Singapore, 2 May 2013 ( The Straits Times/ ANN) -- Tens of
thousands of Thais have been glued to their televisions in recent weeks,
watching a high-stakes courtroom drama play out half a world away.
It is no murder mystery or dramatic terror plot, but simply the future of a 4.6 sq km patch of land on the Thai-Cambodia border that is being decided in The Hague, the Netherlands. The case has huge significance for the two Southeast Asian neighbors.
For Thailand, the live broadcast of the hearings at the International Court of Justice is unprecedented. The government hopes the transparency will curb rumors and misinformation.
The often long-winded legal statements and arguments over the issue that the two sides have been contesting for decades have thus become the stuff of reality TV. Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs also started a Web page dedicated to the hearings.
Court hearings have been reported in detail on the front pages of many Thai newspapers for days on end. Media pundits have weighed in to evaluate the Thai legal team's performance, which has been judged as excellent.
All the attention just goes to show much is at stake. The dispute is linked to the ancient pre-Angkor Wat Shiva temple called Pra Viharn in Thailand and Preah Vihear in Cambodia. It is perched on a high ridge overlooking the Cambodian plains.
Thailand and Cambodia have contested it for centuries. In 1962 the World Court ruled, based on a colonial-era map, that the temple itself belonged to Cambodia - a ruling celebrated in Cambodia and seen as a national tragedy in Thailand. But it never ruled on the 4.6 sq km patch of land adjacent to it, which both Thailand and Cambodia claim.
The temple is a ticking time bomb that neither Thailand nor Cambodia wants to go off. The key to preventing that from happening could be the transparency of the process. It leaves little scope for the rumor, distortion and misinformation being deployed by Thai ultra-nationalists for political mileage.
A senior Thai official told The Straits Times: "There is a worry that things may be exploited for political purposes. That's why we decided on this live broadcast."
Writing in the daily The Nation on April 22, senior journalist and specialist commentator on Asean Kavi Chongkittavorn said: "Thais were glued to the live broadcast from the Peace Palace in The Hague for the whole of last week. For the first time, polarized Thais have shown a rare solidarity and stood behind the Thai team."
Simultaneous translation "allowed the whole country to follow the proceedings closely. It was exceptional in the annals of Thai history to witness such a unity, even for a short period. Prior to the hearing, the Thais were divided and full of anxiety", Kavi wrote.
But he also cautioned that expectations could be unduly raised. Domestic political tensions in Thailand have been a factor in the resurfacing of the land dispute in recent years. Thai Cabinet minister Noppadon Pattama had to resign in 2008 under pressure for signing off on a Cambodian plan to list the temple as a World Heritage Site. As such he became a political victim; the affair tapped into a vein of nationalist pride, and was turned into a proxy battle between former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's ruling loyalists and the conservative Thai establishment.
In 2011 the dispute again reflected Thailand's own political divide. The Democrat Party government of Abhisit Vejjajiva in Bangkok appeared to have its options limited as Thai right-wingers provoked Cambodia.
Bellicose rhetoric from Abhisit's foreign minister Kasit Piromya and Cambodian Premier Hun Sen made matters worse. It was also no secret that the notoriously brusque Hun Sen was an ally of the ambitious billionaire Thaksin, and had a prickly relationship with the suave Eton- and Oxford-educated Abhisit.
That year, some Thais were arrested in Cambodia for crossing the border. Events escalated into an artillery battle that saw Thailand and Cambodia - to the alarm and embarrassment of Asean - shelling each other for several days. At least 18 people were killed, mostly troops on either side.
The 4.6 sq km patch has been referred to the World Court, essentially asking for a clarification of some provisions in the 1962 judgment. A ruling will come in October or November.
There are three likely potential outcomes. If the court dismisses the case on the grounds that it has no jurisdiction, or because it believes the 1962 judgment does not need further interpretation, each country would see the ruling as a modest victory. But the dispute would drag on bilaterally, and the risk would continue.
Of course, a ruling giving the land to Thailand would inflame Cambodian sentiment and a ruling that the land belongs to Cambodia would anger Thais. Thai army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha has hinted that the army could ignore the court.
Therefore, to many analysts and Thai diplomats, the answer is to ensure the time bomb never goes off. Then, the key to resolving the high-stakes dispute would be left to the political leadership in Thailand and Cambodia.
Last week in the Bangkok Post, Chulalongkorn University international law professor William Roth wrote: "Without a firm commitment from both sides to immediately resolve this dispute in a way that is mutually beneficial, it's hard to imagine there ever being peace again at the Preah Vihear temple."
But General Paradorn Pattanatabut, secretary-general of Thailand's National Security Council, is cautiously optimistic.
In an interview, he said: "I don't think there will be any major conflict. We have communicated with the people and shown that we have nothing to hide, and that the government is doing its best for Thailand."
It is no murder mystery or dramatic terror plot, but simply the future of a 4.6 sq km patch of land on the Thai-Cambodia border that is being decided in The Hague, the Netherlands. The case has huge significance for the two Southeast Asian neighbors.
For Thailand, the live broadcast of the hearings at the International Court of Justice is unprecedented. The government hopes the transparency will curb rumors and misinformation.
The often long-winded legal statements and arguments over the issue that the two sides have been contesting for decades have thus become the stuff of reality TV. Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs also started a Web page dedicated to the hearings.
Court hearings have been reported in detail on the front pages of many Thai newspapers for days on end. Media pundits have weighed in to evaluate the Thai legal team's performance, which has been judged as excellent.
All the attention just goes to show much is at stake. The dispute is linked to the ancient pre-Angkor Wat Shiva temple called Pra Viharn in Thailand and Preah Vihear in Cambodia. It is perched on a high ridge overlooking the Cambodian plains.
Thailand and Cambodia have contested it for centuries. In 1962 the World Court ruled, based on a colonial-era map, that the temple itself belonged to Cambodia - a ruling celebrated in Cambodia and seen as a national tragedy in Thailand. But it never ruled on the 4.6 sq km patch of land adjacent to it, which both Thailand and Cambodia claim.
The temple is a ticking time bomb that neither Thailand nor Cambodia wants to go off. The key to preventing that from happening could be the transparency of the process. It leaves little scope for the rumor, distortion and misinformation being deployed by Thai ultra-nationalists for political mileage.
A senior Thai official told The Straits Times: "There is a worry that things may be exploited for political purposes. That's why we decided on this live broadcast."
Writing in the daily The Nation on April 22, senior journalist and specialist commentator on Asean Kavi Chongkittavorn said: "Thais were glued to the live broadcast from the Peace Palace in The Hague for the whole of last week. For the first time, polarized Thais have shown a rare solidarity and stood behind the Thai team."
Simultaneous translation "allowed the whole country to follow the proceedings closely. It was exceptional in the annals of Thai history to witness such a unity, even for a short period. Prior to the hearing, the Thais were divided and full of anxiety", Kavi wrote.
But he also cautioned that expectations could be unduly raised. Domestic political tensions in Thailand have been a factor in the resurfacing of the land dispute in recent years. Thai Cabinet minister Noppadon Pattama had to resign in 2008 under pressure for signing off on a Cambodian plan to list the temple as a World Heritage Site. As such he became a political victim; the affair tapped into a vein of nationalist pride, and was turned into a proxy battle between former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's ruling loyalists and the conservative Thai establishment.
In 2011 the dispute again reflected Thailand's own political divide. The Democrat Party government of Abhisit Vejjajiva in Bangkok appeared to have its options limited as Thai right-wingers provoked Cambodia.
Bellicose rhetoric from Abhisit's foreign minister Kasit Piromya and Cambodian Premier Hun Sen made matters worse. It was also no secret that the notoriously brusque Hun Sen was an ally of the ambitious billionaire Thaksin, and had a prickly relationship with the suave Eton- and Oxford-educated Abhisit.
That year, some Thais were arrested in Cambodia for crossing the border. Events escalated into an artillery battle that saw Thailand and Cambodia - to the alarm and embarrassment of Asean - shelling each other for several days. At least 18 people were killed, mostly troops on either side.
The 4.6 sq km patch has been referred to the World Court, essentially asking for a clarification of some provisions in the 1962 judgment. A ruling will come in October or November.
There are three likely potential outcomes. If the court dismisses the case on the grounds that it has no jurisdiction, or because it believes the 1962 judgment does not need further interpretation, each country would see the ruling as a modest victory. But the dispute would drag on bilaterally, and the risk would continue.
Of course, a ruling giving the land to Thailand would inflame Cambodian sentiment and a ruling that the land belongs to Cambodia would anger Thais. Thai army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha has hinted that the army could ignore the court.
Therefore, to many analysts and Thai diplomats, the answer is to ensure the time bomb never goes off. Then, the key to resolving the high-stakes dispute would be left to the political leadership in Thailand and Cambodia.
Last week in the Bangkok Post, Chulalongkorn University international law professor William Roth wrote: "Without a firm commitment from both sides to immediately resolve this dispute in a way that is mutually beneficial, it's hard to imagine there ever being peace again at the Preah Vihear temple."
But General Paradorn Pattanatabut, secretary-general of Thailand's National Security Council, is cautiously optimistic.
In an interview, he said: "I don't think there will be any major conflict. We have communicated with the people and shown that we have nothing to hide, and that the government is doing its best for Thailand."
No comments:
Post a Comment