Delist_Pra_Viharn_UNESCO_World_Heritage

Request to Delist Pra Viharn Temple from World Heritage


 

The Kingdom of Thailand Protection Committee (KTPC)
Baan Phra Arthit, Phra Arthit Rd.
Phra Nakorn District, Bangkok ,Thailand

17 June 2011

Subject : Request for delisting of the Phrah Vihear temple from the Cultural Heritage sites

Address to : Irina Bokova,Director General of UNESCO (through Director of UNESCO, Bangkok Office)

The Kingdom of Thailand Protection Committee (KTPC) and the Thai People express grave concern towards the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear and the behaviour of the 21 States Parties World Heritage Committee (WHC) which triggered the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. It contradicts the objectives of the World Heritage inscription stipulated by the World Heritage Centre and UNESCO, the organization under your supervision and you yourself have been continuously supporting the Preah Vihear inscription. The KTPC has considered the said act as an infringement of Thai Sovereignty and territorial integrity which Thailand, as a State member of the World Heritage Convention, will not tolerate. We, hereby, request you to take into account the following data and evidences provided by the Thai Civil Society and to present them at the 35th World Heritage Committee Meeting to be held in Paris, France during June 19-29, 2011. Please draw the meeting’s attention to the issue of delisting the Temple of Preah Vihear from the inscription of World Heritage List owing to the following reasons;

1. Prior to the 31st World Heritage Committee Meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, Thailand has vigourously objected the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear to the World Heritage List as proposed by Cambodia.

2. At the same session, the World Heritage Committee resolved that Cambodia, as a State member to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, should closely consult with Thailand towards the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear by suggesting that Thailand, also a State member to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, to “seriously cooperate in the Temple of Preah Vihear inscription proposed solely by Cambodia.”

3. A year later, UNESCO and WHC had showed support towards Cambodia’s sole attempt to inscribe the Temple of Preah Vihear by assigning Ms Françoise Rivière to Phnom Penh to discuss and to establish the National Authority for the Protection of Preah Vihear (ANPV) as an organization to manage the Preah Vihear Temple area in accordance with the ICOMOS principles.

4. A few months before the 32nd WHC Meeting, Thailand and Cambodia had jointly issued the Joint Communiqué to specify the Management Plan which Cambodia had proposed to divide the Management zone into 3 areas. Following the Communiqué’, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the Organization Network for Monitoring the Situation on the case of Phra Viharn Temple, had requested the Royal Thai Government to revoke the Joint Communiqué which might have led to the country’s lost of territory.

The PAD then filed the case to the Thai Administrative Court to suspend the submission of the Joint Communiqué to be used as one of the supporting documents in the Preah Vihear Temple inscription by Cambodia alone since the surrounding areas of the Preah Vihear Temple is under Thailand’s sovereignty and that the Joint Communiqué was breaching the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 Article 190 (The brief detail of such Article is that “any document that is considered to be a Treaty must have the Parliament approval prior the signatory process.”).

At the outset, the Thai Administrative Court had ruled the interim injunction prohibiting any Thai officials to support or to use the Joint Communiqué as one of the supporting documents in the Temple of Preah Vihear inscription and Thailand, as a State member, did not support the inscription of the Temple by Cambodia as appeared in the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, H.E. Noppadol Pattama and the statement of Mr.Pongpol Adireksarn, Head of the Thai World Heritage Delegation. Those two statements were acknowledged by both WHC and UNESCO.

5. However, at the 32nd WHC Meeting in Quebec, Canada, not only the meeting disregarded the said statements made by Thai Delegation, the Meeting had also approved the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage for the Temple structure only quoted as “9. Notes that the property proposed for inscription is reduced and comprises only the Temple of Preah Vihear and not the wider promontory with its cliffs and caves;”

6. The 32nd WHC Meeting also contradicted the 31st WHC Meeting’s resolution on the issue that the Preah Vihear Temple inscription proposed by Cambodia must beforehand receive consent from Thailand who already expressed her total disagreement. The 32nd WHC Meeting then resolved to set up the International Coordinating Committee Preah Vihear and has included Thailand among one of the seven other appropriate international partners to sit in this Committee.

Pursuant to the controversial resolution, Thailand has contested the appendix map in the Joint Communiqué and the newly revised map that Cambodia proposed to the WHC given the fact that the Joint Communiqué and all the supporting documents were under interim injunction by the Thai Administrative Court. Unfortunately, all the claims and requests made by Thailand not only were ignored, but the WHC also approved the Preah Vihear inscription against all odds. When the Thai ICOMOS sent in their letter of disagreement, the WHC had instead asked the World Heritage Centre to help Cambodia by providing Indian experts to draw up the management plan for the surrounding areas of the Preah Vihear Temple.

7. After the 32nd WHC Meeting, the Thai Civil Society expressed strong disagreement. The Thai Constitutional Court ruled that the surrounding areas of the Preah Vihear Temple are under Thai sovereignty and that the Joint Communiqué in the 31st WHC Meeting might have led to the country’s lost of territory since the Royal Thai Government (1962) gave up the rights to the Temple only, but did not mention about any land granting to Cambodia. Furthermore, d">the Royal Thai Government (1962) has submitted a letter claiming the property rights over the disputed area of the Temple of Preah Vihear to the United Nations with no expiry term.



