9th February, 2009
By Khmerization
The sensitive issues of Khmer-Thai border relations have generated heated, and sometimes, controversial, debates among those who felt passionately about these issues. For the Cambodian side, the Preah Vihear issues have been settled once and for all under the 1904-1907 Franco-Siam Treaty and the 1962 verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For the Thai side, who never wanted to let go of the Preah Vihear temple, the issues have never been settled. Some foreign observers seem to buy into the Thai theory that the 1904-1907 treaty and the ICJ verdict have left many unanswered issues and unsolved territorial disputes. Mr. Norbert Klein is one such believer.
After reading my translated article titled “Thai troops crossed into Cambodia at Phnom Trop”, Mr. Klein had left a very diplomatic comments in my blog. But his rationale seem to be at odds with the Khmer views, but in line with the Thai view. He seem to buy into the Thai theory that the areas surrounding the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand under the 2008 Joint Communique. I hereby wish to publish his comments in its entirety. Here it is:
“There are again confrontations at the border - west of Preah Vihear. This is dangerous, deplorable, it has to be defused, avoided in future.
But I continue to be surprised, time and again, that the Joint Communique of 18 June 2008, including the map produced by the Cambodian side, and the declaration of the Cambodian side is never referenced in such Cambodian reports.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/pdf/jointcommunique.pdf
In some mail exchanges before, I have been accused to disregard documents of 1904/1907/1962/2000 - this is not what I said; I just point to the fact that there is a document signed later, by a Deputy Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, saying that the 18.6.2008 map "supersedes" the former maps "at this stage." - And the Thai troops, mentioned in the present posting, are in "territories at the foot of Phnom Trop Mountain west of the Preah Vihear temple" - where the Cambodian side said, at that time, that "a buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple" is not part of the Cambodian claims when applying for World Heritage listing.
I am not a legal expert, I am not "taking sides" - I just share my observation that there is never an official clarification how the 18.6.2008 Cambodian map and declarations relate to the ongoing conflict, and how the Cambodian side in the present and future border discussions intends to handle the Cambodian statements in the Joint Declaration. Just to say "forget it" is not appropriate for a document signed by a Deputy Prime Minister.
Norbert Klein”
I am of the opinion that the Joint Communique Mr. Klein mentioned is just a communique signed for the purpose of listing the temple only, it is not a border treaty document for the purpose of border demarcations. Therefore the document, and maps attached to it, cannot be used in regard to border issues, but the listing of the temple only. As far as international law is concerned, the 1904-1907's Franco-Siam Treaty is still in force. And under international laws, the 2008 Joint Communique is an invalid document due to two reasons:
Firstly, the Thai side has reneged on the agreement by withdrawing its support for the listing of the Preah Vihear temple a few days before it was listed.
Secondly, the Thai Conctitutional Court has annulled it just a few days before Unesco listed the temple.
The two Thai actions above have effectively made the Joint Communique null and void. As such the Joint Communique is now effectively a dead document.
Furthermore, both the Thai (present Thai administration) and the Cambodian sides have reiterated on numerous occasions that both the 1904-1907 treaty and the 2000’s MOU will be used to resolve the Khmer-Thai border disputes. Mr. Klein has also mentioned the 1962 ICJ's verdict. The Thai side seem to interpret that the ICJ has not judged on the ownership of the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. The notion that the ownership the surrounding lands have not been judged is a misconception. If one reads and analyses one of the ICJ’s verdict thoroughly one would understand that the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple have been judged. Here is one of the ICJ’s verdict:
“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 verdict stated clearly that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw troops from “the Temple, or its vicinity on Cambodian territory.” Maps from the 1904 treaty put the temple and the areas, or the temple’s “vicinity”, claimed by Thailand, inside Cambodia. So, the 1962 ICJ verdict was clear. The areas or the temple’s “vicinity” currently claimed by Thailand have been judged to belong to Cambodia.
