Mr. Kasit.By Pridiyathorn Devakula
Published on November 23, 2009
MATICHON NEWSPAPER, on November 16, published an article on Dr Kriangsak Kittichaiseri who was one of the members in the Thai team that negotiated the drafting of the Memorandum of Understanding between Thailand and Cambodia on Overlapping Maritime Boundaries.
Both countries claim the areas, which are known to have a sizeable deposits of oil and natural gas.
The details of the MoU were also published alongside the article. Having read the article and the MoU, I blamed myself for being so naive and listening to the words of our Minister of Foreign Affairs on this issue.
My misunderstanding started from the nationalistic emotion as a Thai. The appointment of Police Lt-Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra, who was sentenced for wrongdoing in some cases by a Thai court, to be personal adviser to Prime Minister Hun Sen of Cambodia, was deemed as insulting behaviour by the prime minister of Cambodia towards Thailand and its justice system.
I felt it was an adequate retaliation to protect the nation's dignity when, immediately after the appointment, the Thai government recalled the Thai ambassador. Later on, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya threatened to revoke the said MoU, with Minister Kasit saying that the revocation was necessary because the MoU was negotiated and signed during Thaksin's administration. It allowed Thaksin to know all the inside story and important clauses in this MoU.
Such comprehension would enable Thaksin to give advice to our disadvantage and directly impact the negotiations between Thailand and Cambodia under the framework of the MoU.
This story line was also disclosed by Dr Panithan Wattanayakorn, deputy secretary-general to the prime minister, which made it more believable. As a Thai who do not want to be taken advantage of by the Cambodian who insulted our dignity, I, of course, concurred that the move to revoke the MoU was intended to protect the interest of Thailand.
Later on, several eminent persons appeared and considerately gave warnings to the government on this matter with good rationale, which shook my original beliefs.
In the end, it was the article by Dr. Kriangsak that made the whole story become clear to me and I realised that I was completely taken in and fooled by Minister Kasit's story, which was a hoax.
It was quite clear that there is not any clause or any wordings in the MoU that would allow the persons who were behind the original draft an edge in giving advice, which would be of special benefit to the Cambodia side over the Thai side in further negotiations. The next negotiation will be under full control of the new negotiators or the new government which would take control of the negotiation.
The outcome of the negotiation in the joint development area with regard to who will be responsible for what, which party would be a developer, which job will be contracted out and to whom, and any commercial conditions, including the proportion of revenue sharing, totally depends on the new government. They would control the negotiation without being bound by any conditions mentioned or even thought of by the Thaksin government in the past.
The outcome of the negotiation in the area that was agreed to be split in various zones or blocs, which party would develop which zone and the percentage of revenue sharing also totally depends on the new government which controls the negotiation. No other person could, therefore, presume in advance using their privilege.
The MoU specified that in order to negotiate further, a joint committee on technical issues must be established, comprising both Thai and Cambodian members.
To my knowledge, such a committee has not yet been established and there is not any instruction or policy from the government to start the negotiation on this matter.
If we want to thwart any chance to make use of the oil and gas supply under the sea in the area that would benefit Cambodia, simply refraining from establishing the joint committee and from any further negotiation would be effective. Otherwise, if we are so troubled that Thaksin could give advice advantageous to Cambodia, we can simply avoid by not appointing the joint committee for further negotiation. I do not see any necessity to revoke this MoU by any means.
Countries which have a joint boundary and overlapping maritime area will be inseparable for thousands of years. A conflict that exists today could, one fine day, disappear. An opportunity to develop the natural resources in the overlapping area would still be ready to be exploited for mutual benefit if we do not allow emotion to take control of ourselves and lead to an unnecessary act of revocation.
However, what upset me most in this circumstance was the fact that our Minister of Foreign Affairs gave false information to the public. This time, it is the information related to the relation with foreign countries, which normally the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be especially careful and thoroughly cautious about. When our Minister of Foreign Affairs told an untrue story while our counterpart was aware of the fact, the integrity of the Thai government was at stake, not only in the eyes of our counterpart but also in the eyes of other countries in international arena who may well be aware of the content of this MoU.
I think it is still not too late for the government to change its stance on this issue. Do not be too confident that your proposal to revoke the said MoU will be approved by Parliament. MPs in many parties and even those in the Democrats do think of the national interest as the main objective. I do not want to see the government being changed when this proposal is voted down in the Parliament.