8. After the 32nd WHC resolution, the Cambodian armed troops were deployed in Thailand territory concurrently the Cambodian border community increasingly expanded into Thailand. This left Thailand no choice, but only to defend our national sovereignty. The violent incident between Thai and Cambodian soldiers caused several casualties among both troops.

While the Head of Cambodia World Heritage Delegation sent in a paper to the World Heritage Centre, accusing Thailand as invader and using artillery to destroy the Preah Vihear Temple ruins . That Cambodian paper was inserted in the agenda of the 33rd WHC Meeting.

9. At the 33rd WHC Meeting in Sevilla, Spain, Cambodia solely presented the damage of the Temple supposedly caused by Thai troops especially the destruction of the Cambodian community market encroached upon Thai soil. Even if the actual fact was that after the Cambodian soldiers and Community encroached the Thai territory, when clashes occurred, Thai soldiers had to use force to push the intruders back into their territory to maintain the Thai sovereignty. Regrettably, the WHC Meeting not only, concurred with the Cambodia Delegation but also approved a fund for the reconstruction of the Cambodian community market situated in Thai soil at the steps of the Temple. In addition, the Meeting granted extra fund for the completion of the Management Plan on a special privilege basis. France also stood out to defend Cambodia disregarding Thai objection. WHC resolved that Thai and other State parties must cooperate withCambodia in establishing the International Coordination Committee Preah Vihear.

10. It can be said that relation between Thailand and Cambodia is worsened by the 32nd WHC meeting resolution and more conflicts arose.Thailand felt that UNESCO under the lead of Director General Mr.Koiichiro Matsuura and Ms Françoise Rivière, Director General for Culture extended unusual support to Cambodia by assigning UNESCO representatives to survey the Temple’s damage. Thailand had to organize a security team to safeguard them and to prove the sovereign rights over the surrounding areas of the Temple.

11. UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre still support Cambodia with special favours and seemed like Cambodia was given special rights to submit any documents regarding the Management Plan or the military confrontation when Cambodia invaded Thai soil and reported otherwise particularly the road contruction to the Temple of Preah Vihear that vandalized the Thai national park area.

As such, UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre overlooked to apply the Article of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage which states that in the case the World Heritage site became the cause of military confrontation with armed forces which lead to casualties of military personnel and civilians alike. The World Heritage Centre should put the the Temple of Preah Vihear in the “List of World Heritage in Danger” in accordance with the Convention and Procedures from Articles 177 to 191.

12. In the 34th WHC Meeting in Brasilia, Brasil , the WHC attempted to compromise with Thailand by convening a special meeting and insisted that Thailand should accept the 32nd WHC resolution and help Cambodia by lobbying other State parties Committee to accept it too. Thailand accepted the compromised solution in good faith unaware that it was the conspiracy plan of other State parties Committee.

Afterwards the meeting resolution came out more in favour of Cambodia such as the contribution from Japan for the construction of an eco-global museum, the support of the new Management Plan that did not take Cambodia’s invasion into account, Thailand was forced to join the ICC Preah Vihear in the 35th WHC Meeting and Cambodia used the appendix map of the Joint Communiqué that UNESCO had promised not to use it in the consideration of the Management Plan and the World Heritage inscription, but instead let Cambodia use it as master plan to correct the original management plan. Worst of all is that the WHC let Cambodia encroached Thai soil while disregarding Thailand’s objection.

13. The 34th WHC Meeting resolution in Brasilia, Brasil has raised grave concern among a large number of Thai people who came out to 24 hrs stay-over night-protest for 144 days and sent many protest letters to UNESCO Thailand including this time (17th June 2011 letter) requesting the Royal Thai Government to resign from being a State party of the World Heritage Convention and the WHC.

Thailand, as a member of the United Nations, UNESCO, and a State party of the World Heritage Convention, has sovereign rights and territorial integrity. In the Preah Vihear case, Cambodia has always infringed Thailand sovereignty and territory that Thailand had to submitted protest letters several times.

UNESCO is an organization aiming to promote peace among the State parties, but its behavior in the Preah Vihear case was completely paradox with the organization essence. Since UNESCO supports the World Heritage Centre and the WHC to approve the Preah Vihear inscription, violence, domestic and international conflicts, invasion against national territory to complete the Management Plan have been all around. There have been military clashes until lately, in February Cambodian troops fired rockets and cannons at Thai civilian communities near the Preah Vihear area which led to emergency evacuation twice of more than 100,000 Thais. Cambodian troops used the Temple as their military base/camp gathering weapons and troops (photographs attached herewith) which violates the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Article 180 about “potential danger”.







It turned out that UNESCO, the World Heritage Centre, and the WHC turned a blind eye and still supported Cambodia to complete the Management Plan that invades Thai territory while forcing Thailand to welcome the WHC’s resolution. The Thai Civil Society cannot accept these dishonest acts and sought for UNESCO, the World Heritage Centre, and the WHC clarifications.











Consequently, the Kingdom of Thailand Protection Committee and Thai people, hereby, request you to take the above mentioned reasons into account in the Preah Vihear Temple de-listing from the Cultural Heritage sites consideration. We further request you to set up an Investigating Committee to inspect the State party of Cambodia, the World Heritage Centre, and the WHC about the fraudulent 31st, 32nd, 33rd, and 34th WHC resolutions which lack of non-interference principles. All resolutions have the sense of domestic interference against the State Party’s, Thailand, sovereignty and territory. We request you to put this in the emergent agenda prior the agenda for consideration concerning Preah Vihear during the 35th WHC Meeting to be held in Paris, France.

Yours sincerely,


(Maj.Gen.Chamrong Srimuang) (Mr.Parnthep Pourpongpan (Mr.Thepmontri Limpaphayom)

The Kingdom of Thailand Protection Committee



Le Royaume de Thaïlande Comité de la protection (KTPC)
Rue Baan Phra Arthit, Phra Arthit
Phra Nakorn District, Bangkok, Thaïlande

17 Juin 2011

Objet: Demande de retrait de la cote du temple Phrah Vihear à partir des sites du patrimoine culturel

Adresse à: Irina Bokova, Directrice générale de l'UNESCO (par l'intermédiaire dudirecteur Bureau de l'UNESCO à Bangkok)

Le Royaume de Thaïlande Comité de la protection (KTPC) et le peuple thaïlandaisd'exprimer une vive préoccupation envers l'inscription du temple de Preah Vihear etle comportement des 21 Etats Parties Comité du patrimoine mondial (WHC) qui a déclenché le conflit entre la Thaïlande et le Cambodge. Il contredit les objectifs de l'inscription au patrimoine mondial stipulé par le Centre du patrimoine mondial et l'UNESCO, l'organisation sous votre supervision et de vous-même avez été constamment en soutenant l'inscription de Preah Vihear. Le KTPC a examiné ladite loi comme une violation de la souveraineté et l'intégrité territoriale thaïlandaise dont la Thaïlande, en tant qu'État membre de la Convention du patrimoine mondial, ne toléreront pas. Nous, par la présente, vous demander de prendre en compte les données suivantes et les preuves fournies par la Société thaïlandaise civils et de les présenter à la réunion du Comité du patrimoine mondial 35e se tiendra à Paris, en France lors de Juin 19-29, 2011. S'il vous plaît attirer l'attention de la réunion sur la question de la radiation de la cote du temple de Preah Vihear de l'inscription decause Liste du patrimoine mondial pour les raisons suivantes;

1. Avant la réunion du Comité du patrimoine mondial de 31e Christchurch, Nouvelle-Zélande, la Thaïlande a vigoureusement contesté l'inscription du temple de Preah Vihear à la liste du patrimoine mondial tel que proposé par le Cambodge.

2. À la même session, le Comité du patrimoine mondial a décidé que le Cambodge,en tant qu'État membre de la Convention concernant la protection du patrimoinemondial culturel et naturel, devraient concerter étroitement avec la Thaïlande versl'inscription du temple de Preah Vihear en suggérant que la Thaïlande, également unEtat membre de la Convention concernant la protection du patrimoine mondialculturel et naturel, à «sérieusement coopérer dans le temple de Preah Vihearinscription proposée uniquement par le Cambodge."

3. Un an plus tard, l'UNESCO et le WHC a montré un soutien envers seule tentativedu Cambodge d'inscrire le temple de Preah Vihear en assignant Mme Françoise Rivière à Phnom Penh afin de discuter et d'établir l'Autorité nationale pour la protection de Preah Vihear (ANPV) comme une organisation à gérer la zone de Preah Vihear Temple en conformité avec les principes ICOMOS.

4. Quelques mois avant la 32e réunion du CPM, la Thaïlande et le Cambodge ontpublié conjointement le Communiqué conjoint de préciser le plan de gestion dont le Cambodge a proposé de diviser la zone de gestion en 3 zones. Après le«Communiqué de l'Alliance du peuple pour la démocratie (PAD) et le RéseauOrganisation pour la surveillance de la situation sur le cas de Phra Viharn Temple,avait demandé au Gouvernement royal thaïlandais de révoquer le communiqué conjoint qui pourrait avoir conduit le pays a perdu du territoire .

Le PAD a ensuite déposé le dossier à la Cour thaïlandaise administrative de suspendre le dépôt du communiqué conjoint à être utilisé comme l'un des documents à l'appui de l'inscription de Preah Vihear par le Cambodge seule depuis les zonesentourant le temple de Preah Vihear est sous souveraineté de la Thaïlande et que lecommuniqué conjoint a été violé la Constitution du Royaume de Thaïlande ÊTRE2550 Article 190 (Le bref détail de l'article est que "tout document qui est considéré comme un traité doit avoir l'approbation du Parlement avant le processus designature.").

Au départ, la Cour administrative thaïlandaise avait décidé de l'injonction provisoire interdisant à toute officiels thaïlandais pour soutenir ou pour utiliser le Communiqué conjoint comme l'une des pièces justificatives dans le temple de Preah Vihearinscription et la Thaïlande, en tant qu'État membre, n'a pas appuyé la inscription dutemple par le Cambodge en tant paru dans la déclaration du ministre des Affaires étrangères, SEM Noppadol Pattama et la déclaration de Mr.Pongpol Adireksarn, Chef de la délégation thaïlandaise patrimoine mondial. Ces deux déclarations ont été reconnus par les deux HFC et l'UNESCO.

5. Cependant, à la 32e réunion du CPM au Québec, au Canada, non seulement la réunion ignoré ladite déclarations faites par la délégation thaïlandaise, l'assemblée a également approuvé l'inscription du temple de Preah Vihear comme patrimoine mondial pour la structure du temple ne cite que "9. Note que le bien proposé pour inscription est réduit et ne comprend que le temple de Preah Vihear et nonl'ensemble de promontoire avec ses falaises et ses grottes; "

6. La réunion a également contredit WHC 32ème résolution de la 31e réunion du CPM sur la question que le Temple de Preah Vihear inscription proposée par le Cambodge doit préalablement obtenu le consentement de la Thaïlande qui a déjàexprimé son désaccord total. La Réunion WHC 32e résolut donc de mettre en place le Comité international de coordination de Preah Vihear et la Thaïlande a inclusparmi l'un des sept autres partenaires internationaux appropriés pour siéger dans cette commission.

Conformément à la résolution controversée, la Thaïlande a contesté la carte annexe dans le Communiqué conjoint et la carte nouvellement révisé que le Cambodge a proposé au CPM compte tenu du fait que le Communiqué conjoint et toutes les pièces justificatives étaient sous injonction provisoire par la Cour administrativethaïlandaise. Malheureusement, toutes les réclamations et des demandes formuléespar la Thaïlande, non seulement ont été ignorés, mais le WHC a également approuvél'inscription de Preah Vihear, contre toute attente. Lorsque l'ICOMOS thaïlandaisesont envoyé leur lettre de désaccord, le WHC a plutôt demandé au Centre du patrimoine mondial afin d'aider le Cambodge en fournissant des experts indiensd'élaborer le plan de gestion pour les zones entourant le temple de Preah Vihear.

7. Après la 32e réunion du CPM, la Société thaïlandaise civile ont exprimé leur désaccord fort. La Cour thaïlandaise constitutionnelle a jugé que les zones entourant le temple de Preah Vihear relèvent de la souveraineté thaïlandaise et que leCommuniqué conjoint de la 31e réunion du CPM pourrait avoir conduit le pays a perdu du territoire depuis le gouvernement royal thaïlandais (1962) a donné le droit de le seul temple, mais n'a pas mentionné sur tout territoire accordant au Cambodge.Par ailleurs, d "> le Gouvernement royal thaïlandais (1962) a soumis une lettreréclamant le droit de propriété sur la zone contestée du Temple de Preah Vihear à l'ONU sans terme d'expiration.

8. Après la résolution 32e WHC, les troupes armées cambodgiennes ont été déployées en Thaïlande du territoire en même temps la communauté frontière cambodgienne en plus étendu à la Thaïlande. Cette quitté la Thaïlande pas le choix, mais seulement pour défendre notre souveraineté nationale. L'incident violent entre soldats thaïlandais et cambodgiens fait plusieurs victimes parmi les deux troupes.

Alors que le chef du Cambodge patrimoine mondial délégation envoyée dans un document au Centre du patrimoine mondial, accusant la Thaïlande comme envahisseur et utilisant l'artillerie pour détruire les ruines du temple de Preah Vihear.Ce document cambodgienne a été inséré dans l'agenda de la 33ème réunion du CPM.

9. Lors de la 33e réunion du CPM à Séville, en Espagne, le Cambodge a présenté uniquement des dégâts du Temple prétendument causé par les troupes thaïlandaises en particulier la destruction de la communauté cambodgienne de marché empiète sur le sol thaïlandais. Même si la réalité était que, après que les soldats cambodgiens et communautaire empiété le territoire thaïlandais, lors des affrontements survenus, les soldats thaïlandais ont dû utiliser la force pour repousser les intrus de retour sur leur territoire afin de maintenir la souveraineté thaïlandaise. Malheureusement, la réunion du CPM, non seulement, d'accord avec la délégation du Cambodge, mais également approuvé un fonds pour la reconstruction de la communauté cambodgienne de marché située dans le sol thaïlandais sur les marches du Temple. En outre, la Réunion accordé des fonds supplémentaires pour l'achèvement du plan de gestion sur une base privilège spécial. France s'est aussi démarquée pour défendre le Cambodge négligeant d'objection thaïlandais. WHC a décidé que les États parties thaïlandais et d'autres doivent coopérer withCambodia dans l'établissement du Comité de coordination international de Preah Vihear.

10. On peut dire que la relation entre la Thaïlande et le Cambodge est aggravée par la résolution de réunion WHC 32e et plus de conflits arose.Thailand estimé que l'UNESCO sous la direction du directeur général Matsuura Mr.Koiichiro et Mme Françoise Rivière, directeur général pour la culture prolongée de soutien inhabituel de Le Cambodge en assignant des représentants de l'UNESCO à l'enquête sur les dommages du Temple. La Thaïlande a dû organiser une équipe de sécurité pour les sauvegarder et de prouver les droits souverains sur les zones entourant le temple.

11. L'UNESCO et le Centre du patrimoine mondial soutiennent toujours Cambodge avec des faveurs spéciales et semblait comme le Cambodge a été donné des droits spéciaux à soumettre tous les documents concernant le plan de gestion ou de la confrontation militaire lorsque le Cambodge a envahi le sol thaïlandais et signalés ailleurs particulièrement la contruction route pour le temple de Preah Vihear qui a vandalisé le parc national thaïlandais région.

En tant que tel, l'UNESCO et le Centre du patrimoine mondial négligé d'appliquer l'article de la Convention pour la protection du patrimoine mondial culturel et naturel qui stipule que dans le cas du site du patrimoine mondial est devenu la cause de la confrontation militaire avec les forces armées qui conduisent à des pertes du personnel militaire et les civils. Le Centre du patrimoine mondial devrait mettre le temple de Preah Vihear au dans la «Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril» en conformité avec la Convention et les procédures d'articles 177 à 191.

12. Dans la 34e réunion du CPM, à Brasilia, au Brésil, le WHC a tenté de transiger avec la Thaïlande en convoquant une réunion spéciale et a insisté pour que la Thaïlande devrait accepter la résolution 32e WHC et aider le Cambodge par le lobbying d'autres parties Comité d'Etat pour l'accepter aussi. La Thaïlande a accepté la solution de compromis de bonne foi ignorent que c'était le plan de la conspiration d'Etat des parties des autres comités.

Après la résolution de réunion est sorti plus en faveur de tel que la contribution du Japon pour la construction d'un musée écologique globale du Cambodge, le soutien du nouveau plan de gestion qui n'ont pas pris l'invasion du Cambodge en compte, la Thaïlande a été contraint de rejoindre la CPI Preah Vihear dans la 35e réunion du CPM et du Cambodge ont utilisé la carte annexe du communiqué conjoint que l'UNESCO avait promis de ne pas l'utiliser dans l'examen du plan de gestion et de l'inscription au patrimoine mondial, mais au contraire laisser le Cambodge de l'utiliser comme plan directeur pour corriger les plan de gestion original. Le pire de tout est que le WHC laissez le Cambodge empiété sol thaïlandais tout en négligeant d'objection de la Thaïlande.

13. La résolution 34ème réunion du CPM, à Brasilia, Brasil a suscité une grave inquiétude parmi un grand nombre de la population thaïlandaise qui est sorti à 24 heures qui restent pendant la nuit-de protestation pendant 144 jours et envoyé des lettres de protestation de nombreux UNESCO en Thaïlande, y compris cette fois (17eJuin 2011 lettre) demandant au Gouvernement royal thaïlandais à démissionnerd'être un Etat partie de la Convention du patrimoine mondial et le WHC.

Thaïlande, en tant que membre de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, l'UNESCO, et un Etat partie de la Convention du patrimoine mondial, a des droits souverains et l'intégrité territoriale. Dans le cas de Preah Vihear, le Cambodge a toujours violé la souveraineté et le territoire en Thaïlande que la Thaïlande avait des lettres de protestation à l'soumis plusieurs fois.

L'UNESCO est une organisation visant à promouvoir la paix entre les États parties, mais son comportement dans le cas de Preah Vihear a été complètement paradoxalavec l'essence organisation. Depuis l'UNESCO soutient le Centre du patrimoine mondial et le Centre du patrimoine mondial à approuver l'inscription de Preah Vihear, à la violence, les conflits intérieurs et internationaux, l'invasion contre le territoire national pour compléter le plan de gestion ont été tout autour. Il ya eu desaffrontements militaires jusqu'à tout récemment, dans les troupes cambodgiennes ont tiré des roquettes Février et les canons de Thai communautés civiles près de la zonede Preah Vihear qui a conduit à une évacuation d'urgence à deux reprises de plus de100 000 Thaïlandais. Troupes cambodgiennes a utilisé le Temple que leurs armes militaires collecte de base / camp et des troupes (photographies ci-joint) qui viole la Convention pour la protection du patrimoine mondial culturel et de l'article 180 du patrimoine naturel de "danger potentiel".

Il s'est avéré que l'UNESCO, le Centre du patrimoine mondial, et le CPM a fermé les yeux et toujours soutenu le Cambodge pour compléter le plan de gestion qui envahitle territoire thaïlandais tout en forçant la Thaïlande d'accueillir la résolution du WHC.La Société civile thaïlandaise ne peut accepter ces actes malhonnêtes et recherchépour l'UNESCO, le Centre du patrimoine mondial, et les éclaircissements du WHC.

En conséquence, le Royaume de Thaïlande et du Comité de protection des Thaïlandais, par les présentes, vous demandons de prendre les raisons mentionnées ci-dessus en compte dans le Temple de Preah Vihear de radiation de laconsidération du patrimoine culturel des sites. En outre, nous vous demandons de mettre en place une commission d'enquête pour inspecter l'État partie du Cambodge, le Centre du patrimoine mondial, et le CPM au sujet le 31 frauduleuses, 32e, 33e, et 34e résolutions WHC qui manquent de non-ingérence principes. Toutes les résolutions ont le sens des interférences domestiques contre l'Etat Partie, la Thaïlande, la souveraineté et le territoire. Nous vous demandons de mettre cela dansl'ordre du jour émergentes avant l'ordre du jour pour examen concernant Preah Vihear au cours des 35e réunion du CPM qui se tiendra à Paris, France.

Cordialement,

(Maj.Gen.Chamrong Srimuang) (Mr.Parnthep Pourpongpan (Mr.ThepmontriLimpaphayom)

Le Royaume de Thaïlande Comité de la protection
































 

Cambodia Uses Pra Viharn Temple As A Military Base

Cambodia Uses Pra Viharn Temple As A Military Base.

Cambodia uses Pra Viharn Temple despite of being listed as a World Heritage by UNESCO. The World Heritage Committee has listed it in favour of tyrant Hunsen since 2009. It becomes clear that Hunsen wickedly exploits the temple as a military base to store troops, artilleries and military supplies. On February 4, 2011, Cambodia launched a series of military assaults against Thai troops as well as Thai civilian communities along the border.

On top of the inhumane acts of criminal bombardment at civilian targets, Cambodia has not expressed a civilized care of the temple as UNESCO would expect. This malicious purpose is against the regulations for WorldHeritage since it puts the invaluable humanity's historical and cultural legacy at a risk of being a military target. To the world, Cambodian's action is a vicious intention to exploit the temple as a hostage to harbour its weapons as well as to put a blame on Thailand, if there is any damage during any inevitable exchanging fire.















Without declaration or warning, Hunsen ordered his sons, young generals, to lead surprise attacks on Thai civilian targets, 2 civilian men were killed following heavy firing to Thai communities. Houses, schools and government offices were destroyed. Twenty thousand Thai people have to flee their homes and take refuge in other towns remote from the border.

















 

Chairperson National Human Rights Commission of Thailand 's Letter to UNESCO

OPEN LETTER TO THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL

Dear Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General,

United Nations.

No. 0001.04/224

National Human Rights Commission of Thailand

422 Phyathai Rd., Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330,

THAILAND

26 July B.E. 2551 (2008)

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

I am writing to you to express and register the most serious concern and dismay of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, an independent organ established under both Thai Constitutions of 1997 and 2007, over the blatant violation of human rights committed by organs of the United Nations in total disregard of the letters and spirit of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely, the inscription by the World Heritage Committee (established within the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization pursuant to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 16 November 1972) of the Temple of Pra Viharn or Preah Vihear on the World Heritage List, as unilaterally proposed by Cambodia.

Such decision with the reference number 32 COM 8B.102 by the World Heritage Committee at its 32nd Session in Quebec City, Canada, has clearly contravened the noble purpose of the UN Charter in promoting the development of friendly relations among nations, the very concept echoed in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, especially Article 28, namely, “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized”.

The events before and after the making of such decision by the World Heritage Committee show that the issue of sovereignty over Pra Viharn Temple itself and its surrounding areas has been highly contentious ever since the decision of 15 June 1962 of the International Court of Justice and the responding letter by the foreign minister of Thailand dated 6 July 1962 to the Acting UN Secretary-General, expressing Thailand’s disagreement with the said decision of the International Court of Justice and reserving whatever rights Thailand has or may have in the future.

Furthermore, the massive popular protests in Thailand over the perceived attempt by the current Government of Thailand to support Cambodia’s unilateral nomination of the Temple of Pra Viharn, culminate in the ruling by the Administrative Court granting an interim injunctive relief to suspend all the effects of the Joint Communique of 18 June 2008 between Thailand and Cambodia, and the decision by the Constitutional Court that the signing of the said Joint Communique was unconstitutional. These events were widely reported by domestic, regional and international media, making it somewhat inconceivable for UNESCO with its long presence and experience in this Southeast Asian region and its World Heritage Committee to profess ignorance of the ongoing dispute and the controversy surrounding the Pra Viharn Temple before the making of Decision 32 COM 8B.102, especially in the face of the protest of the Thai Government at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee against the lack of due process in dealing with the unilateral nomination of the Pra Viharn Temple by Cambodia. Besides, the issue of Pra Viharn Temple has always been a special case stirring strong passion and a sense of injustice in Thailand. There was also the incident of the burning of the Thai embassy in Pnom Penh in January 2003. So the relationships between the 2 countries and peoples have gone through trials and tribulations already and should not be subjected to undue extra stress that will cause greater animosity and bitterness inside and between Thailand and Cambodia.

The above have raised serious doubt and questions about the manner in which the World Heritage Committee made its decision regarding the inscription of Pra Viharn Temple on the World Heritage List, especially from the human rights perspective, a fundamental international instrument of which, namely, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supposedly enjoying its 60th anniversary this year. I therefore would like to bring to your attention some, if not all, of the questions and doubt as follows:

1. Who is responsible for the violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The above decision of the World Heritage Committee has endangered the lives of those who live along the Thai-Cambodian border especially if a violent conflict arises and those people’s rights to life, liberty, and security has been seriously jeopardized. On 17 July 2008 there was a violent clash between the protesters from all over the country protective of Thai sovereignty and some villagers living near the Pra Viharn Temple fearful of losing their livelihood and security permanently due to the ongoing conflict. Unfortunately, the seed of a serious discord and threat to life has somehow, intentionally or unintentionally been sown by the World Heritage Committee. The 17 July incident could be merely a glimpse of things to come.

