Interesting Article on Border in Bangkok Post

[Gadfly]

On the second page of today's Bangkok Post I found an article containing the following statement:

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line

 

I did a Google search of the ICJ Judgement and found a summary that contains this exact same statement.

 

As I understand matters, Thailand may not like the ICJ Judgement and there are arguments about whether it was right, but Thailand accepts the ICJ Judgement. Thailand never appealed the decision, and the time for an appeal has lapsed. And as near as I can tell, Annex 1 gives the disputed area to Cambodia.

 

Now Cambodia wants to refer the matter to the ICJ Court and Thailand intends to oppose that move. To my eyes, this doesn't cast Thailand in a favorable light.

 

Seriously, am I missing something here? If I am not, all the discussion about watersheds and natural boundaries is irrelevant, right? You simply look at the Annex 1 map to determine the boundary, right?

 

Also, interesting that the Bangkok Post essentially published this summary of the ICJ Judgment (which can also be found on the ICJ website).

 

Is there something I am missing here?

[Flashermac]

I've felt for some time that Thailand was farked, since the ICJ majority said the incorrectly drawn French map was nevertheless the international border. That means the area next to the temple site, not just the temple itself. So why is Thailand arguing over it now?

 

However, Glorious Leader Hun Sen is trying to extend matters beyond just that area - asking that the ICJ decide the Surin area as well. One problem was pointed out by a Surin uni archan, who noted that of 73 border markers placed after the 1904 survey only about 40 can now be found. So just where is the border? It might not be so easy to pinpoint. But at least the Thais have been the ones calling for a complete border demarkation. Hun Sen seems to demand that whatever he says is the border must be accepted by the Thais.

 

 

 

p.s. It is worth noting - which the ICJ majority did not - that the French map was hardly something decided between equals. Note that Thailand "swapped part of the Mekong territories, namely Battambang, Siam Riep and Sri Sophon, in exchange for Chanthaburi, Trat and Dan Sai district in Loei province". The Thais were giving up Cambodian majority provinces of their country to get back Thai majority provices the French had seized by force and occupied for years. Sort of like paying ransom to a kidnapper. No wonder it still pisses off the Thais.

 

Perhaps Sir Percy Spender was thinking of this in his dissent:

 

 

"Whether the Mixed Commission did or did not delimit the Dangrek, the truth, in my opinion, is that the frontier line on that mountain range is today the line of the watershed.

 

The Court however has upheld a frontier line which is not the line of the watershed, one which in the critical area of the Temple is an entirely different one. This finds its justification in the application of the concepts of recognition or acquiescence.

 

With profound respect for the Court, I am obliged to say that in my judgment, as a result of a [color:red]misapplication of these concepts and an inadmissible extension of them[/color], territory, the sovereignty in which, both by treaty and by the decision of the body appointed under treaty to determine the frontier line, is Thailand's, now becomes vested in Cambodia."

 

 

But majority rules. The land is now Cambodia's, according to th ICJ.

 

 

[Gadfly]

Thanks. I don't think much of Cambodia's leader either, but if the ICJ judgment says the small area next to the temple belongs to Cambodia, how does Thailand extricate itself from this mess in a face saving manner?

 

The Bangkok Post seems to be saying: "hey guys, the judgement supports the other side.". Perhaps a signal to cool it on this border issue? The Post is pretty mainstream.

 

Incidentally, I never realized the judgment was this clear until I read the article and did a Google search on the judgement.

[Flashermac]

About the best the Thai government could hope for is that the ICJ would tell Wun Sen to stop screwing around and allow the border to be demarkated elsewhere besides Preah Vihear.

 

BTW have you been to the temple? It is an easy drive from the Thai side. Once there you look over the cliff to the Cambodian plains more than 2,000 feet below! The temple clearly was built 900 years ago to serve the area to the north, not the difficult to reach plains far below. (If the ruins belong to anyone historically, it would be the Khmer minority of Surin and Buriram, whose ancestors probably helped build it, not the people of distant Phnom Penh.) Wun Sen wants to build a cable car system so that tourists can visit the temple from Cambodia. Otherwise, they almost have to enter Thailand and approach it from that side.

 

I'd bet the French surveyors decided they'd like to have the temple site and drew the map that way, figuring it would take the Thais ages to discover what they'd done. And the Thais didn't discover it until some 30 years later.

 

 

 

[Gadfly]

"About the best the Thai government could hope for is that the ICJ would tell Wun Sen to stop screwing around and allow the border to be demarkated elsewhere besides Preah Vihear."

 

I wonder if that is possible? I am supposed to be doing work today (but you know how it is when you are supposed to be working: you procrastinate by doing something else), so I took a quick look at the ICJ website. The ICJ does have jurisdiction to clarify the scope or meaning of an ICJ judgment.

 

But when I looked at the list of treaties where the ICJ has jurisdiction to resolve disputes, I didn't see any treaties between Thailand and Cambodia listed (I am screwing around at work, so I didn't search the entire website - others should feel free to correct me if I overlooked a treaty between Thailand and Cambodia). Could this mean the ICJ has jurisdiction over the judgment concerning the temple, but not boundary disputes generally between Thailand and Cambodia?

 

If so, the ICJ can't tell Cambodia or Thailand to do anything about other border disputes, but it could address the border dispute that is the subject of the 1962 judgment. And this raises another question. How did the ICJ acquire jurisdiction over the temple dispute in the first place? Did Cambodia and Thailand agree to refer this specific dispute to the ICJ?

 

If so, Cambodia can presumably refuse to refer other border disputes to the ICJ and insist that that the ICJ rule on the scope of 1962 judgment concerning the temple.

 

Again, this is just my back of a napkin research on the sly at work. Anyone know?

 

If that is the situation, I can understand why the Thai government is so concerned about referrals to the ICJ. I can also understand why Cambodia would press for ICJ intervention. The ICJ can only rule on the judgment concerning the temple site area, and that judgement favors Cambodia.

 

Yes, I visited the temple years ago and your description of the topography sounds about right. Maybe the ICJ was wrong. But the ICJ ruled against Thailand and Thailand never appealed.

 

It seems as though Thailand is really in a tight spot on this. Unless they intend to ignore ICJ judgements (probably not a good idea IMHO), perhaps they should have tried to avoid a conflict with Cambodia and negotiate some resolution where both sides can benefit from the temple site? It seems as though Thailand has been pressed into a corner where Cambodia - perhaps because of an unfair 1962 ICJ judgment - has the upper hand?

[TheCorinthian]

I still think my (rejected) offer (that about got me shipped home) was the best one yet.

 

[Flashermac]

 

You mean the one where USMC takes over the temple and beats the crap out of anyone that tries to mess with them?

 

The local and decent thing would be a joint administration of the area where both sides benefit. But neither Thais nor Cambodians are known for being logical.

[shygye]

It is good, that as true Buddhists, they are taking the middle path.

[Flashermac]

 

Thais and Cambodians are only Buddhists when it is convenient or advantageous - sort of like Christians in the West.

 

 

[TheCorinthian]

You mean the one where USMC takes over the temple and beats the crap out of anyone that tries to mess with them?

 

 

That's pretty close. I posted it here when it happened and I got sent back to Bangkok. It was based on the admin of the temple mount in Israel. We would run it, anyone can come visit, we build a road up the cliff so those on the other side do not have to travel into LOS to get to the thing.