Until next Monday.
MATICHON NEWSPAPER, on November 16, published an article on Dr Kriangsak Kittichaiseri who was one of the members in the Thai team that negotiated the drafting of the Memorandum of Understanding between Thailand and Cambodia on Overlapping Maritime Boundaries.
Both countries claim the areas, which are known to have a sizeable deposits of oil and natural gas.
The details of the MoU were also published alongside the article. Having read the article and the MoU, I blamed myself for being so naive and listening to the words of our Minister of Foreign Affairs on this issue.
My misunderstanding started from the nationalistic emotion as a Thai. The appointment of Police Lt-Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra, who was sentenced for wrongdoing in some cases by a Thai court, to be personal adviser to Prime Minister Hun Sen of Cambodia, was deemed as insulting behaviour by the prime minister of Cambodia towards Thailand and its justice system.
I felt it was an adequate retaliation to protect the nation's dignity when, immediately after the appointment, the Thai government recalled the Thai ambassador. Later on, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya threatened to revoke the said MoU, with Minister Kasit saying that the revocation was necessary because the MoU was negotiated and signed during Thaksin's administration. It allowed Thaksin to know all the inside story and important clauses in this MoU.
Such comprehension would enable Thaksin to give advice to our disadvantage and directly impact the negotiations between Thailand and Cambodia under the framework of the MoU.
This story line was also disclosed by Dr Panithan Wattanayakorn, deputy secretary-general to the prime minister, which made it more believable. As a Thai who do not want to be taken advantage of by the Cambodian who insulted our dignity, I, of course, concurred that the move to revoke the MoU was intended to protect the interest of Thailand.
Later on, several eminent persons appeared and considerately gave warnings to the government on this matter with good rationale, which shook my original beliefs.
In the end, it was the article by Dr. Kriangsak that made the whole story become clear to me and I realised that I was completely taken in and fooled by Minister Kasit's story, which was a hoax.
It was quite clear that there is not any clause or any wordings in the MoU that would allow the persons who were behind the original draft an edge in giving advice, which would be of special benefit to the Cambodia side over the Thai side in further negotiations. The next negotiation will be under full control of the new negotiators or the new government which would take control of the negotiation.
The outcome of the negotiation in the joint development area with regard to who will be responsible for what, which party would be a developer, which job will be contracted out and to whom, and any commercial conditions, including the proportion of revenue sharing, totally depends on the new government. They would control the negotiation without being bound by any conditions mentioned or even thought of by the Thaksin government in the past.
The outcome of the negotiation in the area that was agreed to be split in various zones or blocs, which party would develop which zone and the percentage of revenue sharing also totally depends on the new government which controls the negotiation. No other person could, therefore, presume in advance using their privilege.
The MoU specified that in order to negotiate further, a joint committee on technical issues must be established, comprising both Thai and Cambodian members.
To my knowledge, such a committee has not yet been established and there is not any instruction or policy from the government to start the negotiation on this matter.
If we want to thwart any chance to make use of the oil and gas supply under the sea in the area that would benefit Cambodia, simply refraining from establishing the joint committee and from any further negotiation would be effective. Otherwise, if we are so troubled that Thaksin could give advice advantageous to Cambodia, we can simply avoid by not appointing the joint committee for further negotiation. I do not see any necessity to revoke this MoU by any means.
Countries which have a joint boundary and overlapping maritime area will be inseparable for thousands of years. A conflict that exists today could, one fine day, disappear. An opportunity to develop the natural resources in the overlapping area would still be ready to be exploited for mutual benefit if we do not allow emotion to take control of ourselves and lead to an unnecessary act of revocation.
However, what upset me most in this circumstance was the fact that our Minister of Foreign Affairs gave false information to the public. This time, it is the information related to the relation with foreign countries, which normally the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be especially careful and thoroughly cautious about. When our Minister of Foreign Affairs told an untrue story while our counterpart was aware of the fact, the integrity of the Thai government was at stake, not only in the eyes of our counterpart but also in the eyes of other countries in international arena who may well be aware of the content of this MoU.
I think it is still not too late for the government to change its stance on this issue. Do not be too confident that your proposal to revoke the said MoU will be approved by Parliament. MPs in many parties and even those in the Democrats do think of the national interest as the main objective. I do not want to see the government being changed when this proposal is voted down in the Parliament.
Until next Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment