An Open Letter from Dr. Sorn Samnang, Cambodian Historian In response to Mr. Thepmontri’s Open Letter dated 24 August 2010

Recently, Mr. Thepmontri Limpaphayom, claiming to be an “independent historian”, has sent an  Open Letter to Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, Thai Prime Minister. To our knowledge, Mr. Thepmontri is also a political activist. So, the credibility of this historian is in question. Can he interpret the past following rigorous standards of critical inquiry? Can he vigorously assert before the public the integrity of the discipline? The following remarks may give the answers to these questions. 

1. Mr. Thepmontri, a Thai political activist 

Mr. Thepmontri Limpaphayom has actively participated in Thai political activities at least since 2009. In September 2009, Mr. Thepmontri and eight other Thai “scholars” lodged a suit to Thai Civil Court accusing Prime Minister Hun Sen, Deputy Prime Ministers Sok An and Foreign Minister Hor Nam Hong of “violating the Thai people's rights and liberties under the Thai constitution by encroaching on the Preah Vihear temple and the disputed area around the temple ruins”. The Civil Court rejected the suit, saying that “the issue was a dispute between two countries over the sovereignty of the area. It was not a civil matter” (cf. Court rejects Preah Vihear suit - Border dispute 'is not a civil matter' Writer: POST REPORTERS 15/09/2009). 

The above rejection by the Thai Civil Court clearly showed that Mr. Thepmontri and his team were completely wrong.  Afterwards, in early August 2010, Mr. Thepmontri was one of the leaders of the demonstration participating in “a televised discussion with the Government on land dispute”. According  to Thai Asean News Network, “the representatives of the Thai citizens consisting of the People's Alliance for Democracy Spokesperson  Panthep Puapongphan, Thepmontri Limpaphayom, a prominent historian, Sompong Sucharitkul, a former member of Thailand's legal team on Preah Vihear Temple case at  the International Court of Justice and Veera Somkwarmkid, a well-known social  activist, held a discussion with the government represented by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, Secretary to the Foreign Minister Chawanont Indhrakomarnsut and the prime minister's aide Sirichoke Sopa on the issue of the disputed land surrounding Preah Vihear Temple claimed by both Thailand and Cambodia. The three-hour session was broadcast live on national television. (cf. Citizens Hold Televised Discussion with Govt on Land Dispute, Thai Asean News Network UPDATE: 9 August 2010).

2. Mr. Thepmontri, a “prominent” historian? 

Mr. Thepmontri Limpaphayom has been considered by some people as a “prominent” historian, as mentioned above. Recently, he has sent an Open Letter 2to Thai Prime Minister, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva. His Open Letter, dated 24 August 2010 and appeared on the Facebook page in Thai language, is entitled “Thepmontri offended as Khmers look down on Preah Naresuan, Abhisit remains indifferent”.

According to  this letter, Mr. Thepmontri felt offended at the indifference of Thai Prime Minister vis-à-vis Prime Minister Hun Sen and his entourage who have disseminated an article concerning Thai King Naresuan by considering him as a crocodile or an ungrateful king. Being impatient for this, Mr. Thepmontri stated that “Cambodia has distorted history”, and he urged Thai Prime Minister to immediately respond to the above  public statement, and also requested Cambodia especially Samdech Hun Sen and his entourage to offer their
apologies.   Mr. Thepmontri, a historian with  no rigorous standards, has accused Cambodia of distorting history. In reality, history has been distorted by some Thai ultra-nationalist politicians and political activists including Mr. Thepmontri.   

3. What kind of King was Naresuan (or Naren-Sô or Phra Naret)? 

As we know, a fictitious story about Thai King Naresuan has been told in Thailand, and has been highly appreciated by some Thai ultra-nationalist politicians. The Straits Times (18 August 2008) reported that “[...] generations of Thai students have been told that  the Khmer King Satha attacked Ayutthaya while Siam was busy fighting the Burmese. But Siam's King Naresuan defeated and personally executed him, washing his own feet in King Satha's blood. King Naresuan today figures prominently  on the banners and T-shirts of the nationalist-royalist People's Alliance for  Democracy, which raised the Preah Vihear issue in its months of ongoing anti-government street protests in Bangkok. But the story is fictitious; King Satha was able to escape to Laos”. (cf. Border talks burdened by ancient rivalry, in Straits Times, 18 August 2008).