My understanding seem to be in line with Mr. Chan Veasna’s view who had a few exchanges with Mr. Klein through the Phnom Penh Post recently. Here I wish to re-publish his last exchange with Mr. Klein below:
"Letter to the editor
Phnom Penh Post
6th December, 2008
newsroom@phnompenhpost.com
Dear Sir,
Nobert Klein’s letter (Cambodia must use its own maps too, 25 Nov.) has totally missed the points of my previous letter (Thailand must use Cambodian maps, 14 Nov.). While Mr. Klein might be correct in his views, his letter certainly has confused your readers of the points I was trying to make in my letter.
While I was talking about the maps of the 1904-1907 Khmer-Thai Border Treaty, Mr Klein was talking about the maps of the 2008 Joint Communique or the agreement to list the Preah Vihear temple. There is no comparison between these two agreements because one is a border treaty and the other is an agreement to list the temple on the world heritage list.
While Mr. Klein was correct to spell out the details of the 2008 Joint Communique, he is incorrect in drawing its connections to the issue of the border demarcations between Thailand and Cambodia. The distinction between these two agreements must be made:
1) The maps of the 2008 Joint Communique are for the purpose of inscribing the Preah Vihear temple on the world heritage list, not for the purpose of border demarcations as has been the point of my letter.
2) The maps attached to the 2008 Joint Communique will only supersede other maps concerning the zonage/zoning of the Preah Vihear temple boundary, not superseding the maps concerning the demarcations of territorial borders between Thailand and Cambodia.
The 2008 Joint Communique, of which Mr. Klein was talking about, spelled out that the border demarcations will only be carried out pending the results of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary which in turn, according to previous agreements, will use the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2000 which both Thailand and Cambodia recognised to use the 1904-1907 Treaty as a base for their border resolution.
The 2008 Joint Communique stated that “the inscription of the Preah Vihear temple on the World Heritage List shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand on the demarcations work of the Joint Commission of Land Boundary of the two countries.”
With the provisions in the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Cambodia and Thailand, recognising the 1904-1907 Treaty, there is no doubt that the maps of the 1904-1907 treaty must be used by the Joint Commission of Land Boundary for the border settlements, not the Preah Vihear zoning maps that Mr Klein was talking about.
Yours sincerely,
signed
Chan Veasna
Cabramatta, NSW, Australia"
I would like to end this post by reiterating that the 2008 Joint Communique raised by Mr. Klein was only a communique for the purpose of listing of the Temple only. The map, or as the Cambodian side called it, a drawing, attached with this communique is a zoning/zonage map for the inscription of the temple, and not a treaty map. The Thai side has withdrew their support from this agreement and the Thai Constitutional Court has also annulled it. As such, under international laws, it cannot be used as a legal document for the resolutions or demarcations of the borders. By this definition the 1904 treaty maps, which put all the lands claimed by Thailand, inside Cambodia, are till in force. Therefore, the lands surrounding Preah Vihear temple currently occupied by Thailand since 15th July 2008 belong to Cambodia.
By Khmerization
The sensitive issues of Khmer-Thai border relations have generated heated, and sometimes, controversial, debates among those who felt passionately about these issues. For the Cambodian side, the Preah Vihear issues have been settled once and for all under the 1904-1907 Franco-Siam Treaty and the 1962 verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For the Thai side, who never wanted to let go of the Preah Vihear temple, the issues have never been settled. Some foreign observers seem to buy into the Thai theory that the 1904-1907 treaty and the ICJ verdict have left many unanswered issues and unsolved territorial disputes. Mr. Norbert Klein is one such believer.
After reading my translated article titled “Thai troops crossed into Cambodia at Phnom Trop”, Mr. Klein had left a very diplomatic comments in my blog. But his rationale seem to be at odds with the Khmer views, but in line with the Thai view. He seem to buy into the Thai theory that the areas surrounding the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand under the 2008 Joint Communique. I hereby wish to publish his comments in its entirety. Here it is:
“There are again confrontations at the border - west of Preah Vihear. This is dangerous, deplorable, it has to be defused, avoided in future.
But I continue to be surprised, time and again, that the Joint Communique of 18 June 2008, including the map produced by the Cambodian side, and the declaration of the Cambodian side is never referenced in such Cambodian reports.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/pdf/jointcommunique.pdf
In some mail exchanges before, I have been accused to disregard documents of 1904/1907/1962/2000 - this is not what I said; I just point to the fact that there is a document signed later, by a Deputy Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, saying that the 18.6.2008 map "supersedes" the former maps "at this stage." - And the Thai troops, mentioned in the present posting, are in "territories at the foot of Phnom Trop Mountain west of the Preah Vihear temple" - where the Cambodian side said, at that time, that "a buffer zone on the northern and western areas of the Temple" is not part of the Cambodian claims when applying for World Heritage listing.
I am not a legal expert, I am not "taking sides" - I just share my observation that there is never an official clarification how the 18.6.2008 Cambodian map and declarations relate to the ongoing conflict, and how the Cambodian side in the present and future border discussions intends to handle the Cambodian statements in the Joint Declaration. Just to say "forget it" is not appropriate for a document signed by a Deputy Prime Minister.
Norbert Klein”
I am of the opinion that the Joint Communique Mr. Klein mentioned is just a communique signed for the purpose of listing the temple only, it is not a border treaty document for the purpose of border demarcations. Therefore the document, and maps attached to it, cannot be used in regard to border issues, but the listing of the temple only. As far as international law is concerned, the 1904-1907's Franco-Siam Treaty is still in force. And under international laws, the 2008 Joint Communique is an invalid document due to two reasons:
Firstly, the Thai side has reneged on the agreement by withdrawing its support for the listing of the Preah Vihear temple a few days before it was listed.
Secondly, the Thai Conctitutional Court has annulled it just a few days before Unesco listed the temple.
The two Thai actions above have effectively made the Joint Communique null and void. As such the Joint Communique is now effectively a dead document.
Furthermore, both the Thai (present Thai administration) and the Cambodian sides have reiterated on numerous occasions that both the 1904-1907 treaty and the 2000’s MOU will be used to resolve the Khmer-Thai border disputes. Mr. Klein has also mentioned the 1962 ICJ's verdict. The Thai side seem to interpret that the ICJ has not judged on the ownership of the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. The notion that the ownership the surrounding lands have not been judged is a misconception. If one reads and analyses one of the ICJ’s verdict thoroughly one would understand that the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple have been judged. Here is one of the ICJ’s verdict:
“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 verdict stated clearly that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw troops from “the Temple, or its vicinity on Cambodian territory.” Maps from the 1904 treaty put the temple and the areas, or the temple’s “vicinity”, claimed by Thailand, inside Cambodia. So, the 1962 ICJ verdict was clear. The areas or the temple’s “vicinity” currently claimed by Thailand have been judged to belong to Cambodia.
My understanding seem to be in line with Mr. Chan Veasna’s view who had a few exchanges with Mr. Klein through the Phnom Penh Post recently. Here I wish to re-publish his last exchange with Mr. Klein below:
"Letter to the editor
Phnom Penh Post
6th December, 2008
newsroom@phnompenhpost.com
Dear Sir,
Nobert Klein’s letter (Cambodia must use its own maps too, 25 Nov.) has totally missed the points of my previous letter (Thailand must use Cambodian maps, 14 Nov.). While Mr. Klein might be correct in his views, his letter certainly has confused your readers of the points I was trying to make in my letter.
While I was talking about the maps of the 1904-1907 Khmer-Thai Border Treaty, Mr Klein was talking about the maps of the 2008 Joint Communique or the agreement to list the Preah Vihear temple. There is no comparison between these two agreements because one is a border treaty and the other is an agreement to list the temple on the world heritage list.
