DR. SOMKIATI ARIYAPRUCHYA
The recent military buildup along the Thai-Cambodian border is proving to be very disturbing because both sides have a lot to gain and a lot more to lose if the matter is not quickly brought to a peaceful end.
One must look at the big picture. Continued good relations between the two countries would reap huge benefits for Cambodia and Thailand in terms of increased tourism, cross-border trade and investment, and people-to-people contact.
Conflicts among neighbours in Indochina on border issues are nothing new, however. They are often the legacy of brutal, schematic and unjust colonialism in the 19th century.
France came to Indochina in the mid-19th century and by 1862 had subdued most of Vietnam. It then cast its greedy eyes over all of Southeast Asia right up to Yunnan, with an aim to rival England's colonial influence in Burma and India.
The Franco-Cambodian Treaty of 1863 made Cambodia a French Protectorate. Next, it was Siam (as Thailand was known then). By the Treaties of 1893, 1904 and 1907, parts of Siam were ceded to France which would later become known as the territories of Laos and Cambodia. This explains why there were treaties between Siam and France regarding the borders between Siam and her neighbours, Laos and Cambodia. These treaties were unequal treaties, one-sided, and imposed upon the weak by the strong.
For a clear understanding of the Phra Viharn temple case, it is necessary to delve into the details.
The 1904 Treaty stipulates that the watershed would form the borderline between Siam and France's Cambodia around the region where the temple is located. The Treaty of 1904 leaves the demarcation of the actual watershed line to the Mixed Delimitation Commission.
The so-called Annex I map drawn up by the Delimitation Commission placed the temple within the border of Cambodia even though it did not conform to the principle of the watershed line.
The watershed line, as determined by experts, would place the temple within the Siamese border.
The International Court of Justice on June 15, 1962, by 9 to 3 votes, declared that sovereignty over the Temple of Phra Viharn belonged to Cambodia.
The Court, while recognising the principle of the watershed line, placed more importance on the Annex 1 map, which it believed was based on the work of the Mixed Delimitation Committee.
The Court also noted that Siam, and later Thailand, had never protested against the inaccuracy of Annex 1 when it had several opportunities to do so until 1958.
The Court therefore ruled that Thailand was stopped from claiming territorial sovereignty over Phra Viharn temple.
However, the Court's decision was considered by the government and the public of Thailand to be contrary to international law, the principles of justice and the facts of the case. It was deemed as yet another injustice inflicted on Thailand.
The Court's decision, while awarding Phra Viharn temple to Cambodia, was silent on the frontier demarcation. Thus, the border demarcation issue remains. Cambodia and Thailand remain at loggerheads over the demarcation of the frontier.
The temple issue must be viewed in the right historical context. Prior to the colonial encroachment of France and England in the late 19th century, there was no fixed and clear border demarcation among countries in the Southeast Asian region.
The region was loosely structured under a tributary system. The practice of clear territorial demarcation was then alien to both Cambodia, Thailand and indeed the non-Western world.
The issue of Phra Viharn should be considered by both Cambodia and Thailand as an unwanted legacy of colonialism. The past should not be allowed to cloud the bright future ahead for all concerned.
Both countries have tremendous benefits from peace, bilateral cooperation and regional cooperation through the various regional mechanisms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), GMS (Greater Mekong Subregion) and ACMECS (The Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy).
What, then, is the win-win way forward?
In my view, the Asean way should be utilised. In other words, disputes should be settled through diplomatic means.
At present, Cambodia has gone ahead with its unilateral inscription of the Phra Viharn temple as a World Heritage Site.
Looking at the big picture, Cambodia should be magnanimous enough to invite Thailand to jointly inscribe the temple. Such an action would be in the national interest of Cambodia. Phnom Penh may still invite a joint inscription even at this late hour.
There is nothing in the rules and regulations of the World Heritage Committee that forbids joint inscription even after a unilateral inscription has been granted.
This magnanimous act would in one fell swoop cool down the current dispute and make the temple of Phra Viharn truly a world heritage site of universal value and a symbol of cooperation between the two countries for years to come.
Looking further into the future, the win-win way to cement good relations between Cambodia, Thailand and indeed Laos, would be to form a CALATHAI Community (acronym for Cambodia, Laos and Thailand), a la Benelux and the wider EU. Through positive functionalism, they will achieve a deeper integration in the areas of goods, capital and labour. The prosperity and destiny of these countries will thus become inextricably intertwined.
As citizens of the member countries find it easier to live and practice their profession wherever they want in the community, so would the question of territorial sovereignty decline in importance.
The greater goal of joint prosperity, stability and peace would therefore be achieved.
This win-win way forward is not easy; it requires magnanimity, bravery, vision and political will on the part of leaders. Now is the time to rise to this challenge.
The author is dean of the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies, Rangsit University. This article is based on his speech at the 6th IDIS Forum on July 11, 2008.
