Call to oppose Cambodia may lead to unnecessary rift

By comment & analysis
Supalak Ganjanakhundee
Published on June 12, 2008

Democrat Party deputy leader Alongkorn Pollabutr appeared to have misled some people and may be sparking unnecessary rifts with Cambodia when he suggested the government should remain opposed to Phnom Penh's move to list the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site.

If entertained, such a suggestion could mean a revision of an agreement that Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama and Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An sealed in Paris last month.

Thailand and Cambodia had locked horns since last year when Bangkok opposed a Cambodian proposal to list the temple as a Unesco (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation) World Heritage site as Phnom Penh had annexed 4.6 square kilometres of overlapping area claimed by both sides.

After rounds of negotiation since the previous government, Cambodia finally agreed to propose listing only the temple that is clearly under its sovereignty.

The Cambodian authority had sent a new map of its annexation to Thailand for consideration and Bangkok was expected to find it satisfactory.

The Cabinet will endorse the map soon to enable Cambodia to submit its proposal to be listed as a protected site when the Unesco heritage committee meets in Canada next month.

The opposition Democrats blamed the government for mishandling the case.

Allowing Cambodia to list the temple means giving up Thai sovereignty over the Preah Vihear, they said.

Sompong Sucharitkul, former Thai ambassador to The Hague who said he was close to the case when the conflict was in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), wrote in an article that Thailand had never conceded that the temple belonged to Cambodia despite the court's ruling in 1962.

It was right that the Thai government at the time announced its disagreement to the ICJ's ruling in favour of Cambodia.

But such an announcement contradicted the action since the Cabinet on July 10, 1962, agreed to hand the temple to Cambodia.

Thai authorities then withdrew troops from the temple and removed Thai nationals out of the area.

Sompong's statement that the current government should not change its position and recognise Cambodian sovereignty over Preah Vihear could be somewhat misleading since it had de facto already changed its position and recognised Cambodia's sovereignty 46 years ago.

De jury, the ICJ's ruling in 1962 was deemed the final decision and there was no appeal procedure.

Thailand has the right to ask for a revision only if it finds some new evidence, but such rights lasted only 10 years after the ruling.

The foreign minister at the time was Thanat Khoman and he was also a former Democrat leader.
He reserved the right to refile the case if there is a new international law relating to the case in favour of Thailand. More than four decades on, no such new law had emerged.

The rush to discredit the government by ignoring and tinkering with historical fact to shore up nationalistic sentiment is not healthy for Thailand since such sentiment may lead to negative terms with that country and escalate into what could be a needless conflict. Any misunderstanding with Cambodia should be avoided around this time since Cambodia is to hold a general election next month.

If some Cambodian parties decide to pick on the issue of Preah Vihear to whip up anti-Thai sentiment for their own gains, it could cause a lot of trouble and perhaps strain cordial relations.

Thailand has already learned a valuable lesson that just a false statement over Khmer temples could lead to its embassy being gutted in January 2003.

The fire went beyond the embassy grounds, igniting an anti-Thai rampage that destroyed Thai properties and interests in that country, some of which cannot be compensated by money alone.

Diplomatically speaking, cooperation with Cambodia is certainly more sensible than pushing for a response.