Beside this, basing on credible sources, especially a history book written in French by a French historian, Mr. Adhémard Leclère, entiled “History of Cambodia” published in 1914, King Naresuan was indeed an ungrateful king. The following paragraph translated  from French can provide enough evidence about this: Preah Sotha (1567-1575). [...] Some months after the elevation to the throne of the new king, they learnt in Cambodia that the king of Hângsavadi or Pégouans [Burmese] had invaded the kingdom of Siam and walked on Ayuthyea with a powerful army. The king of the Siamese, leaning on the peace treaty which he had signed the previous year with the late king of Cambodia, sent an ambassador to ask for an army of assistance to the young king. This one, although the peace treaty signed by his father should not oblige him to take side of the king of Siam, sent an army of 20.000 men commended by the Cambodian obaréach [viceroy] to the aid of Ayuthyea. The pégouane [Burmese] army was defeated and expelled out of the border. 

And, as the Siamese and Cambodian armies returned victorious, and that they camped near each other in Doeumpou-choeung-bey (the tree of Bodhi with three feet), the king of Siam,  Naren-Sô (phra Naret), saw that the Khmer obaréach was sitting in his presence and did not prostrate himself as other mandarins. He addressed him some public and strict observations. The Cambodian prince answered him: “I am the representative of the king of Cambodia here and I am general-in-chief of a Cambodian army and the command of which he entrusted me; besides, I am of royal origin and obaréach; I have the right to the consideration of the king of Siam and I intend to be treated here, at the head of my army as the king”.

The king of Siam answered nothing but, to assert his right of unique leader, he gave order to take a man among the captives of the obaréach, to cut his head, and to put it at the end of a bamboo in front of the boat of the prince. The outraged obaréach took the road back to Cambodia (cf. Adhémard Leclère, Histoire du Cambodge, Paris 1914, p. 299).

As we can see above, instead of expressing his gratitude to Cambodian Viceroy and Cambodian army who had assisted him, King Naresuan committed an act of atrocity against a captive of Cambodian Viceroy. Due to this ironic and atrocious act, King Naresuan  has been considered as an “ungrateful king” in Cambodian history. 

Therefore, basing on these above-mentioned documents, King Naresuan is notorious for committing atrocious acts,  both in Thai fictitious story (King Naresuan defeated and personally executed King Satha, washing his own feet in King Satha's blood) and in Cambodian history (King Naresuan gave order to kill a captive of Cambodian Viceroy). It is horrible! Peace-loving people cannot appreciate this “act of heroism”.
  
This is our response to Mr. Thepmontri’s Open Letter dated 24 August 2010 for the purpose of bringing new thinking on history, especially in our Era of Culture of Peace in the world we live  in. It is not an opportune moment for giving high appreciation to any “bloodthirsty hero” in history.

Moreover, facts and interpretations of historical evidences should be conducted with respect to the truth, and not to serve partisan political interests. Only a correct perception can contribute to the alleviation of friction, to the normalization and enhancement of relations between our two countries, Cambodia and Thailand.
Phnom Penh, 30 August 2010

ABHISIT IS SAID TO BE "THROWING RICE HUSKS INTO THE CROSSWIND"

Since the 34th session of World Heritage Committee  in Brasilia, Abhisit has mobilized a Herculean effort for a massive campaign of intoxication against Cambodia on the Temple of Preah Vihear’s issue. Apart from organizing a number of activities led by PAD core leaders such as Mr. Chamlong Srimuang, Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul, Mr. Veera Somkwamkid and ML. Wanwipa Charonrooj, Abhisit government sent additional troops to the border aiming at sending message to the WHC session not to go  ahead with the management plan for the Temple of Preah Vihear. Those signals were intended to be shown as a warning threat that if the WHC would not listen to Thai, they could  take any actions against Cambodia including military one. It is also understood that they were directed to bully Cambodia. 

