Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, who represented Cambodia at the World Heritage Committee meeting in Brazil, claimed the country’s management plan of Preah Vihear Temple has received approval by the meeting.
However, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva (pictured) still uphold earlier news reports that the review of the management plan has been postponed to next year’s World Heritage Committee meeting in Bahrain. He told reporters to go back and read the resolution of the World Heritage Committee meeting carefully.
In the interview Tea Banh, Cambodian Defence Minister, in his answer to the Nation reporter Panya Tiewsangwan regarding to the question asked if the joint management plan over Prasat Preah Vihear managed by the two countries would be the best solution, responded that:
“Cambodia never thinks about violating Thailand’s sovereignty,” Tea Banh said. When asked if a joint development of the site would be a solution, he replied: “There are principles for everything. You cannot try to be co-owners of properties you don’t have rights over them.”
NOTE: It is believable that Siam still brainlessly and shamelessly dare to ask such a question. It seems that it is funny and happy for them to make Cambodians hurt and angry.
Actually, on the substance of Tulsie’s opinion piece in The Nation on why Abhisit is acting tough now BP thinks Tulsie is basicallyright so do not have a dispute with that, but then there is this:
Defending its decision to support Cambodia’s registration efforts, the Samak government pointed to two basic legal points. The first was the World Court ruling in 1962 declaring that the temple was on Cambodian territory. The second was Article 61 of the World Court ruling, which states: “No application for revision may be made after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgement.” Article 61 featured prominently in Cambodia’s application document to Unesco, with “LAPSE OF TEN YEARS” written in capital letters).
The Democrat camp led by Abhisit at the time pointed out Article 60 of the court’s ruling. This article allows warring parties to reserve doubts and observations concerning rulings and, unlike Article 61, this one does not spell out any time frame. Which article carries stronger weight is debatable, but the battle line was clearly drawn. The Democrats were saying that any Thai move that could weaken Thailand’s “silent protest” against the World Court ruling had to be avoided.
BP: Ok, He has Article 61 correct, but lets look at Article 60 (it is actually Article 60 of the ICJ Statute and not the court ruling) states:
Article 60
The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.
BP: What is in dispute about the scope of the decision? The key part of the Court decision (see this post for more):
“The Court however considers that Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Pihear in Cambodian territory“
“FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,
by nine votes to three,
Finds that the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia
BP: So Thailand will go back to the ICJ and ask, did you really mean it when you said that the temple is in Cambodian territory? There is nothing vague about this. See this post as for a critique by someone else at The Nation on trying to use Article 60. Actually, Thailand doesn’t dispute this at all per this document from from the MFA:
Thailand accepts that the Temple belongs to Cambodia as it honors the ICJ’s decision on the matter.
BP: Now, there is argument, which the ICJ didn’t address, about whether the land boundary between Thailand and Cambodia is, is this what the Democrat party argument is? The ICJ didn’t address this in details (although it did mention about Thailand accepting the Annex 1 map) so is there really an argument for going back to the ICJ to determine the scope of the ICJ decision? Does Thailand really want to given that this would put more territory up for grabs?
Thailand appears to be totally isolated on the issue. Most of the major powers are backing Cambodia on the management plan for the temple. This will allow interested parties a window of opportunity to take part in the development project for Preah Vihear, plus other business deals with Cambodia afterward.
Cambodia is trying every means to squeeze the territory from Thailand. The implication from this Unesco meeting is significant, for the claim over the land territory will have implications for maritime claims in the Gulf of Thailand, which are rich in oil and natural gas deposits.
…
If Cambodia insists on managing Preah Vihear, Thailand should respond in kind by closing the borders and stopping all trade with its neighbour. This would be the first warning. Thai soldiers on the border are on high alert. If the first warning goes unheeded, we should reserve the right, under our sovereignty, to drive out any nationals infringing upon our land.
BP: You see the Kasit/PAD line of thought in that first paragraph? Foreign countries are conspiring against Thailand it seems (Question? Because UNESCO delayed the decision until next year does it not logically follow that these countries are stalling for more oil and natural gas or that Thailand is giving them something in return?)
11. No act or activity undertaken on the basis of this Convention shall constitute grounds for claiming, contending or disputing any claim to national sovereignty or jurisdiction.
BP: This is the conflating of two issues (Preah Vihear and the maritime claims) by Thanong. Now, the issues are related in terms of Cambodian-Thai relations, but a ruling by UNESCO does not then legally mean anything in relation to the maritime claims.
Will the conviction of Khmer Rouge torture chief ‘Duch’ be the beginning of justice for 1970s war crimes? A documentary that premiers today in New York City argues it could be.
In the new film “Enemies of the People,” the highest-ranking Khmer Rouge leader still living promises to disclose at his war crimes trial details of the mysterious inner workings of the regime.
“I will talk about it at the court to open their eyes,” says the notoriously secretive Nuon Chea, pledging to explain the 1970s mass killings that still confound Cambodians.
The documentary won the 2010 Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival and began a series of US screenings July 30 in New York (see trailer below).
Unlike Duch, who was not a member of the ruling clique, Nuon was second in command only to Brother No. 1 Pol Pot, who died in 1998.
Observers say Nuon’s case will be more revealing and satisfying for Cambodians who seek to understand better why the Khmer Rouge killed 2 million countrymen in the 1970s, including the brother of Thet Sambath.
Mr. Thet, for one, didn’t wait for a court to tell him what he wants to know. Over the past two decades, while the international community negotiated with the government to establish the United Nations-backed tribunal here, Thet was venturing into the jungles of western Cambodia to pose his own questions to Nuon and other Khmer Rouge.
“I want to know what went on inside the Khmer Rouge – why the starvation, why the killing,” says the journalist, who teamed up with British coproducer Rob Lemkin for “Enemies of the People.” In the film, slated to air on PBS next year, Nuon and other former Khmer Rouge reveal a previously unheard history that contradicts the government narrative.
In the national myth of the liberation, the Khmer Rouge was a monolithic organization that massacred those it imagined to be enemies until regime defectors and their Vietnamese benefactors charged to the rescue. Nuon suggests that the enemies were, to some extent, real. According to Nuon, the Communist Party was engaged in an internal struggle – his group against a powerful pro-Vietnamese faction. Both factions killed enemies, real and perceived.
If Nuon is to be believed, then his court testimony could implicate Khmer Rouge defectors who remain in the highest seats of government today. This may be why the government has been stonewalling the court, say observers. They point to, for example, the refusal of six top politicians to testify despite legally binding orders. Prime Minister Hun Sen, himself a regime defector, has said he’d rather see the court fail than prosecute more people.
Even if this version of history brings the viewer closer to the truth, Thet is careful to point out that none of this absolves Nuon of killing innocents. In the film, Nuon admits publicly, for the first time, that he ordered the killing of thousands of political opponents, which is probably evidence enough to convict him for war crimes – if he ever makes it to trial.
World Heritage Committee meeting in Brazil, claimed the country’s management plan of Preah Vihear Temple has received approval by the meeting.
basicallyright so do not have a dispute with that, but then there is this:
ខ្មែរបង្រួបបង្រួម UnitedKhmer 
Recent Comments