The Mirror, Vol. 12, No. 571
The confrontation at the Preah Vihear Temple continues. Seeing the pictures of heavily armed soldiers, and the calls to be prepared to sacrifice one’s – and other’s – lives, I cannot but remember that more than one deadly military conflict started from a misunderstanding or from a mistake.
There are many weapons in the region of confrontation, which could, trigger a terrible chain reaction.
Or is rhetoric more dangerous? Are messages like the following leading to de-escalation, rational argument, and peace?
“Everyday, our soldiers risk their lives at the front line to safeguard our heritages and to defend our territorial integrity so that we all have a place to call home” – so says a voice from somebody who has his home far across the ocean in another country.
In another example, in a response to a Thai newspaper article, an anonymous reply said the following:
“The editorial ‘When Cambodia Cries Wolf’ published in Thailand’s The Nation newspaper on 1st of August deserves my attention and warrants my strong response. As someone who believe in the truth, not the twisted truth, such an unfair comment should not be allowed to go unchallenged. And hence, comes my following response…
The documents and maps from the 1904 and 1907 treaty, signed between Cambodia and Thailand, showed clearly that Preah Vihear temple and the so-called ‘overlapping area’ are located inside Cambodian territories. And hence, Thailand has no right whatsoever regarding the affairs of Preah Vihear.”
It is surprising that a refutation in the name of “someone who believe in the truth, not the twisted truth” is disregarding important publicly known facts. What is not in doubt, as stated by the 1962 International Court of Justice, is “that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.” The conflict relates to the designation of this territory.
As the writer says: “It [Thailand] signed a joint communiqué with Cambodia to support the listing and then withdrew it. Is this what The Nation called sincerity and good intention?”
Then two questions cannot be avoided:
1) The role of the Joint Communiqué
In this Joint Communiqué, signed on 18 June 2008 by representatives of the two countries and co-signed by UNESCO, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in charge of the Office of the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of Cambodia signed:
“In the spirit of goodwill and conciliation, the Kingdom of Cambodia accepts that the Temple of Preah Vihear be nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List without at this stage a buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple.”
And the following paragraph of the Joint Communiqué explicitly says that a new map, presented by the Cambodian side, “shall supersede the maps concerning and including the ‘Schéma Directeur pour le Zonage de Preah Vihear’ as well as all the graphic references indicating the ‘core zone’ and other zoning (zonage) of the Temple of Preah Vihear site in Cambodia’s nomination file” – now to quote the maps of 1904 and 1907 in an argument against Thailand cannot remove the fact that the World Heritage Committee was making its decision, having a new, different, clear declaration by the Cambodian government.
Many Thai soldier in the contested region are at present in the “buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple” – “at this stage” not claimed by the Cambodian government.
2) Sincerity includes to obey the law
Thailand “supported the listing and then withdrew it.” To consider “the truth and not the twisted truth” requires some more attention to detail. The Joint Communiqué, signed on 18 June 2008, was made known to the Thai cabinet only on 17 June, and after it was adopted there, the Thai senate and parliament were informed – and there the question was raised whether or not the Thai Foreign Minister had violated the Constitution, by conducting such negotiations without sanction by parliament.
All five points of the Joint Communiqué were discussed in detail in the Thai parliament during a special three days’ session in late June, fully broadcast on TV. I am not aware that the press in Cambodia has provided the public with the opportunity to discuss the contents of the Joint Communiqué in a similar way – and I repeat my request to let me know that I am wrong.
The Constitutional Court of Thailand finally ruled that their Foreign Minister had stepped beyond what is constitutionally his authority. – I am not aware of the legal situation in this respect in the Kingdom of Cambodia – but is it a sign of a lack of sincerity, when a Constitutional Court tells a minister that he has to act within the limits of the law and the Constitution?
To criticize Thailand as twisting the truth, while the media in Cambodia do not present the public – in the language of the country – with information about the position taken by the high representatives of the Royal Government of Cambodia in the international arena, is difficult to understand. It cannot avoid the question: which principles guide the decision not to publish the final document, which led to the listing of the Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site?
To stick to the 1904 and 1907 maps, and to say that everything has been decided in 1962, will not easily convince the international community, considering the Cambodian declarations in the Joint Communiqué. And which principles will guide Cambodian politics, when implementing what Cambodia promised at the time when the Preah Vihear Temple was listed: that a solution “will be prepared in a concerted manner between the Cambodian and Thai authorities” for a joint management plan – by the date set by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2010, to review the 2008 decision.
Recent Comments