Thursday, July 22, 2010

COMMENTARY : Stop Fantasizing About Reversing the ICJ Ruling

By  Sam Sotha
Secretary of State of the Office of the Council of Minister and
Advisor to the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, and
Vice Chairman of Press and Quick Reaction Unit of the
Office of the Council of Ministers
{The comments are solely the opinion of the author, they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
the Royal Government of Cambodia}  
As the 34
th
 Session of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) scheduled for July
25-August 3, 2010 prepare to meet in Brazil, a group of extremists are embarking
on yet another feeble campaign to intoxicate public opinion against the inscription
and management plans for Preah Vihear Temple in the World Heritage list. Given
this nonsensical attempts, they therefore, deserve a reminder to give them a
reality check!
On 7th July 2008, in Québec, Canada, the WHC, an arm of  the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) decided to inscribe the
Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage list.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, on June 15, 1962
concluded that Thailand in 1908-1909, did accept the Annex I map as
representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the
line on that map as being the frontier line. To this end the Court decided that:
1. “finds that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the
sovereignty of Cambodia”;
finds in consequence,
2.  “that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw all military, police or other
guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on
Cambodian territory.”
3. “that Thailand is under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects of
the kind specified in Cambodia’s fifth submission which may, since the date
of occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from
the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai Authorities”.
An excerpt from the article, published  in the Phnom Penh Post on November 13
2009, attributed to Mr. Derek Tonkin, British Ambassador to Thailand from 1986-
1989 and who was the second secretary at the British Embassy in Phnom Penh
from 1961-1962,  quotes: “When the International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 by nine votes to three that the disputed Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in
Cambodian territory and not in Thai territory, passions  for a time ran high in
Thailand, but in due course the Thais accepted the ruling.”
Thailand’s ignorance, which in the first place opposed the application and
challenged the listing the decision of  the World Heritage Committee deserves
more deliberations so that they will be able to comprehend how to behave in a
proper manner with regard to its neighbor, Cambodia and that too with full
decorum!
On the 2
nd
 Anniversary of the listing of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World
Heritage Site, a roundtable forum was held at the Office of the Council of
Ministers on 8 July 2010 to reaffirm Cambodia's success and pride and also
respond to a handful of Thai extremists who have been longing for ownership of
the Temple of Preah Vihear. This is  an impossible desire which completely
contravenes the law.  
Those extremist group have repeatedly betrayed history and the principles of
“International Law”:  such as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and princess 
Walwipha Jarooroj and some others who stood firm that they would not give up
the contested area 4.6 sq km adjacent to the ancient Temple of Preah Vihear, on
the pretext that they claim that the area is still owned by Thailand. 
The Royal Government of Cambodia led by Samdech Prime Minister Hun Sen, has
reiterated the ICJ rulings a thousand times --that the Temple of Preah Vihear
belongs to Cambodia and its vicinity is sovereign Cambodian soil.
Based on the rule of international law, please stop trying to betray historical and
legal facts and stop trying to protest  against the UNESCO decision of July 7
th
 ,
2008 to list the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site.  Furthermore, 
Thailand is still under an obligation to withdraw any military or police, or other
guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian
territory,” as so defined in the ICJ ruling as stated above.  There should be thus,
no question about the so-called “over-lapping area of 4.6 sq km,” since it does
not exist.
If Thai leaders keep ignoring the ruling  of the international court, they are not
only betraying and fooling themselves, but are also betraying their own
conscience by teaching their people and  their children to have no confidence in
their own judicial system.  By continuing on this reckless path, they are also
insulting their ancestors for their hard work in defending the Thai case against
Cambodia in 1962, which unfortunately,   was ruled against their favor by the
learned judges of the ICJ.
 * *

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

A Hundred aged Land Boundary With Certainty, Stability and Finality Between Cambodia and Thailand

Cambodia never has had any Overlapping Area and nor 4.6 km² Disputed Area with Thailand”

By Long Sokun

International Legality and Legitimacy of the Cambodia and Thai Boundary line:

Cambodia and Thailand share land boundary of about 805 km commences from the point where the territories of Thailand, Cambodia and Laos meets at the Passe of Preah Chamboth, Choam Ksan District, Preah Vihear Province and ends at the coast at Cham Yeam, Mondul Seyma District, Koh Kong Province which has been defined (Delimitation) by the following documents:

1). 13 February 1904 Convention signed in Paris
2). 23 March 1907 Treaty signed in Bangkok
3). Maps which are the results of demarcation works of the Commissions of the Delimitation of the Boundary between Indo-china and Siam under above-mentioned agreements. There are 7 maps
(5 maps from 1907 and 2 maps from 1904) cover Cambodia and Thailand land boundary that were published and communicated to Siamese King, high ranking officials of the Siamese government and to members of the Mixed Commission of Delimitation. 73 border posts were planted during 1908-1909 and1919-1920, commenced from the point of Cham Srangam, Along Veng District, Udor Meanchey Province and ends at the point of Cham Yeam, Mondul Seyma District, Koh Kong Province,
4). Article 2 of the 1925 Treaty between French and Siam: The high Contracting parties confirm and reciprocally guarantee to respect the frontier established between their territories by virtue of and in conformity with the provision of former agreements and maintained by Article 27 of the present treaty.
5). Article 22 of the 1937 Treaty between French and Siam: The contracting Parties guarantee to respect the existing boundary established by the Convention of 1904 and Treaty of 1907,
6). Settlement Agreement of 17 November, 1946 between French and Siam: Article 1: Tokyo Convention of 9 May 1941, heretofore repudiated by the French Government, is hereby annulled and the status quo ante restored. Second paragraph of this article: in consequence the Indochinese territories covered by the said Convention shall be transferred to the French authorities under the conditions se forth in the Protocol 1 concluded for this purpose (See article 3 for the works of Special Conciliation Commission).
7). Boundary Settlement of 1947 between French and Siam (Special Conciliation Commission), The starting of the commission’s work was made subject to the transfer of the territories referred to in the second paragraph I of the Settlement Agreement of 1946. The commission has noted furthermore that the agents of two governments agreed that the legal status of the boundary between Siam and Indo-china rests on the Article I of the Franco-Siamese Agreement of Settlement of November 17, 1946,

UN Post-Thai Aggression and ICJ Ruling:
- In 1954, Thai armed forces occupied Temple of Preah Vihear, violated the UN Charter
- In 1958, a conference held in Bangkok with no solution,
- In 1959, Cambodia filed complaint to the ICJ in Hague,
- In 1962, ICJ, based on Annexed I Map, Sheet of Dangrek Map, ruled that The Temple of Preah Vihear and its vicinity situated in the territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia,
- As for the Interpretation of the line of watershed based on article 1 of 1904 Convention, the indication of the line of watershed in this article was itself no more than an obvious and convenient way of describing a frontier line objectively, though in general terms. No reason to think that parties attached any special importance to the line of watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance, in the interests of finality, of adhering to the map line as eventually delimited and as accepted by them. The court, therefore, feel bound, as a matter of treaty interpretation, to pronounce in favor of the line as mapped in the disputed area. Given the grounds on which the court bases its decision, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether, at Preah Vihear, the line as mapped does in fact correspond to the true watershed line in this vicinity, or did so correspond in 1904-1908, or if now, how the watershed line in fact run (see page 33 ICJ),


Note:
Principles of International Law used in ICJ for the Case of the Temple of Preah Vihear:
- Estoppels law
- Acquiescence
- Pacta sunt servanda (Agreement must be kept)
- Principles of respecting the words

After ICJ Ruling:
-In July 1962, Thailand accepted the ICJ ruling, (Thai PM Sarit Thanarath announced)
-But Thai drew its own unilateral and Secret Map (L7017Map) in its long term ambition to invade Cambodia and reclaim the Temple of Preah Vihear,
-At the end of 2007, Thailand claimed it respects the ICJ ruling, but Thailand misled and twisted the ruling and its motives as said within the ICJ judgment. And from the year of 2007 onward, Thailand used the words such as overlapping area, disputed area of 4,6km2 since the international boundary line has been demarcated as the line on the map was already drawn and accepted by both countries for almost hundred years.

Note:
The Thai’s unilateral and secret map (L7017Map) was just shown during the 31st session of WHC in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2007. It is an unrecognized map.

ICJ Statute:
- Article 60, the Ruling is final and no appeal,
- Article 61, the duration for revision lapsed,

Note:
ICJ has no appeal court, following the principle of non reception of any complaint in case it was already ruled and the period for such revision lapsed as stated within the article 61 of the ICJ statute.
But According to Article 94 of the UN Charter states that “(1) each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the ICJ in any case to which it is a party”. (2) If any party to case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the court, the other party may have recourse to the SC, which may, if deems necessary, make recommendation or decide upon measure to be taken to give effect to the judgment”.

Samdech Techo HUN SEN Reign:
- On 14 June of 2000, MOU signed Between Cambodia and Thailand, respecting the principle of non rectification of the existing boundary established by the Convention of 1904 and Treaty of 1907, and as confirmed by the treaty of 1925 and of 1937,
- On 25 August of 2003, TOR signed between Cambodia and Thailand, strengthening friendship, building peaceful border for cooperation and development for the mutual interests for the people of both Countries by planting boundary pillars through transforming from the line on the maps onto the real terrain so as to show that which side belongs to Cambodia and to Thailand.
-These two documents are explicitly in reference to the 1904 Convention, the Treaty of 1907, maps drawn and the MOU of June 2000. Shortly after, defying the commitments in the MOU and the TOR, Thailand publishes a unilateral and secret map of which the boundary line runs along the immediate vicinity of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This behavior called into question the evidence in force since 1908.- On 18 June 2008, Cambodia and Thailand signed a joint statement in which Thailand supports the Cambodian request for the inscription of the temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List by UNESCO and this inscription states that this is without prejudice to the demarcation work under the MOU in 2000 and TOR of 2003.- On 21 June 2008, General Prem Tinsulanonda, Privy Councilor of the King of Thailand expressed his support for Thai protesters who oppose the inscription of the temple of Preah Vihear.
- On 22 June 2008, the gate of the Temple of Preah Vihear was closed,
- On 26 June 2008, Thai yellow shirt people come to protest in front of the gate of the Temple of Preah Vihear,
- On 10 July 2008, Thai Foreign Minister, Noppadon resigned,- On 1 July 2008 the Thai government withdrew its support for the inscription of the temple. - On July 7, 2008, the World Heritage Committee inscribed the temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. Foreign Minister of Thailand expressed his opposition, but in vain.
-The above elements are obviously known in the chancery all over the world. Some states, signatories of the Paris Agreements of 1991 that ended the Cambodian conflict, have responsibilities with respect to Cambodia’s present situation. Thailand, itself a signatory to these agreements, was like other parties, including the five permanent members of Security Council of the United Nations, has committed to respect "the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability of Cambodia.

Thai Armed Forces Aggression after the Inscription of Temple of Preah Vihear and the Post-Protest of Inscription:

- On 15 July 2008, Thai armed forces invaded and occupied some areas near the Temple of Preah Vihear, the Thai armed forces violate the territorial integrity of Cambodia in the area of Preah Vihear and, therefore, they violate treaties, conventions and joint documents signed by Thailand as well as UN Charter and ICJ ruling of 1962. Since then, the meetings between Foreign Ministers of both countries have avoided the worst so far, but nothing has settled.
- On 3 August 2008, Thai armed forces occupies Tamoan Thom Temple of Cambodia
- On 15 October 2008, armed clashes in the areas near The Temple of Preah Vihear
- On 3 April 2009, armed clashes at the Temple of Preah Vihear,