While Mr. Klein was correct to spell out the details of the 2008 Joint Communique, he is incorrect in drawing its connections to the issue of the border demarcations between Thailand and Cambodia. The distinction between these two agreements must be made:
1) The maps of the 2008 Joint Communique are for the purpose of inscribing the Preah Vihear temple on the world heritage list, not for the purpose of border demarcations as has been the point of my letter.
2) The maps attached to the 2008 Joint Communique will only supersede other maps concerning the zonage/zoning of the Preah Vihear temple boundary, not superseding the maps concerning the demarcations of territorial borders between Thailand and Cambodia.
The 2008 Joint Communique, of which Mr. Klein was talking about, spelled out that the border demarcations will only be carried out pending the results of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary which in turn, according to previous agreements, will use the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2000 which both Thailand and Cambodia recognised to use the 1904-1907 Treaty as a base for their border resolution.
The 2008 Joint Communique stated that “the inscription of the Preah Vihear temple on the World Heritage List shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand on the demarcations work of the Joint Commission of Land Boundary of the two countries.”
With the provisions in the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Cambodia and Thailand, recognising the 1904-1907 Treaty, there is no doubt that the maps of the 1904-1907 treaty must be used by the Joint Commission of Land Boundary for the border settlements, not the Preah Vihear zoning maps that Mr Klein was talking about.
Yours sincerely,
signed
Chan Veasna
Cabramatta, NSW, Australia"
I would like to end this post by reiterating that the 2008 Joint Communique raised by Mr. Klein was only a communique for the purpose of listing of the Temple only. The map, or as the Cambodian side called it, a drawing, attached with this communique is a zoning/zonage map for the inscription of the temple, and not a treaty map. The Thai side has withdrew their support from this agreement and the Thai Constitutional Court has also annulled it. As such, under international laws, it cannot be used as a legal document for the resolutions or demarcations of the borders. By this definition the 1904 treaty maps, which put all the lands claimed by Thailand, inside Cambodia, are till in force. Therefore, the lands surrounding Preah Vihear temple currently occupied by Thailand since 15th July 2008 belong to Cambodia.
6 comments:
Dear Nobert Klein,
I think your comment seems so bias. You said you are not an expert, so please don´t judge the case or take side.
My suggestion is that please kindly read the verdict of the ICJ 1962, the 2000 OMU, and the Joint Communique (JC) carefully and even Thai government´s statements about their position on how to solve the conflicts before writing such a comment and express your self-centered judgement over this issue. Remember this is a very sensitive issue for both countries.
You put weight on only the JC 2008 like the extremist Thais who create the trouble. This is absolutely unreasonable as an observer, Nobert Klein.
Regarding to the JC 2008,as Chan Veasna said it is just for the purpose of inscribing the Khmer Preah Vihear temple only and it has no affect on the 1904 and 1907 Siamese-French treay and the ICJ´s verdict in 1962 . On ther hand, I think you should not mention it either as a reference to reject the legitimate ownership of the Phnom Treap of the Kingdom of Cambodia because the JC 2008 is legally invalid for any future reference due to the Thai Administration Court´s injunction on 28 June 2008.
Please don´t encourage the invader but enlight him in order to build peace!
__________________________
Thank Khmerization and Lok Chan veasna, you both have done a great job!
Regards!
dear Mr. pang sokheun,
I appreciated your comment shown in this blog. Regarding your answer to Mr. Nobert Klein.
Yes you are right. The MOU signed by deputy prime minister Sok An and former thai foreign minister Napadon will not effect any Siam treaty in 1904-1907 or verdict of ICJ in 1962 or MOU in 2000.
But you have to understand the feeling. Why cambodian govt need to draw new map?
This seems created some fact. Created some misunderstand between people from both countries.
Back to that MOU, if cambodian govt think that they have enough document, why they need new MOU ? draw new map (body of temple only) ? For what purpose ?
Does cambodian govt talked to National assembly before signed this agreement?
Does Cambodian govt talked to civil society before signed this agreement?
Among people who have a little knowledge from both thai and khmer. It is eassy to affect their feeling. It is eassy to burn this issue.
