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.
Or write to his personal e-mail address at: samsotha@everyday.com.kh
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.comOr write to his personal e-mail address at: samsotha@everyday.com.kh