Bangkok Post
By Prof. Thitinan Pongsudhirak
Few matters of international importance have
captivated national attention in Thailand quite like the televised
contest over the Preah Vihear temple area at the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) last week.
Regardless of the judges' ruling, both Thailand and Cambodia will
ultimately have to work together to jointly develop the temple area. The
sooner the authorities realise this imperative, the better it will be
for local livelihoods, bilateral relations and Asean cohesion.
It appears that Cambodia's claim is supported by history and
international law, whereas Thailand's case stems from geography and
economics.
A landmark ICJ verdict in 1962 places Cambodian sovereignty over the temple beyond doubt.
Despite misgivings over the source of this decision, which was based
on a French-made map during the 1904-07 Franco-Siamese land survey and
consequent treaty, all Thai governments since have accepted it.
As Siam became Thailand in 1939, the Siamese and subsequent Thai
authorities did not show sufficient objection to the map, perhaps out of
ignorance or fear of imperial reprisals, or both.
The ICJ cited the so-called Annex I, a 1:200,000 scale map, as a
basis for its ruling but did not decide on the validity and legality of
the map itself.
Cambodia originally did not request adjudication on the map, and only
made such a request subsequently, which the court rejected. The law
therefore has carried in Cambodia's favour only over the temple itself.
Preah Vihear temple is of Hindu origin, dating back to the 11th
century when the Khmer civilisation dominated mainland Southeast Asia.
The magnificence and grandeur of Angkor Wat testify to the Khmer ancestry of Preah Vihear temple.
Over the centuries, history twisted and turned in its approach
towards post-imperialist times when international laws and regulations
became the best means with which to settle age-old territorial disputes.
On the other hand, geography makes the Thais feel cheated. The Dong
Rak mountain range is self-evident. Preah Vihear temple sits on a hill
sloping upwards from Thai territory. Beyond the temple is a steep drop
on to Cambodian soil.
The Thais feel that the drop should naturally have been the border
demarcation in accordance with watershed lines, as agreed in the 1904
Franco-Siamese joint commission. But it was not so.
Even today, it would be difficult to develop the Preah Vihear area as
a World Heritage Site without working up from the Thai side. Cambodian
access up the mountain is an arduous route.
Moreover, the obvious tourism, trade and investment benefits,
including border trade between Thai and Cambodian merchants, flow to the
temple mainly from the Thai side.
Tourists _ both Thai and foreign _ approaching Preah Vihear from the
Thai side make up the vast majority of people visiting the temple.
Even if it gains ownership of the land surrounding the temple,
Cambodia will be hard-pressed developing the area without Thai
assistance and cooperation.
This would be harder still if relations sour and Cambodia finds
itself with an unfriendly neighbour right on Preah Vihear's doorstep.
To be developed comprehensively and sustainably, Preah Vihear temple
and its vicinity thus require Thai-Cambodian cooperation, not contention
and conflict.
The Preah Vihear issue is emotionally charged in both societies.
Both countries have French colonial scars in common _ one for having
paid a high price in avoiding colonisation, the other for having
suffered almost a century of subjugation, punctuated by internal turmoil
amid communist expansionism.
Cambodia's approach now is to reopen the 1962 verdict for reinterpretation of the temple's vicinity.
Until the ICJ's final judgement is announced, likely in the last
quarter of the year, the key will be the events of the past several
years.
Attention will be paid particularly to the past two years, which have
involved armed conflicts and a failure by Asean to settle the bilateral
dispute.
If the more recent incidents are deemed contentious enough, old views
may have to be reinterpreted and clarified. But if the court considers
there is nothing new in this case, past decisions may well be upheld.
Either way, Thailand and Cambodia would be best advised to employ
bilateral mechanisms to cooperate and tackle thorny issues regardless of
decisions made in The Hague.
Both countries now have governments that can talk to each other. A
number of bilateral mechanisms beckon, including several key border and
demarcation committees.
Perhaps the contents of the controversial joint communique from June
2008, a casualty of Thailand's domestic crisis of the time, could be
revisited.
The communique recognises Preah Vihear as Cambodia's UnescoWorld
Heritage Site and requiring joint development of the surrounding 4.6 sq
km of land, which is claimed by both countries.
Asean, this year chaired by Brunei, could be brought in as a
facilitator, perhaps led by Indonesia and the Philippines, with Malaysia
and Singapore in support.
Maritime Asean members could play an instrumental diplomatic role to
rebuild bilateral confidence and trust, leading to mutual benefits and
reinforcing Asean unity and centrality. Short of all this, domestic
turmoil, bilateral tensions and Asean disarray await, and that
ultimately would benefit no one.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak is Director of the Institute of
Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science,
Chulalongkorn University.
2 comments:
In order to cooperate with these baboons along the border we MUST fairly treated them the way they treated us: for every Khmer is being killed or shot at, we must kill 7 or 8 of them. That sounded cruel, right ? This applied to both the east and western borders without acception.
That will put cambodia at a disadvantage because we are still militarily weak and economically poor; our people are very hungry, we can't risk treating them as you suggested it. We have to be smarter, remain calm and patience until we can build better defence military and people have enough to eat, it's pay back time.
Post a Comment