bangkok Post on February 8, 2010 that “Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on Monday stood firm that his government would not give up the contested area 4.6 km2 area adjacent to the ancient Preah Vihear, saying the area which is owned by Thailand.”

To this end, Abhisit must be go back and learn more the scenario of the judgment of the International Court of Justice, in The Hague that had ruled among its critical decisions that 1) “The Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia; and that 2) “Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.”

On 30th September 1959, Cambodia submitted an Application to the UN International Court of Justice that: “Cambodia alleges a violation on the part of Thailand of Cambodia's territorial sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear and its precincts.”

At the proceedings, Thailand replied that: “the area in question lies on the Thai side of the common frontier between the two countries, and is under the sovereignty of Thailand.”

“This question of territorial sovereignty, the Court must have regard to the frontier line between thetwo States in this sector,” the Court added.

Furthermore, the Court stated that “the map that was filed by Cambodia in attachment to its Aide Memoire, has become known in the case as the Annex 1 map; and that it is on this map that Cambodia principally relies in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple,” and of course, the areas of its vicinity.

But, Thailand, on the other hand, contested that “the map was not the work of the Mixed Commission, and had therefore no binding character.”

So, to deal with the case, the Court stated that: “the real question, therefore, which is the essential one in this case, is whether the Parties did adopt the Annex 1 map, and the line indicated on it, as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation of the frontier in the region of Preah Vihear, thereby conferring on it a binding character.

Nevertheless, the Court clearly explained that: “the Siamese authorities by their conduct acknowledged the receipt, and recognized the character, of these maps, and what they purported to represent, as shown by the action of the Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, in thanking the French Minister in Bangkok for the maps, and in asking him for another fifteen copies of each of them for transmission to the Siamese provincial Governors.

The Court stressed further that “this was no mere interchange between the French and Siamese Governments, though, even if it had been, it could have sufficed in law. On the contrary, the maps were given wide publicity in all technically interested quarters by being also communicated to the leading geographical societies in important countries, and to other circles regionally interested; to the Siamese legations accredited to the British, German, Russian and United States Governments; and to al1 the members of the Mixed Commission - French and Siamese.”

The full original distribution consisted of about one hundred and sixty sets of eleven maps each. Fifty sets of this distribution were allocated to the Siamese Government. Why Thailand contested at the Court that “the map was not the work of the Mixed Commission, and had therefore no binding character?” To this, the Court explained:

“That the Annex1 map was communicated as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation and is clear from the letter from the Siamese Minister in Paris to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Bangkok, dated 20th August 1908, in which he said that: regarding the Mixed Commission of Delimitation of the frontiers and the Siamese Commissioners' request that the French Commissioners prepare maps of various frontiers, the French Commissioners have now finished their work,” said the Court.

And “The Siamese Minister added that a series of maps had been brought to him in order that he might forward them to the Siamese Minister of Foreign Affairs. He went on to give a list of the eleven maps, including the map of the Dangrèk region, fifty sheets each. He ended by saying that he was keeping two sheets of each map for his Legation and was sending one sheet of each to the Legations in London, Berlin, Russia and the United States of America.”

The other silly point, Thailand claimed that the maps received from Paris were only seen by minor officials who had no expertise in cartography, and would know nothing about the Temple of Preah Vihear.

But, the Court replied differently that it cannot accept these contentions either on the facts or the law and said that “if the Siamese authorities did show these maps only to minor officials, they clearly acted at their own risk, and the claim of Thailand could not, on the international plane, derive any assistance from that fact.”

“The history of the matter, shows clearly that the maps were seen by such persons as Prince Devawongse, the Foreign Minister, Prince Damrong, the Minister of the Interior, the Siamese members of the First Mixed Commission, the Siamese members of the Commission of Transcription.”

“The Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, was furthermore asking the French Legation for another fifteen copies of each of them for transmission to the Siamese provincial Governors. So the Court assumed that at least that “the Annex 1 map was seen by the Governor of Khukhan province, the Siamese province adjoining the Preah Vihear region on the northern side, who must have been amongst those for whom extra copies were requested by Prince Damrong.”
The Court said that, “none of these persons were a minor official,” that “al1 or most had local knowledge. Some must have had knowledge of the Dangrek region.” and added that “it is clear from the documentation in the case that Prince Damrong took a keen personal interest in the work of delimitation, and had a profound knowledge of archaeological monuments. It is not conceivable that the Governor of Khukhan province, of which Preah Vihear was stated to part up to the 1904 settlement, was ignorant of its existence.”

Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter, the Court said “she did not do so.”

Dear readers; It was the United Nations, International Court of Justice in its judgment on 15 June 1962 , that stated: “the map marked Preah Vihear itself quite clearly identifies as lying on the Cambodian side of the line, using the Temple a symbol which seems to indicate a rough plan of the building and its stairways.”

Regarding the binding character of the Annex I map, the Court confirmed that “Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex 1 map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Vihear in Cambodian territory”. The Court considers further that “both Parties, by their conduct, recognized the line and thereby in effect agreed to regard it as being the frontier line.” By these considerations, the Court concluded that “the acceptance of the Annex I map by the Parties
caused the map to enter the treaty settlement and to become an integral part of it”; and thereby conferred on it (Annex I map) a binding character. And that the ruling number 2 of the Court was that “Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.”

The Royal Government of Cambodia, Samdech Techo, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, repeated the rulings a thousand times, that the Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia and its vicinity is Cambodian soil.

Furthermore, based on these facts and the rule of international law, please stop trying to betray historical and legal facts and stop trying to protest against the UNESCO’s decision on July 7, 2008 to list the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site.

* * *

Mr. Sam Sotha is the author of the “In the Shade of A Quiet Killing Place”, his personal mémoire. About the book, visit www.heavenlakepress.com
Or write to his personal e-mail address at: samsotha@everyday.com.kh

OPEN-LETTER TO UNESCO’S DIRECTOR GENERAL

Dear Madam Director General,
I am writing to refer to ML. Walwipa Charoonroj of Thammasat University’s letter recently submitted to you in which she called on UNESCO to invalidate the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List.

In response to her ill-willed and illusory allegation she argued in her letter, I would like to solicit your kind consideration for the following tangible evidence:
1-with relation to the frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand at the areas adjacent to the Temple of Preah Vihear as has been raised by ML.Walwipa, I wish to kindly inform you that the Annex I map ( Dangrek-Commission of Delimitation between Indochina and Siam ) which was the result of the work of the Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission, set-up by the Franco-Siamese Convention of 1904 and the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1907, was recognized and used by the ICJ to issue the verdict on the sovereignty of Cambodia on the Temple of Preah Vihear on 15 June 1962.

It is worth noting that the Annex I map was also recognized at the time by the government of the kingdom of Siam. In this connection, the ICJ found that the map was seen by Prince Devawongse, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, Minister of the Interior and even by the Governor of Khukhan province. In addition,” Prince Damrong thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for the maps and asked him for another fifteen copies of each of them for transmission to the Siamese provincial Governors.”

It is also advisable that ML.Walwipa should not forget that the MOU between the Government of Cambodia and Thailand of 14 June 2000 has recognized this map as the official document for the survey and demarcation work of the Cambodian-Thai Joint Commission on Demarcation of Land Boundary (JBC).

Hence there are legal frameworks that codify the international boundary between our two countries.

But ML.Walwipa has always chosen to ignore this undeniable evidence because of her self-centered illusion, prejudice and misperception of Cambodia.

2- as for her reference to the decision of Thai administrative court to revoke the Thai-Cambodia Joint communiqué on the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear, everyone can easily understand that it is purely internal affair of Thailand or only a game of the current Thai politics. Thai courts do not have any jurisdiction over the frontier of Thailand .Even the former chairperson of National World Heritage committee of Thailand, Mr Pongpol Adireksan did not agree with what ML.Walwipa has asserted and said that the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the WHL would not be
affected by the verdict of Thai court.

3-ML.Walwipa is right to assume that the ICJ does not have any jurisdiction over third country or IOs like UNESCO. Although she is totally wrong to state that UNESCO needs to have Thai “authorization” before listing the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage, because the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the WHL is under the sole sovereignty of Cambodia and UNESCO, provided that, according to the ICJ’s judgment, “the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia”. Since then, a half century on, Thailand has recognized this ICJ’s verdict and in fact withdrew its occupation forces from the Temple and its vicinity. Cambodia re-occupied and controlled the Temple and its surrounding areas without any complaint from Thailand. Where upon the issue of the Temple of Preah Vihear was completely finished.

As has been said, people might ask what are the motives behind ML.Walwipa’s opposition to the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the WHL even though she unquestionably knows that the Temple is under the sovereignty of Cambodia.

Everyone here in Cambodia is seriously hurtful by any action of the kind that is deeply offensive. As a woman of intellect amongst the elites of the old oligarchy, she should be honest enough to accept the objective reality of the history and should not be involved in this shameful and grotesque arrogance vis-à-vis Cambodia. But ML.Walwipa and these elites have opted not to abide this moral and legal obligation because of their old prejudice and selfimage of superiority over Cambodia. To the detriment of upholding a lasting good neighborly relationship, they reinvigorate their old strategy which is to weaken Cambodia by maintaining a state of hostility in order to undermine its capabilities. In the past, as a result of the steady decline of the Khmer Empire and the growing power of Siam from the midfifteenth century onward, Siam used this weaken-strategy by invading and putting the country as its tributary or vassal state.

Thus, in 1794” the provinces of Battambang and Siemreap, constituting almost one-third of Cambodia, were put under the direct supervision of Bangkok in order to weaken that Kingdom” (ref: Bunnag,Tej-The Provincial Administration of Siam 1892-1915).

Dear Madam Director General, I believe that it is not time to return to the old thinking in this growing interdependence world. I firmly believe that it is indeed high time not only to ponder but also to act together, Cambodians and Thais, including the whole people of ASEAN countries, in order to prevent and to dissipate hostilities and conflicts amongst themselves which are in conformity with UNESCO’s objectives in building ” a new universal ethics of living together”.
Finally, I would like to thank Madam Director General for your kind attention in this matter and to avail myself of this opportunity to extend to you the assurance of my highest consideration.

Phnom-Penh, February 4th, 2010
ENG YENG
International Relations Institute of Cambodia, Phnom Penh