The Nation
Published on June 3, 2011
Re: "ICJ ruling just before poll could hurt the Democrats", June 1.
It is good of you to highlight this electoral factor. However, you are somewhat bent on Thailand losing to Cambodia at the court.
I think otherwise. Thailand was ordered in 1962 by the International Court of Justice to withdraw its troops from Preah Vihear Temple and its vicinity. Thailand then complied. After half a century, in 2011 Cambodia now complains that the area withdrawn from is not enough and wants to include the 4.6-square-kilometre disputed area as well. Does that make sense, especially when Cambodia originally asked the ICJ only to rule on the ownership of the temple and not the border between Cambodia and Thailand?
If the ICJ views likewise, wouldn't the Democrat Party be lauded as the saviour of our nation just a week before the election? So there is that chance as well.
Songdej Praditsmanont
Bangkok
---------------
Khmerization;s Note: Songdej needs a lesson on the history of the 1962 ICJ verdict and on the history of Khmer-Thai conflict at Preah Vihear. The ICJ in 1962 used the Annex I Map or The Dangrek Map to reach its verdict and ordered Thailand to withdraw all its troops from the temple vicinity in Cambodian territory. The Annex I Map puts all the territory now claimed by Thailand inside Cambodia and it was always controlled by Cambodia after Thai troops were ordered by ICJ to withdraw in 1962. Therefore, the question of a 4.6 sq.km disputed territory did not exist. The disputed territory of 4.6 sq.km only existed when Thai troops invaded the area on 15th July 2008, a week after Unesco inscribed Preah Vihear temple as a world heritage site, an occupation that had caused many deadly border clashes between the two countries. Today, Thai troops still occupied some parts of the area and refused to withdraw its troops and that's why Cambodia took the case to the ICJ again.
Published on June 3, 2011
Re: "ICJ ruling just before poll could hurt the Democrats", June 1.
It is good of you to highlight this electoral factor. However, you are somewhat bent on Thailand losing to Cambodia at the court.
I think otherwise. Thailand was ordered in 1962 by the International Court of Justice to withdraw its troops from Preah Vihear Temple and its vicinity. Thailand then complied. After half a century, in 2011 Cambodia now complains that the area withdrawn from is not enough and wants to include the 4.6-square-kilometre disputed area as well. Does that make sense, especially when Cambodia originally asked the ICJ only to rule on the ownership of the temple and not the border between Cambodia and Thailand?
If the ICJ views likewise, wouldn't the Democrat Party be lauded as the saviour of our nation just a week before the election? So there is that chance as well.
Songdej Praditsmanont
Bangkok
---------------
Khmerization;s Note: Songdej needs a lesson on the history of the 1962 ICJ verdict and on the history of Khmer-Thai conflict at Preah Vihear. The ICJ in 1962 used the Annex I Map or The Dangrek Map to reach its verdict and ordered Thailand to withdraw all its troops from the temple vicinity in Cambodian territory. The Annex I Map puts all the territory now claimed by Thailand inside Cambodia and it was always controlled by Cambodia after Thai troops were ordered by ICJ to withdraw in 1962. Therefore, the question of a 4.6 sq.km disputed territory did not exist. The disputed territory of 4.6 sq.km only existed when Thai troops invaded the area on 15th July 2008, a week after Unesco inscribed Preah Vihear temple as a world heritage site, an occupation that had caused many deadly border clashes between the two countries. Today, Thai troops still occupied some parts of the area and refused to withdraw its troops and that's why Cambodia took the case to the ICJ again.
1 comment:
Thailand claiming over Cambodia land is beyond outrage and the ICJ won't let it happen suppose ICJ support Thailand claim it will encourage Thailand further more encroach Cambodia land and more fighting will follow there for ICJ must take all the facts to the consideration and the verdict is likely Thailand must respect 1962 ruling and the ANNEX I map borderline are standing .
In the court of law Thailand entitle to it baloney claim but if the judge buying it is the other mater the judge have fairness reputation and leave emotional aside consider on the evidences and facts the ANNEX I map will play the important role in this ruling .
Rest assure Cambodia the judge not going to alter any previous ruling only make it clearer for Siem to understand better the only problem with Cambodia why Hor Num Hong speak so much in the court he should leave it to the lawyer it not a time to play hero and his English are really poor did any body ever tell him that .
Thailand make it contradiction claim because they have nothing to lose they not worrying about their reputation of shameless ruthless is being spread all over the world .
Post a Comment