Until last week-end, their intention to bully Cambodia was concretely evidenced by Abhisit open declaration while he was addressing thousands of members of the so-called Thai Love Nation Network at the Thai-Japanese stadium; “we will use both diplomatic and military means”, he said. This military threat was also echoed by Second Army commander Weewalit Chornsamrit: “the military was ready to force the settlers from the area if ordered to do so by the government” (BKK Post, 9 August 2010).

Abhist’s statement has immediately prompted Samdech Techo HUN SEN to inform the UNSC and the UNGA of this serious threat and flagrant violation to the UN Charter.

In order to avoid eventual criticism from the international community, Abhisit put the blame on Thai media saying his speech on the issue was “misquoted, taken out of context and misunderstood” in a separate letter to the UNSC and the UNGA in response to Samdech Techo HUN SEN’s letter.

The matter of the fact is that Abhisit lied to the international body by denying what he exactly said, since everyone in Bangkok as well as some in Phnom Penh listened to him addressing the PAD gathering from ASTV live coverage. 

It is not fair for him to put all the blame on Thai media and also it is beyond everyone's belief that the majority of Thai press, both in Thai language and English, misunderstand and misquote him. As  a proof, the Press and Quick Reaction Unit (PRU) of the Office of the Council  of Ministers of the Kingdom of Cambodia is ready to show the record of Abhisit’s speech from ASTV live coverage if he wishes to have it replayed or sent to him.

Before this flagrant volte-face, Abhisit is losing his statesmanship in the eye of Thai people and as a consequence, he is said to be a liar. 

Before becoming Prime Minister, he manipulated the Preah Vihear’s issue by stirring up ultra-nationalist sentiment amongst PAD supporters  in order to gain political support and to undermine the then pro-Thaksin governments.  During that time, he pledged to get Preah Vihear back to Thailand. The result of his promise is that he is widely known to have cheated Thai people due the Preah Vihear‘s issue has been put to an end by the ICJ verdict since 15 June 1962. As recently as in 2006, it has been politicized by the PAD. 

This time, he is cheating the international community by writing to the UNSC that Cambodia has been encroaching Thailand’s territory. What a flagrant lie is? How can a dove dare to invade a hawk’s nest?  “It is ridiculous that Thailand  accuses Cambodia of invading and using forces” responded Samdech Techo HUN SEN at a meeting on Tonle Sap on 12 August 2010 in Phnom Penh, adding that the Temple and its surrounding area belong to Cambodia.

In reality, Cambodia has been invaded and occupied by Thai black-uniform army since 15 July 2008. Thus, Samdech Prime Minister has well mentioned in his letter as follows:”  In violating the judgment of the  ICJ, Thailand currently maintains its soldiers in the Keo Sikkhakiri Svara pagoda of Cambodia, situated only about 300 meters from the Temple of Preah Vihear, well inside the Cambodian territory”. 

Everyone in Thailand knows already why Abhisit keeps telling lies and misleading Thai people on the Temple of Preah Vihear’s issue. It’s all very well saying he worms his way into the Premiership by getting involved in political manipulations with some elements of the residual spillover of the old- cliché who maintain hegemonic policy towards Cambodia and always work to inflame outmoded cliché and shopworn slogans of the so-called “Thailand’s Lost Territories” in which “The Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to Thai” with the aim of
gaining political support only for their vested interests.

But the tide has turned against him and now, he is believed to be suffering from the boomerang effect of his campaign of intoxication against Cambodia. In this regard, the head of the PRU has likened this boomerang effect to the old Khmer saying: (Abhisit is) “throwing rice husks into the crosswind “.
Sandra Rodraguez

Opinion: PRIME MINISTER HUN SEN CALLS THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL.