Pure Cultural Issue:
- On 10 October of 2001, Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN, sent a letter to inform the Director General of UNESCO, H.E. Koichiro Matsura, of the Royal Government's decision to propose this inscription.
- On 30 January of 2006, Portfolio was submitted to the WHC in Paris,
- From 23 to 29 October 006, Technical Mission carried out on the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear,
- On 21 January 2007, ICOMOS, a non-governmental advisory organization associated with the WHC, with additional information requested by ICOMOS and submitted by Cambodia, approved the following evaluation: ICOMOS considered that the Site's outstanding universal value has been demonstrated.
- From 23 June to 2 July 2007, in Christchurch, New Zealand, during its 31st regular session, WHC examined all documents relating to the proposal to inscribe the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List. The Committee first of all took note of the following statement made by the Chairman of the WHC approved by the delegation from Cambodia and delegation from Thailand. "The State party of Cambodia and the state party of Thailand are in full agreement that the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear has Outstanding Universal Value and must be inscribed on the WHC List as soon as possible. Accordingly, Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the Site for formal inscription on the WHC List at the 32nd session of the WHC in 2008 with the active support of Thailand". The Committee then recognized: "That the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear is of great international significance and has Outstanding Universal Value under criteria (i), (II) and (iv) and agreed in principle that it should be inscribed on the WHC List and noted that the process for inscription is in progress".
- On 7 July 2008, in City, Canada, the 32nd session of the WHC unanimously inscribed the Temple of Preah Vihear on the WHC List under criteria (i) Preah Vihear is an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer Architecture. It is very pure both in plan and in detail of its decoration.


Linking the boundary issue to the issue of Inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear by Thai's internal political crisis:
- Inscription is pure cultural and internal affairs of Cambodia
- Just pretext to clouding public and international opinions, building up their own popularity to gaining power in Bangkok,

Conclusion:
Cambodia has a strong international legality and legitimacy on the International boundary line with Thailand. Thailand has a loose cannon style which could not shoot at the right direction and the right time hardly wining any case raising in the future with Cambodia within any international institutions, for example the UN or ICJ !.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

LA JUSTICE, C’EST L’EQUITE, PAS LA VENGEANCE

Dans quelques jours, nous connaitrons le verdict du tribunal qui doit juger Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, le directeur du centre de sécurité S21 pendant la période du Kampuchea démocratique. Ce sera un moment historique. Pour les victimes, pour le peuple cambodgien, pour l’humanité toute entière blessée par les crimes exceptionnels commis au Cambodge entre 1975 et 1979. 

Duch est accusé de crime contre l’humanité, c’est‐à‐dire qu’il est, au regard du droit pénal international, responsable des crimes suivants qui ont toujours été commis sous son autorité et auxquels, dans certains cas, il a personnellement participé : meurtre, extermination, réduction en esclavage, viol, emprisonnement, torture, persécution pour des motifs politiques et raciaux. Il est également accusé de violations graves des Conventions de Genève contre des Vietnamiens civils et prisonniers de guerre. Les faits ont été établis et les
preuves ont été apportées.

On le constate, au regard de ce qui s’est passé au Cambodge entre 1975 et 1979, c’est surtout le droit pénal international qui s’applique. Et Duch ne peut y échapper. Les victimes de Duch ont connu des souffrances immenses. Pour les quelques survivants de S21, pour les familles de ceux qui ont été martyrisés par Duch, il serait normal que la peine maximale prévue par la loi lui soit appliquée. On comprend parfaitement cette attente. Mais la Justice, ce n’est pas la vengeance. La Justice, qui est toujours imparfaite puisqu’elle est humaine, c’est la recherche, dans la sérénité, de la peine la plus équitable possible.

Les juges ont longuement réfléchi à la peine qui doit être infligée à Duch. Cette peine doit refléter la gravité des crimes commis. Comment apprécie‐t‐on cette gravité ? Depuis les premiers procès internationaux de Nuremberg et de Tokyo, après la deuxième guerre mondiale, une jurisprudence s’est établie. Elle dicte la manière dont on évalue la gravité d’un crime. Il faut tenir compte de la nature de ce crime, de l’impact sur les victimes et du degré de participation de l’accusé à l’enquête qui précède le procès.

