Prince Sisowath Thomico greeted by his supporters.Dear Readers,
The debates over the issue of Preah Vihear have gotten interesting by the day. Since Khmerization published a translated article from everday.com about new Thai incursions into the Preah Vihear precinct, Khmerization has received emails from at least three high-profile and eminent personalities. Mr. Norbert Klein, a high profile NGO executive in Cambodia, has weighed in by raising the issue of the 2008 Joint Communique which, according to Mr. Klein's understanding, seems to concede that the territories around the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand. Mr. Klein's rationales have attracted Khmerization's detailed response.
Khmerization's exchanges with Mr. Klein seem to attract the attention of Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres, an official biographer of ex-king Sihanouk, who then weighed in the debates with his very thoughtful analysis.
The latest email has been particularly of great interests to me because it came from a Khmer royalty who is very proficient in the history of Khmer borders, particularly the history of Koh Tral Island. Prince Sisowath Thomico, a son of Prince Sisowath Methavi, has been a controversial figure in the not-so-kind and cut-throat politics of Cambodia but, when it comes to Khmer borders and history, he should be commended for his uncompromising patriotism and his unquestionale knowledge. Below is his email to Khmerization:
Dear Sir, I would like to weigh in the debate regarding the official name of Preah Vihear. As my friend Ambassador Julio rightly pointed out, up to now, all official notes issued by the Royal Government of Thailand referred to Preah Vihear as Preah Vihear not "Khao Phra Viharn" as now surprisingly demanded by Thailand. As a matter of fact, international relations are ruled by international laws, international/bilateral treaties and international/bilateral conventions. As far as Preah Vihear is concerned, the last official treaty/agreement/judgement refer to the Temple as Preah Vihear, including the infamous June 18, 2008 Joint Communiqué. There is no mention of "Khao Phra Viharn" in any international document ever since the June 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice of the Hague. So, it is clear that Preah Vihear is the only name that ought to be used while referring to the Temple in any international negotiation/treaty/convention/agreement.
Last but not least: Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. It has to be referred to under its Cambodian name. It would be laughable and irrelevant if Cambodia ever wanted to refer to Ho Chi Minh City as "Prey Nokor" in official bilateral/international document. The same goes for Preah Vihear.
The debates over the issue of Preah Vihear have gotten interesting by the day. Since Khmerization published a translated article from everday.com about new Thai incursions into the Preah Vihear precinct, Khmerization has received emails from at least three high-profile and eminent personalities. Mr. Norbert Klein, a high profile NGO executive in Cambodia, has weighed in by raising the issue of the 2008 Joint Communique which, according to Mr. Klein's understanding, seems to concede that the territories around the Preah Vihear temple belong to Thailand. Mr. Klein's rationales have attracted Khmerization's detailed response.
Khmerization's exchanges with Mr. Klein seem to attract the attention of Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres, an official biographer of ex-king Sihanouk, who then weighed in the debates with his very thoughtful analysis.
The latest email has been particularly of great interests to me because it came from a Khmer royalty who is very proficient in the history of Khmer borders, particularly the history of Koh Tral Island. Prince Sisowath Thomico, a son of Prince Sisowath Methavi, has been a controversial figure in the not-so-kind and cut-throat politics of Cambodia but, when it comes to Khmer borders and history, he should be commended for his uncompromising patriotism and his unquestionale knowledge. Below is his email to Khmerization:
Dear Sir, I would like to weigh in the debate regarding the official name of Preah Vihear. As my friend Ambassador Julio rightly pointed out, up to now, all official notes issued by the Royal Government of Thailand referred to Preah Vihear as Preah Vihear not "Khao Phra Viharn" as now surprisingly demanded by Thailand. As a matter of fact, international relations are ruled by international laws, international/bilateral treaties and international/bilateral conventions. As far as Preah Vihear is concerned, the last official treaty/agreement/judgement refer to the Temple as Preah Vihear, including the infamous June 18, 2008 Joint Communiqué. There is no mention of "Khao Phra Viharn" in any international document ever since the June 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice of the Hague. So, it is clear that Preah Vihear is the only name that ought to be used while referring to the Temple in any international negotiation/treaty/convention/agreement.
Last but not least: Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. It has to be referred to under its Cambodian name. It would be laughable and irrelevant if Cambodia ever wanted to refer to Ho Chi Minh City as "Prey Nokor" in official bilateral/international document. The same goes for Preah Vihear.
Regards
Sisowath Thomico
5 comments:
Prince Thomico seems to be not particularly good at politics, but when I read his comments here, he seems very well-informed and knowledgeable. I think he should leave politics altogether and concentrate on writing Cambodian history and take a lead role in Cambodian borer issues.
Good on him, short commence and meaningful
I just received an email from Mr. Klein reacting to my latest post which I interpreted his previous comments to mean that the areas around Preah Vihear can be claimed by Thailand. Mr. Klein has rejected my interpretation of his comments categorically. Here are his comments:
----------------------
"Where did I say so? The only implication is that the boundary around is not
marked and it is contested where to put the markers. It seems that some
people are not reading carefully.
I started to draft a reply to Ambassador Jeldres - with whom I fully agree. I
am at present fighting with some health problems in the family - so my
detailed response will come later.
Norbert Klein"
-----------------------
Mr. Norbert Klein did not exactly say that the areas around Preah Vihear can be claimed by Thailand, but in many of his comments the Joint Communique featured prominently. The JC has drawn a new "map" which only put the Preah Vihear temple inside Cambodia and left the rest of the surrounding areas as "disputed zones" which then were claimed by Thailand. If that was not his intention, then I offer my unequivocal and unreserved apology.
I wish to stress that the implications of Mr. Klein's comments have left many wondered of what points he was trying to make. His ambiguous comments are subject to individuals' interpretation of what they mean. And if I misinterpreted his comments, them I am sorry.
I just received this reply in my email:
------------
Dear all eminent personalities discussing about Preah Vihear and the surroudings, and the different arguments, I suggest that you refer to Cambodge Nouveau issue nr 270, November 2008, that gives two good maps and an interesting explanation, with contour lines. And also to previous numerous articles published on the same good subject by Cambodge Nouveau.
Discussing is obviously interesting, but it seems maybe a lost of time, the document signed by the two parties in 1962 being very clear, including a clear map.
best regards,
Alain Gascuel
Editor
All of idea are good. But our khmer leader are not good like us. What should we do ?
Who will go to negotiate with thai ?
It is government but our government never listen to our discussion.
What should we do next?
Post a Comment