Saturday, 7 August 2010, during a public meeting with the “People’s Alliance of Democracy”, the so‐called “yellow shirts”, Mr. Abhisit, Prime Minister of Thailand, declared openly : “About the land encroachment, we will cancel the MOU if the problem can’t be settled. We will use both diplomaticand military means”.

On 14 June 2000, Cambodia and Thailand signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the survey and demarcation of the border line between the two countries. Article 1 of this MOU stipulates that the survey and demarcation of land boundary between the two countries shall be jointly conducted in accordance with the 1904 Convention, the 1907 Treaty and its annexed Protocol and the “Maps which are the results of demarcation works of the Commissions of Delimitation of the Boundary between Indo‐China and Siam set up under the Convention of 1904 and the Treaty of 1907 between France and Siam, and other documents relating to the application of the Convention of'1904and the Treaty of 1907 between France and Siam.”

The Prime Minister of Thailand is using threats. The first one is about the unilateral cancellation of a legal document that has the value of an international treaty. This MOU is nothing less than the implementation of the judgment by the International Court of Justice that said, in 1962, that it considers that “Thailand in 1908‐1909 did accept the 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 “ feels bound, as a matter of treaty interpretation, to pronounce in favor of the line as mapped in the disputed area.” The Court stipulated that “Thailand is under the obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity in Cambodian territory.”  

In a letter sent today to both the Chairman of the UN General Assembly and the Chairman of the UN Security Council, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen wrote that Thailand violates the Court judgment with troops stationing in the Keo Sikkhakiri Svarak pagoda of Cambodia. 

 

The second threat expressed by the Thai Prime Minister is to use military force against Cambodia.
Prime Minister Hun Sen underlined   in his letters that Thailand, by doing so, violates two key provisions of the UN Charter that say : art 2.3 : “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” and art 2.4 :  “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”  

Prime Minister Hun Sen requests that all the State Members of the UN and, in particular, of the UN Security Council shall be informed about the Thai threats violating both the UN Charter and the 1962 ICJ judgment.
 

It’s not the first time that Thailand disowns its signature. In 1952, it violated all the treaties and  conventions signed during the French protectorate by sending military forces occupying the Temple and its vicinity. A military occupation that led to the ICJ decision and the evacuation of Thai troops from Cambodian territory. In 1992‐1993,   by cooperating with the Khmer rouge troops that were fighting UNTAC personnel and by pushing back border stones inside Cambodian territory, both activities witnessed by UNTAC observers, it  violated the Paris Peace Agreement of which Thailand is signatory State, and in particular the “Agreement concerning the sovereignty, the independence, the territorial integrity and inviolability the neutrality and national unity of Cambodia.” In 2008, it violated once again all the international legal instruments on the common border.  

What is the value of a Thai signature? How Thai officials do care about the legal documents they used to sign? Are these, as it was said, “only pieces of paper without biding obligations”? Who will remind the Thai Prime Minister that this is the classical language used in the 20 th century by dictators, a language that led to wars and devastations?

Mr. Abhisit seems to ignore that our world is not more the world of nationalist claims. It’s not the world of the past century.  It’s a globalized world where, based on legal provisions, one prefers open frontiers, free trade zones, regional stability and cooperation. Does Mr. Abhisit want to return to the past world of nationalism and conflicts full of violations of legal agreements and international law?

Svay Sitha 
Secretary of State
Chairman of Press and Quick reaction Unit of the Office of the Council of Ministers
Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of the Royal Government of Cambodia  

OPINION: IF NOPPADON PATTAMA IS BEING ACCUSED OF HIGH TREASON, WHAT WOULD MINISTER SUWIT KHUNKITTI BE ACCUSED OF?

5 August 2010

It is known to Thailand from its government down to the public that Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, on behalf of the Abhisit Vijjajeva Government, has signed a World Heritage Committee’s official document known as Decision 34 COM.7B.66, committing Thailand to fully abide by the terms described therein. Consequently, 

1. Thailand can no longer claim not to know the content, the meaning, and the significance of the World Heritage Committee’s official report known as document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add.3, in which the report concludes that “with regard to the Management Plan, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS consider that it provides a good vision for the conservation of the World Heritage’s property as well as a solid basis on which the National Authority for the Protection and Development of the Preah Vihear Natural and Cultural Site (ANPV) can develop policies and operational procedures,… that many of the very important recommendations made in the Management Plan are yet to be implemented, and encourage the State Party to make every effort to this end, in cooperation with the international community.”

Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add.3, in effect, shuts the door in the face of Thailand in its malicious efforts to derail the Management plan, and as the consequence, any future efforts will prove to be futile.

2. Thailand can no longer deny its full knowledge of the WHC Decision 31 COM 8B. 24 (2007), Decision 32 COM 8B. 102 (2008), and Decision 33 COM 7B.65. The most important of all, is Decision 32 COM 8B. 102, under which the Temple of Preah Vihear is  inscribed on the World Heritage List under criterion (i). With Minister Suwit  Khunkitti’s signature, Thailand’s longstanding malicious scheme to force theWorld Heritage Committee to delist the Temple of Preah Vihear as well as Thailand’s longstanding accusation that the listing of the Temple of Preah Vihear causes tension and violence go up in smoke. 

3. Thailand can no longer make up story out of the blue and falsely accuse Cambodia of failing to submit the Management Plan to the World Heritage Centre for submission to the 34th Session of the World Heritage Committee, in Brasilia, Brasil. In fact Cambodia's Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear had been submitted to the World Heritage Centre before 01 February 2010, as required. Theacknowledgement by Thailand that “the World Heritage Centre has the document submitted by the State Party”, for such acknowledgement is validated by the signature of Minister Suwit Khunkitti, once again, has the effect of shutting the door in the face of  Thailand on this issue. Furthermore, by saying that“Cambodia should have handed in its management proposal six months ahead of the meeting, but it made its submission less than 24 hours before the meeting began,” as reported by the Bangkok Post On Line News on 30 July 2010, Minister Suwit Khunkitti has  lied to the Thai people and the World with his wildsuggestion and off-based speculation. Not only that, his tendentious assertion, tantamount to false accusation that taints the image and the reputation of Thailand and the Thai nation as a whole for a long time, by saying that “the committee instead dropped the topic, saying Cambodia had not followed proper procedure in submitting the plan,” as reported by the Bangkok Post Online News, the same date.

4. Thailand can no longer ignore the fact that the “World Heritage Committee welcomes the steps taken by the State Party towards the establishment of an  International Coordinating Committee for the sustainable conservation of the Temple of Preah Vihear.” In so doing, the World Heritage Committee affirmed strongly that Cambodia is implementing the World Heritage Committee’s requirement under  paragraph 14 of Decision 32 COM 28B. 102, when the World Heritage Committee unanimously inscribed the Temple of Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List, and the validation of Thailand’s acknowledgement of this fact with the signature of Minister Suwit Khunkitti renders great justice to Cambodia where justice is due, and absolutely not because Minister Suwit Khunkitti’s kind heart. To make the point showing the Thai Government’s arrogance, and its rude behavior to project and assert Thai Government’s villain image, there is no need to go too far to recall that it was the Thai Government that obstructs many times during the last three months prior to the WHC 34th
Session in Brasilia,  the establishment of an International Coordination Committee for the sustainable conservation of Preah Vihear temple, by using every trick, every unusual and unprecedented maneuvering never ever seen in the history of the World Heritage Convention against the core values of the Convention that respect the sovereignty of States Parties and harmonizes the conservation and development of the  inscribed properties with mutual understandings andcompromises among States Parties involved.      

5. Thailand should be ashamed of itself for claiming victory, when in fact Minister Suwit Khunkitti signs away everything that Thailand has taken pains to hold back, even with bully-boy tactics and using innuendo, tendentious suggestions and off-base speculation. When “the World Heritage Committee decides to consider the documents submitted by the State Party at its 35th Session in 2011,” there is absolutely no reason for the Abhisit Vijjajeva Government to jump up and down and claim victory, and shout out loud that this is a “postponement,” unless all the people in the Abhisit Vijjajeva are just green-horns and they fail miserably to understand what does it mean, which is the Thai Government’s own problem. In this matter, with the validation of the acknowledgement by the signature of Minister Suwit Khunkitti, the Thai Government cannot invoke the “plea of error,” that Thailand had invoked in the past during the Proceedings of the “Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). To that effect the Court said: “It is an established rule of law that the plea of error cannot be allowed as an element vitiating consent if the party advancing it contributed by its own conduct to the error, or could have avoided, or if the circumstances were such as  to put that party on notice of a possible error.” P.26, par.2  It must be known that in relation to the decision of the WHC, the terminology is technical and specific: (1)  to postpone means to drop the “Document” in its entirety and only new document could be submitted again following the procedure and timetable set forth in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage (1972) Convention (OGIWHC); (2)  to defer means that the “Document” is accepted for consideration at a later date in conformity with OGIWHC, and the State Party which submitted the “Document” needs to fulfill certain requirements that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies of the Heritage Convention found to be necessary during their evaluation of the “document”; (3)  to consider means that the “document” has been found  to be in order by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and only because of some internal, technical and practical steps needed to be taken by the World Heritage Committee that the “document” will be “formally” consider at a set date, which is during the WHC 35th session in 2011, normally with the wordings, such as: “The World Heritage Committee notes with satisfaction that……..” In fact, Cambodia’s Management Plan and Progress Report for the Implementation of Decision 33 COM. 7B 65 have been evaluated by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and found  to be in order, and they are officially known as Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add.3 under the section:  Reports on the State of Conservation of Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List.  It must be stressed again, that the World Heritage Committee, during its annual session, does not have the job to approve or to disapprove documents.

Speaking about Cambodia, the Cambodian people have all the reasons in the world to claim victory, and to be filled with the sense of national achievement and pride, thanks to the wise leadership of Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister  of the Kingdom of Cambodia, and to the dedication and efforts of H.E. Dr. Sok An Deputy Prime Minister and  Head of the delegation to the WHC 34th  Session in Brasilia, Brasil.    3Speaking about Thailand, without any intention under any shape and form to interfere in the internal affairs of Thailand, questions have been raised with respect to former Thai Foreign Minister Nappadon Pattama and Minister Suwit Khunkitti as is if former Foreign Minister Nappadon Pattama has been accused of high treason for having signed a Joint Communique with H.E. Dr. Sok An on 18 June 2008 (a Joint Communique under the condition that it must be approved by Thai Cabinet), what would Minister Suwit Khunkitti be accused of when he gave away all what Thailand is holding for. Only the Thai people and Puae Thai Party can provide the best answer. For now, it is not much too soon to guess that Minister Suwit Khunkitti and the Abhisit Government as a whole would be ten times or a hundred times more culpable than former Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama.  

Management of Preah Vihear Temple; Cambodia’s responsibility as Cambodian Sovereign Property

The Bangkok Post  Published: 30/07/2010 at 12:12 PM, among others, exuberated the fact the WHC had postponed discussion on Cambodia’s management plan for the Preah Vihear temple to its meeting next year in Bahrain.

It went on to quote Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, who is leading the Thai delegation, said from Brazil that the postponement is a satisfactory result.
 

"This will allow Thailand more time for to discuss the issue and to find solutions," he said.
Mr Suwit thanked his team, the government and the Thai people for their support and for voicing their opposition to Cambodia managing the site.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva earlier said that any approval of the plan proposed by Phnom Penh could lead to Thailand withdrawing its WHC membership. He insisted that Thailand would not discuss the management plan before the border's demarcation is complete.
 

In 1962, the International Court of Justice awarded Preah Vihear temple and the land it occupies to Cambodia.

The site of the historical structure, which is directly on the Thai‐Cambodian border, has long been a point of contention between the two countries.

Looking at excerpts of the report as above, it is with great lack of sensitivity that Thailand is lauding  this WHC decision. 

Who are the Thai’s to oppose Cambodian’s management plan for the Preah Vihear temple World Heritage Site? Is the temple located on its territory? Definitely not as pointed out by the same report as above.

The management of a historic world heritage site on sovereign Cambodian territory is the right of the country on which the site is located. The last time and as recent as today as the time above specifies, all acknowledge that the temple is on Cambodian territory.  

The Preah Vihear Temple has unfortunately become a  bone of contention with successive recalcitrant Thai regimes who had and have used the temple site as a provocative flash point to stroke ultra‐nationalism amongst the ignorant Thai citizens.  

If Thailand wants to withdraw from the WHC, let it be. It is their unilateral decision. At different times in history, the Thais’ have claimed Cambodia’s world heritage and historical sites. Claiming Angkor Wat as an extension of Thai territory, Preah Vihear Temple, many provinces of Thailand were once sovereign Cambodian soil and the list goes on.Cambodians have long memories. They recall that Cambodia was once a mighty empire, sprawling from what is now north eastern Thailand through to southern Vietnam. Some of Thailand’s most striking temples, such as Prasat Hin Phimai, Meuang Singh, and Phanom Rung and Prasat Meuang Tam were built when the area was ruled by Cambodia.

Towards the end of the 18th century Siam (as Thailand was then called) under King Rama I, invaded Cambodia and seized Battambang and Siem Reap (home of Angkor Wat and historical capital of the Khmer empire). At about the same time the Vietnamese took the Mekong delta in what is now southern Vietnam. The French decided to “protect” Cambodia, preventing further loss of territory, and in the early 19th century the French were able to negotiate the return of Battambang and Siem Reap to Cambodia.

When World War II broke out, Thailand sided with Japan and invaded Cambodia (again), seizing both Battambang and Siem Reap (again), though not the area around Angkor Wat, which remained under the French.
 

At the end of the war Thailand was required to return the land it had seized to Cambodia. As soon as Cambodia gained independence from the French in 1953, Thailand reoccupied the land around Preah Vihear.
 

At the same time Thailand’s Prime Minister/Dictator, Marshal Sarit Thanarat, did much to destabilise the regime of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. The American CIA was also involved in the plot since it feared that Cambodia would fall under Chinese communist influence. In response, in 1961 Cambodia severed diplomatic relations with Thailand.

In 1962 Cambodia appealed to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, who ruled that Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia, not Thailand. The Thai army was keen to go to war to maintain sovereignty over the land, but His Majesty The King intervened and told them to respect the court’s decision.

The Thai army never forgot the humiliation, and covertly supported various opposition groups in Cambodia until Prince Sihanouk’s regime was ousted in 1970.

In 1979 Vietnam went into Cambodia to put a halt to the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. The leadership of the Khmer Rouge fled to Thailand en masse.  

Cambodians have not forgotten this. Neither have they forgotten the irresponsible remark made by the Thai actress claiming Angkor Wat as Thai property.  

This irresponsible actions has to stop is Thailand wishes to have long term peace and harmony with Cambodia. It should stop using Preah Vihear for its own domestic politics in terms of ‘Real Politik”. Does Thailand have the political or the diplomatic will to really contest the Preah Vihear Temple in the United Nations and the ICJ again? 
 

Cambodia is no more a colonial state. Its a sovereign country with stability, something which Thailand fails or cannot accept. Thailand  may become a failed state because of its domestic politics. If it wants touse Cambodia and the Preah Vihear temple as national issues to domesticate their internal pressure, they should think again.

Cambodia may be poor, may be weak in Thailand’s eyes. When the passion of nationalism runs deep, a deep fire emerges and it is this fire which Thailand should  beware of. It should not forget the lessons of the border tussles it had with Lao PDR.  

Its provocative stance on Preah Vihear Temple is not merely that. It is also about the Over Lapping Claims Area for hydro carbons. Its the fear of Bangkok losing its position as a transit point to Cambodia. Its about Thailand becoming irrelevant in ASEAN and international politics. Its about Thailand being fearful   of being labeled as a terrorist state because of the strife in Southern Thailand.

M.H. Tee
Long time resident of Cambodia & Analyst