Thai people, when they heard, cambodia draw new map, it is like give hope to them. They think that land can claim back to thailand.
Again, recently i listened to interview of Dr. Ros chantrabut and Radio free asia. He mentioned that to change word " preah vihear to Khao praviharn followed request for thai negotiation team", it will affected to all siam-france treaty and ICJ verdict.
To me, i think that if we have enought document. Don't try to make any misunderstand.
It is not required to have MOU signed by Sok An and Napadon.
Nimol
KMUTNB, Thailand
Sorry i used wrong word " MOU signed by sok an and napadon". It was 2008 join communique signed by Sok An and Napadon.
It is not required.
Cambodia side, We have enough document. Don't try to make new history.
Dear Nimol,
You are right and I do agree with you that Cambodia and Thailand have already enough democuments to solve the conflicts. But why Cambodia agree to draw a new map? It is a big question.
Is it Cambodian leaders´ weakness or is it Thai greed? If Cambodian leaders are strong enough and really serve the interest of the country, they must not have submitted to the Thai demand in order to list Preah Vihear as the world heritage site. On the other hand, if Thailand is a good neigbor, Thailand must not have demanded the new map drawn and instead Thailand should have pushed for the listing and faster the border demarcation basing on the spirit of the ICJ´s verdict 1962 and furthermore, Thailand must not have sent troops to invade Cambodia after the three extremist Thais illegally sneaked into cambodia.
About the drawing new map, you said "Thai people, when they heard, cambodia draw new map, it is like give hope to them. They think that land can claim back to thailand". That`s correct. And I and many other Cambodians strongly object to this submission of Cambodian leaders to Thailand. Yet the Thai turned themselves down as well after the JC 2008 was invalidated by Thai Adminstration Court´s injunction on 28 June 2009. And it clearly shows that the JC 2008 has no affect on the listing of Preah Vihear. With this the verdict of IJC 1962 is still the basic and olny effect.
I have already wrote about this in my blog whether the JC 2008 is constitutionally right in Cambodia.
About the name of Preah Vihear change i do agree with Mr. Ros Chantrabot and Cambodia must stick to the principle. I mean Thailand have NO right to demand for that. You can go to my blog and read about this too.
Gentlemen,
You both have presented very good arguments. Sokhoeun, you are 100% correct on the validity of the 2008 Joint Communique. It has no validity because the Thai side withdrew their support for the listing of Preah Vihear a few days before it was listed. This 2008 JC has also been annulled by the Thai Constitutional Court. I forgot to include this point in my post.
Nimol is very correct. Sok An's agreement to draw a new map was a big mistake. And like you said, that new map gives a sense of false hope on the part of Thai people. But, I repeat, it was only a drawing, not a map. And it was for the purpose of the inscription of Preah Vihear only. It was not a map drawn for the purpose of a border treaty. The 2008 JC was not a border treaty. This is the distinction we should make. Therefore, the 1904-1907 treaty will still supersede any other non-binding agreements.
Dear Nimol,
You question "Why cambodian govt need to draw new map?" and you give the answer yourself " This seems created some fact. Created some misunderstand between people from both countries". For me I don't think your answer is correct. For Cambodian side there is no misunderstand was created because we (government and people) are so clever but Siam government and people are stupid. Can you imagine how long we can list our Preas Vihear temple to the World Heritage list if Cambodia doesn't produce new map of Preas Vihear temple as a reference to the JC 2008 since Thai government (before 15 July 2008) always objected the submitted proposal to list our Preas Vihear temple including areas surrounding the temple.
Again, your next question is "Does cambodian govt talked to National assembly before signed this agreement?". I understood that you make copy from the Siam practise in following its constitution law. I suggest you to go reading Cambodia constitution law.
Again and again, your last question is " Does Cambodian govt talked to civil society before signed this agreement?". It's good question. Any way, you should know that the same human being but different culture and polical practises due to different country, region and continent. It's not the same size fit all.
Preas Vihear.
Post a Comment