Les juges doivent tenir compte de ces trois éléments. Ils ne peuvent se contenter d’affirmer que les crimes étant d’une gravité exceptionnelle, la peine doit être maximale. Ce ne serait plus une justice équitable, c’est‐à‐dire une justice qui examine tous les éléments d’un dossier. Car les crimes de Duch ne sont pas le fait d’un homme seul. Ils s’inscrivent dans le cadre d’un régime qu’il soutenait avec zèle et auquel il obéissait avec discipline. La responsabilité personnelle de Duch s’inscrit donc dans le cadre de ce qu’on appelle une « entreprise criminelle commune » où les responsabilités, si elles sont partagées, ne sont pas toutes du même niveau. Il faut en tenir compte

C’est pour cette raison que les deux procureurs, l’un choisi par le Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature du Cambodge, l’autre proposé par le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, ont demandé à la Chambre de Première Instance des Chambres Extraordinaires dans les Tribunaux Cambodgiens de prononcer à l’encontre de Duch une peine de quarante ans de prison.

Ils ont justifié cet abandon de la peine de prison à perpétuité pour quatre raisons dictées par le droit pénal international et sa jurisprudence. 

Première raison, l’accusé a coopéré avec le tribunal en fournissant de très nombreuses informations qui ont permis de mieux connaître et de mieux comprendre le régime du Parti Communiste du Kampuchea, ses politiques criminelles, ses méthodes de communication, sa structure ainsi que le fonctionnement de S21. De la sorte, Duch a fourni des informations précieuses à l’Accusation, à la fois pour son propre cas et pour celui des dirigeants qui seront jugés plus tard. Il a contribué à la manifestation de la vérité.

Deuxième raison, Duch a pleinement reconnu sa responsabilité. Même si, vu sa déclaration finale, il ne s’estime pas coupable, il se considère responsable. Reconnaître, comme il l’a fait à plusieurs reprises les actes horribles qui ont été commis sous son autorité à S21, est un élément dont il faut aussi tenir compte puisqu’il aide également à établir la réalité des faits. 

Troisième raison, l’accusé a exprimé des remords. Comme l’a dit un des procureurs dans son réquisitoire final, « les remords contribueront à la réconciliation nationale. » Même si le refus de Duch de se considérer coupable autorise un doute sur la réalité de ses remords, il demeure que ceux‐ci ont été exprimés publiquement et à plusieurs reprises, verbalement et même par écrit.

Quatrième raison, Duch a été, pendant plus de 8 huit ans, détenu par le tribunal militaire sans qu’il ait été procédé à une instruction approfondie et systématique, sans qu’il ait été jugé. Sa détention provisoire a été entachée d’irrégularités, même au regard du droit cambodgien. Ses droits ont été violés. Encore une fois, la primauté du droit s’impose. Les principes d’un procès équitable doivent s’appliquer. Ou bien on juge et on respecte les règles de droit, ou bien on se venge et il n’y alors aucun besoin d’un procès.

Pour ces quatre raisons, les deux procureurs ont demandé de prendre la réclusion à perpétuité comme point de départ pour la détermination de la peine et de la réduire de manière proportionnée en tenant compte de la collaboration de l’accusé, de sa reconnaissance de responsabilité, de ses remords et de la violation de ses droits. Ils ont demandé une peine de 40 ans de réclusion.

J’ajouterai une cinquième raison qui justifie que Duch ne soit pas condamné à la peine maximale : la nécessité de faire la différence entre un exécutant de haut niveau, dont la responsabilité est certes pleinement engagée, et les décideurs au plus haut niveau. Ce serale prochain devoir du tribunal d’établir les responsabilités des quatre autres prévenus. Mais il est manifeste, dès à présent, qu’ils occupaient, dans la hiérarchie politique et institutionnelle du Kampuchea démocratique, un niveau supérieur à celui de Duch. La Justice doit reconnaître cette hiérarchie des responsabilités et appliquer en conséquence une hiérarchie des peines. 

Beaucoup vont penser que Duch, quand il en avait le pouvoir, ne s’est pas soucié des droits de ses victimes, que ni lui, ni l’horrible régime qu’il a servi avec zèle, n’ont eu pour les victimes le respect auquel tout être humain a droit. On comprend et on partage cette réflexion. Mais il faut penser plus loin : si on traitait Duch comme il a traité ses victimes, ce ne serait plus de la Justice, ce serait de la vengeance. Si on traitait les responsables du Kampuchea démocratique comme ils ont traité le peuple cambodgien, cela voudrait dire que
leurs méthodes ont triomphé. Le retour à la civilisation après la barbarie, c’est le retour de la primauté du droit et de l’équité.

Dr. Raoul Marc Jennar
Historien et politologue

Opinion: The Possibility of Having Civil War in Thailand

By Sam Sotha

Just having a quick brainstorming, there have been many and long lasting civil wars in
this world. One of which is the most unforgettable civil war in Guatemala that arouses
the studies of most political scientists. This war lasted for 30 years, starting in 1961 and
ending in 1996, taking 200,000 lives, more than 1 million displaced and 45,000 still listed
as missing.

If we take a closer look at the then-civil war in Guatemala, it is quite comparable to
Thailand's current situation in many perspectives, particularly the double standard of law
enforcement in which it is unacceptable by another faction. 

Generally, civil war has occurred after a coup. It can be seen in Thailand that every
critical issue has happened after the coup of 19 September 2006 to overthrow Thaksin's
government. Likewise, the civil war in Guatemala had its roots from the military coup
which ousted elected President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmiin from power. 

If we turn back to Thailand, people came to demonstrate in a big rally, in April and May,
to overthrow Abhisit's government, but they failed. Consequently, the demonstrators have
been arrested, tortured or killed, while others went into hiding or formed possible
resistance and underground actions. 

Also in Guatemala, a group of soldiers, who were the sons or daughters of the poor, had
protested in a failed attempt  to overthrow the government. As a result, they had been
cracked down. Consequently, the demonstrators kept hiding and continued to form their
resistant activities. They kept hiding in  the rural areas and fought back against the
government for 30 years. That was the root cause of civil war in Guatemala in which
Thailand is currently repeating the said-track and that the civil war may happen in the
near future. 
 ***
About the Author: 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 email address
at: samsotha@everyday.com.kh

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

OPINIO: WILL THAILAND’S ENMITY TOWARDS CAMBODIA END


29 June 201
• Will it end one day, and soon enough, after 150 years of its happening?
• Cambodia had nothing to do with it.
• Its source was the failure of Siam King Mong Kut and his ministers.

Colonel F. Bernard, President of the French Commission  for the delimitation of the French-Siamese border in virtue of the Convention of 13 February 1904 had made an observation about the Thais, which  is worth remembered. He said: “the superiority of their self-esteem was the primary cause of their troubles and misfortune –  in French: la superiorite de leur esprit fut la premiere cause de leurs malheurs.”     He wrote in a book published in 1933, “L’Ecole des Diplomates,” within the context of the Thai diplomacy during the reign of king Mong Kut of Thailand, the reign of King Ang Duong of Cambodia and the mission of M. de Montigny, the  plenipotentiary of the French Emperor Napoleon III to the court of King Mong Kut. Colonel F. Bernard had mentioned as well that: “The ministers of Siam have had negotiated for a long time already with England and America; they have the intelligence and the ability of the Westerners,” which obviously had made them to acquire that “superiority of their self-esteem,” which is equated in recent times to “arrogance,” and “condescension,” which are the current state of mind of the government of Abhisit Vijjajeva, with “former
terrorist” turned foreign minister Kasit Pyromya, and the malicious and machiavellic Suthep Thaugsuban at his  sides. Colonel F. Bernard stated that: “Without the obstinacy of King Mong Kut, the question of Cambodia would have been closed from the first day,…….and despite the French diplomacy, it is with France that Cambodia had to entrust her destiny.”
 
This writing is not a piece  about history, but as far back as the eyes can see, the Kingdom of Thailand has kept its enmity towards Cambodia for its own failure to annihilate Cambodia when it had the chance, and particularly when the western powers did not even know that there is a small kingdom called Cambodia located between Siam and Cochinchine. The arrogance and the condescension of the Thais turned to be a providence for the Cambodians as it is written in the third verse of the Cambodian  National Anthem, “yeung Sangkhim Por Phoab Preng Samnang Roboas Kampuchea – we are expecting the benediction of the hands of the Providence on Cambodia”. In 1853 King Ang Duong of  Cambodia wrote a letter to the  French Emperor Napoleon III to express his friendship and solicit his support. The immediate consequence of which had been to stop the armies of Siam from marching at will into Cambodia to conquest and ravage the many provinces of Cambodia to the West and North, and to relieve Cambodia from paying tributes to Bangkok. Siam, now Thailand always acts like a hungry mad dog that missed a good piece of meat and had never stopped dreaming about it, since.

In 1940 the Department of Publicity of the Foreign Ministry of Thailand had shown itself  to be that hungry mad dog by publishing a document,  “How Thailand Lost her Territories to France”. It was a shameless nostalgia, and an insult to history, to the fact and the truth. Concerning Cambodia, the publication claimed that Siam has lost an area about 175,000 sq.km and 2,900,000 people in 1867 and 1907. Actually, Siam had never ever owned the land and the people in Cambodia under any treaties in existence during those times. The realities were that the armies of Siam marched at will into Cambodia to conquest and ravage the many  provinces of Cambodia. They were wholesale invasions and occupations.

The arrogance, the condescension, and the obstinacy which cause the failure of King  Mong Kut and his ministers from executing the annexation policy by annihilating Cambodia and her people create an endless nostalgia that Thailand had never allowed itself to wake up and liberate itself  from the bad dream of the hungry mad dog. 

Therefore, Thailand’s territorial ambition on Cambodian territories has become its grand design to be executed by the government of  Thailand if any of such a government wishes to have a reasonable life span. From then on, Thailand has learnt, acquired, and mastered the art of distortion of the facts, dissemination of misinformation and disinformation, the art of accusation, of denial with arrogance, condescension and obstinacy.
 
Thailand re-creates history  which has been taught  in Thai schools at all levels by painting sadly that Thailand is a victim. 

In 1954, not even a mere one year after Cambodia acquired full  independence from  France, Thai armed forces occupied the Temple of Preah Vihear, to be ordered out by the international will, the LaHaye ICJ Judgments of 15 June 1962. 

Finally, Thailand has made official, its territorial ambition on Cambodian territories in 2007 in Christchurch, New Zealand during the 31st  session of the World Heritage Committee by presenting for the first time to such an important international gathering a map dressed up unilaterally and secretly by Thailand and thus laying claim on an area of 4.6 km sq. inside the Cambodian territory near the Temple of Preah Vihear, as an
objection of various uncoordinated, confusing, illegitimate, and  nonsense motives to the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear to the World Heritage List. Again, Thailand’s arrogance, condescension, and obstinacy were  its primary troubles and misfortune. In 2008, the Temple of Preah Vihear was inscribed unanimously on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee.

Would Thailand wake up from the bad  dream of a hungry  mad dog? It had to be decided by Thailand. It had nothing to do with Cambodia. 

Cambodia, under the leadership of Prime Minister HUN SEN will never lower her guards in front of Thailand’s territorial ambition. However, with his spirit of conciliation, cooperation, and friendship Prime Minister HUN SEN has stressed again and again that he wanted to see our borders with neighboring countries, especially with Thailand to be the border of Peace, Friendship, and Development for the well being of the two peoples, Cambodians and Thais.

Pen Ngoeun
Advisor to the Office of the Council of Ministers,
member of the Advisory Board of the Press and Quick Reaction Unit (PRU)
of the Office of the Council of Ministers
This article represents only the personal opinion of the writer, and does not reflect under
any shape and form the opinion of the PRU nor  that of the Office  of the Council of
Ministers.