The recent military buildup along the Thai-Cambodian border is proving to be very disturbing because both sides have a lot to gain and a lot more to lose if the matter is not quickly brought to a peaceful end.
One must look at the big picture. Continued good relations between the two countries would reap huge benefits for Cambodia and Thailand in terms of increased tourism, cross-border trade and investment, and people-to-people contact.
Conflicts among neighbours in Indochina on border issues are nothing new, however. They are often the legacy of brutal, schematic and unjust colonialism in the 19th century.
France came to Indochina in the mid-19th century and by 1862 had subdued most of Vietnam. It then cast its greedy eyes over all of Southeast Asia right up to Yunnan, with an aim to rival England's colonial influence in Burma and India.
The Franco-Cambodian Treaty of 1863 made Cambodia a French Protectorate. Next, it was Siam (as Thailand was known then). By the Treaties of 1893, 1904 and 1907, parts of Siam were ceded to France which would later become known as the territories of Laos and Cambodia. This explains why there were treaties between Siam and France regarding the borders between Siam and her neighbours, Laos and Cambodia. These treaties were unequal treaties, one-sided, and imposed upon the weak by the strong.
For a clear understanding of the Phra Viharn temple case, it is necessary to delve into the details.
The 1904 Treaty stipulates that the watershed would form the borderline between Siam and France's Cambodia around the region where the temple is located. The Treaty of 1904 leaves the demarcation of the actual watershed line to the Mixed Delimitation Commission.
The so-called Annex I map drawn up by the Delimitation Commission placed the temple within the border of Cambodia even though it did not conform to the principle of the watershed line.
The watershed line, as determined by experts, would place the temple within the Siamese border.
The International Court of Justice on June 15, 1962, by 9 to 3 votes, declared that sovereignty over the Temple of Phra Viharn belonged to Cambodia.
The Court, while recognising the principle of the watershed line, placed more importance on the Annex 1 map, which it believed was based on the work of the Mixed Delimitation Committee.
The Court also noted that Siam, and later Thailand, had never protested against the inaccuracy of Annex 1 when it had several opportunities to do so until 1958.
The Court therefore ruled that Thailand was stopped from claiming territorial sovereignty over Phra Viharn temple.
However, the Court's decision was considered by the government and the public of Thailand to be contrary to international law, the principles of justice and the facts of the case. It was deemed as yet another injustice inflicted on Thailand.
The Court's decision, while awarding Phra Viharn temple to Cambodia, was silent on the frontier demarcation. Thus, the border demarcation issue remains. Cambodia and Thailand remain at loggerheads over the demarcation of the frontier.
The temple issue must be viewed in the right historical context. Prior to the colonial encroachment of France and England in the late 19th century, there was no fixed and clear border demarcation among countries in the Southeast Asian region.
The region was loosely structured under a tributary system. The practice of clear territorial demarcation was then alien to both Cambodia, Thailand and indeed the non-Western world.
The issue of Phra Viharn should be considered by both Cambodia and Thailand as an unwanted legacy of colonialism. The past should not be allowed to cloud the bright future ahead for all concerned.
Both countries have tremendous benefits from peace, bilateral cooperation and regional cooperation through the various regional mechanisms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), GMS (Greater Mekong Subregion) and ACMECS (The Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy).
What, then, is the win-win way forward?
In my view, the Asean way should be utilised. In other words, disputes should be settled through diplomatic means.
At present, Cambodia has gone ahead with its unilateral inscription of the Phra Viharn temple as a World Heritage Site.
Looking at the big picture, Cambodia should be magnanimous enough to invite Thailand to jointly inscribe the temple. Such an action would be in the national interest of Cambodia. Phnom Penh may still invite a joint inscription even at this late hour.
There is nothing in the rules and regulations of the World Heritage Committee that forbids joint inscription even after a unilateral inscription has been granted.
This magnanimous act would in one fell swoop cool down the current dispute and make the temple of Phra Viharn truly a world heritage site of universal value and a symbol of cooperation between the two countries for years to come.
Looking further into the future, the win-win way to cement good relations between Cambodia, Thailand and indeed Laos, would be to form a CALATHAI Community (acronym for Cambodia, Laos and Thailand), a la Benelux and the wider EU. Through positive functionalism, they will achieve a deeper integration in the areas of goods, capital and labour. The prosperity and destiny of these countries will thus become inextricably intertwined.
As citizens of the member countries find it easier to live and practice their profession wherever they want in the community, so would the question of territorial sovereignty decline in importance.
The greater goal of joint prosperity, stability and peace would therefore be achieved.
This win-win way forward is not easy; it requires magnanimity, bravery, vision and political will on the part of leaders. Now is the time to rise to this challenge.
The author is dean of the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies, Rangsit University. This article is based on his speech at the 6th IDIS Forum on July 11, 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment