Monday, May 16, 2011




After great efforts made by the President and Foreign Minister of Indonesia in coordinating a meeting between the Prime Ministers of Cambodia and Thailand, followed by several meetings between the foreign ministers of the two countries, a “package solution” was agreed that included the key point of stationing Indonesian observers on both sides of the border to monitor compliance with a cease-fire.
However, as happened with an agreement for observers signed at the ASEAN foreign ministers meeting in Jakarta in February, the Thai government almost immediately began raising objections to the new agreement.
In regard to the February agreement, Thailand demanded changes to the terms of reference seven times. Each time its request was granted, it raised a new one. Finally, it found one that it knew could not be granted: that Cambodia withdraw its troops and its civilian population from the Cambodian territory that Thailand has been trying to seize.
That unacceptable condition was not part of the new package solution agreed by the negotiators, but on 10 May 2011 Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva unilaterally added it, saying: “Thailand’s stance remains the same. If Cambodia does not withdraw its troops from the disputed border area, no observers will be sent there.” Similarly, Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who as a negotiator agreed to the package, told reporters after his arrival in Bangkok: “If Cambodia refuses to withdraw, the observers can’t come”.
Once again, the Thai government is being deceitful: because it knows that neutral observers to monitor a cease-fire would be welcomed by the international community, it pretends to agree to their presence. Then, after the headlines report a breakthrough for peace, it blocks the hoped-for observers. The reason for this two-faced behaviour is that the Thai government has not yet abandoned its ambition to seize Cambodian territory, by military means if necessary.
Thailand’s demand for Cambodia’s withdrawal of its troops from its own territory is groundless and shameful. It is based, not on international law, but on a secret, unilateral, and unrecognised map of mysterious origins.
In contrast, Cambodia strictly adheres to the principles of peaceful coexistence and non-violence and has no intention to invade any country. The internationally recognised border is shown in the Dangrek map, accepted by the concerned parties, namely Cambodia,France and Siam, and internationally registered with the major geographical institutions in London, Paris, Moscow and Washington.
The map of the Dangrek sector of the border continued to be utilised in subsequent relations between France and Siam, particularly during the negotiations leading to the Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation concluded in 1925 and 1937. It was reaffirmed in a map produced by the Siamese Royal Survey Department in 1937 and again in a map filed by Siam in 1947 at the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission.
With the departure of France from Cambodia in 1953, Thai armed forces captured the Temple of Preah Vihear and invaded its surrounding area. Cambodia then instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice, and the Annex 1 map, an enlargement of the internationally recognised Dangrek map, was attached to Cambodia’s submission.
The ICJ clearly confirmed that “Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex 1 map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation and hence recognized the line of that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Vihear in Cambodian territory”. The court further ruled: “both parties, by their conduct, recognized the line and thereby in effect agreed to regard it as being the frontier line”. The court concluded that “the acceptance of the Annex 1 map by the parties caused the map to enter the treaty settlement and to become an integral part of it and thereby conferred on it (Annex 1 map) a binding character”.
Thus, the Thai government’s demand that Cambodia withdraw from the territory around Preah Vihear before observers can arrive amounts to a demand that the ICJ decision be violated. Even worse, it is raised in contradiction with what Bangkok agreed the day before. The international community should not be fooled by Thailand’s words, but should watch what it does to implement or block the package solution agreed to in Jakarta. AKP Phnom Penh, May 15, 2011
Press and Quick Reaction Unit

0 comments:

Translate This Page

    Unordered List