2. At present, the troops of Thailand and Cambodia are facing each other in combat readiness creating tension along the border which could escalate into a larger scale confrontation. The people of the 2 countries who have been living peacefully are now seeing peace being undermined by the decision of the World Heritage Committee. It is clear that the conflict as it is has deprived the peoples of Thailand and Cambodia of a favourable social and peaceful environment to exercise all their rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of internal disturbances and the escalation of animosity between the peoples of the 2 countries. Who, then, is responsible for this violation of Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

3. Why did the World Heritage Committee so hurriedly make the decision on “an exceptional basis” on 7 July 2008 overlooking the criteria of integrity crucial to the sustainability of the World Heritage status especially with full knowledge that the Pra Viharn Temple and its surrounding areas are still a matter of dispute between Thailand and Cambodia. Of course, the World Heritage Committee could claim that its decision does not prejudice the rights of the parties in the dispute by citing the wording of Article 11 (3) of the 1972 convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, namely, “the inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute”. But such as attitude would reflect its insensitivity to the highly contentious nature of the Pra Viharn Temple issue and the sufferings of the people on the ground. In any case, such kind of decision does not help to promote friendly relations between nations, nor does it help create the social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be fully realized. On the contrary!. The World Heritage Committee should have a more mature judgment and care to consider that the joint management approach as the Pra Viharn Temple and its surrounding areas have still remained contentious, rather than arbitrarily allowing only the unilateral nomination by Cambodia.

4. Why did the World Heritage Committee not ask Cambodia to resubmit the nomination in the light of the change in the map of the property of Pra Viharn Temple as is normally the case? This neglect of the well-established practice concerning the documents submitted in any nomination has raised the suspicion if there is any hidden motive in this hasty decision of the World Heritage Committee in total disregard of the fundamental human rights of the peoples of the 2 countries.

5. Is the decision of the World Heritage Committee based on a sound archeological analysis taking into account the views of all parties concerned? It seems that the views of the Thai side have been consistently overlooked although the buffer and management zone as well as the overall landscaping of the Pra Viharn Temple is in the Thai territory.

6. It is even more puzzling that the World Cultural Heritage Committee has requested Cambodia, in collaboration with UNESCO, to convene an international coordinating committee for the safeguarding and development of the property no later than February2009, inviting the participation of the Government of Thailand and not more than seven other appropriate international partners. How is the World Heritage Committee empowered to request Cambodia to convene such a committee in the first place and how could such invited countries be empowered to delineate the lines of the buffer and management zones in the areas where sovereignty and territorial integrity has been hotly contested? They are dealing with the matter of sovereignty which is clearly outside the authority of the World Heritage Committee.

All the above questions and doubt underscore a need for UN-related agencies to have transparency, consistency, integrity, and good governance as well as respect of the highest order for human rights. The acts committed by the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO have shown their insensitivity and total disregard to human rights especially of the peoples of Thailand and Cambodia. I wish to request you to set up an inquiry committee consisting of impartial persons of highest moral authority to find the answers to the above questions and to set a strong example that human rights be respected not only by member countries of the UN, but also by the UN itself and its related agencies. This should be a meaningful way to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yours sincerely,

(Prof.Saneh Chamarik)

Chairperson National Human Rights Commission of Thailand

CC:

Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director-General, UNESCO

Mr. Francesco Bandarin, Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Ms. Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights

Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh,

Regional Representative, OHCHR Regional Office for Southeast Asia

Member countries of ICOMOS including the under-represented ones

Member countries of the World Heritage Committee

All related and interested institutions

 

Peter's Analysis of the World Court's Ruling of Pra Viharn Temple

 

September 23, 2009

Dear Friends,

As promised, I am attaching 2 files containing the decision of the World Court (WC) on the disputed Prasart Pra Viharn. One is the summary ”Merit” of judgment and another are details of the ruling. (For details, please visit http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ct&case=45&k=46)

Merit of Judgement and Details of Judgment

As you can see from these 2 sets of documents, and as I informed you before, the WC ruled that not only the temple but also the land where the temple situated belongs to Cambodia.

The judges then might be bias towards France & its protectoral state of Cambodia but they did a very thorough analysis based on all evidence presented from both parties in conflict. It was too bad that the judges did not buy our side’s arguments & did not look beyond its decision for potential problems or ramifications in the years or hundreds of year ahead of their time. The main objective from their decision was to settle the dispute & avoid the future conflict between the 2 countries. But they were wrong; their goal has not been attained since. The site has remained to be a hot spot and a flash point. Armed conflicts have continued while the threat of all out war is real & can possibly happen at any moment. Perhaps, this along and the fact that enormous amount of land-mines that litter the area surrounding Prasart Pra Viharn can be used to further attract international attention & help stop the UNESCO World Heritage & Cambodia’s actions to further implement & finalize their plan on the temple.

Again, as I mentioned before, we must form a committee or taskforce pooling all experts, intellectuals & scholars (from in & outside the Kingdom) to work together exclusively on Prasart Pra Viharn issue to counter the Cambodian’s efforts. We must support the work of M.L. Valvipa and Khun Vira Somkuamkid or any patriotic Thai who is willing to make sacrifice to righteously reclaim the temple back to our country. We also must secretly work with the patriotic military leaders for the purpose. Because the WC did not clearly address or decide the ownership of the land beyond where the temple situated, we must firmly protect that area & strongly view that it’s Thailand territory. The Thai armed force must have this view & swiftly take actions to defend the land & stand. Additionally, we should pay more attention & explore deeper in details about the history & civilization of SE Asia.

We must come up with short term, mid range & long term strategies to justify future actions reclaiming Prasart Pra Viharn so that international leaders & communities would agree & side with us.

But more importantly, what we, every patriotic Thai every where, must do now is to stop believing that it was the Khmer who built Prasart Pra Viharn & other ancient Hindu sites in Thailand & throughout the SE Asia region! We must immediately change our attitude & misperception. We must not allow ourselves to be misled by the French & other westerners any longer! After all, the Chinese did not call westerners as ”the Foreign Devils’ for nothing; there’re plenty of good reasons behind it!

I’ve shared with a few individuals so far on what I learnt from reading materials through Internet on the history of SE Asia, its inhabitants & particularly the ancient Hindu ruins in this part of the world. Originally, I was going to find someone who can help me with Thai typing writing up the whole thing in one time. But P’ Payom (a wise & elder compatriot as well as a respected Muslim Thai leader in the US) suggested that I should write it in series or parts. This is so sensible & practical that I have to heed his advice.

If you don’t mind & are willing to put up with my broken English as well as amateur & non-scientific analysis , I’d like to share with you on what I found & the reasons why we (Thai & non-Thai) should rethink again on who actually constructed these invaluable Hindu monuments all over SE Asia. However lame or logical they will be, I would like to invite you to evaluate them. If we cry that Prasart Pra Viharn belongs to us, Thai people & Thailand, we must firmly believe so, and say so loudly with good (new & rather compelling) reasons. And I’ll try my best to present them to you in the near future.

Sincerely,

Peter

Dear friends,

It has been more than a week since I emailed you copies of World Court (WC) decisions on Prasart Pra Viharn & to inform you why we should think differently about the ancient Hindu structures & history about SE Asia. Before jumping into the subject, may I share some information & my thoughts with you on the World Court’s decision because Prasart Pra Viharn is one of the ancient Hindu sites which I’ll discuss later & because the temple is very hot on the news again?

For those of us who lived on July 4, 19 62 or 2505 (BE) when Marshall Sarit Thanarat told the nation through the national radio station that the World Court’s judges gave their verdicts awarding Prasart Pra Viharn to Cambodia, it was the dark day & a bad memory hard to forget in our lives. Millions were immensely disappointed & shed tears. The loss of this ancient Hindu temple has been a thorn on our chest since. They said time heals all wounds. But for almost all of us, except the sq. face exPM & his cronies, the wound from this loss has not really healed up at all. We still feel the pain from the loss. Most of us did not & have not really known any detailed fact or the key factors that the judges used & based their decisions on. We have lived with hope, based on Marshall Sarit Thanarat’s statement, that one day Prasart Pra Viharn will return to our possession again. I was no exception to these feelings particularly the lack of detail information.

But last year, after the former Foreign Minister, Noppadon Pattama, officially helped the Cambodian govt to further reaffirm & cement its claim on the dispute Prasart Pra Viharn by solely & successfully getting the ancient temple approved by UNESCO as the world’s heritage site, I began to curiously search for more info on the World Court ’s decision. My efforts led to, for the first time, the actual details of the lawsuit, WC’s proceedings, and the historical data involving the actions by all parties. From the discovery, I printed out some pages of WC’s detailed decisions which I’ve forwarded to some of your earlier. They are attached herein again for your review and as my references (Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C) for our discussion.

Briefly, Exhibit A is the World Court’s summary of the decisions and key facts involved on the case while Exhibit B contains partial details of decisions & the judges’ reasons.

To facilitate your review, I’ve annotated important facts on Exhibit A with the numbers from 1 to 7. Let us refer to them as item A-1, item A-2, item A-3, so on and so forth. To distinguish the key points on Exhibit B, I used item B-1, item B-2, etc.

Based on these important facts and key points, I reconciled them against the WC judges’ reasons used to derive their verdicts. I have to conclude that the French surveyor, the Mixed Commission team, the French President governing Cambodia then, and the 9 judges (who gave Prasart Pra Viharn to Cambodia) all acted in BAD FAITH, misused their knowledge & skills to solve & create the problem, and were likely to be biased against Siam/Thailand while favoring Cambodia. But nonetheless, the actions, inaction and silence from Thai officials (from the treaty negotiators, border guards, provincial governors to Prince Praya Dumrong) were used by the WC judges as the main reason to inflict the painful loss of the temple on us, the majority of Thai citizens, and the country. The loss has become a continuous problem & the truth has not really been told or widely acknowledged.

Personally, I believe that we should face the fact & tell the truth. It is wrong to tell our fellow Thais everywhere that the judges only gave the temple to Cambodia, not the ground it situates on. There are a few things we (govt & military leaders as well as citizen groups) can do to prevent further territorial loss (as the near term goal) and perhaps to reclaim Prasart Pra Viharn back to us (as the long term shot).

I am sure some of you will think that what a waste of time reviewing my writing/comments, that it’s useless to argue, and what benefits will derive from this. Well, a failure had occurred and problems have continued to derive from it. For any failure, there are lessons to learn from. To solve the problems & prevent them from recurring, we need to know the cause(s) & the root. Using the problem solving technique, in addition to addressing it & taking actions, will lead to the improvement as well. Thus, success will ensue replacing failure. But by ignoring it, we become ignorant. Knowing the fact(s) allows us to be the learnt one. Though some of you may have already known about the facts on this issue, a large number of people does not know or is still misinformed, I thought I should share the facts with those of you who are part of latter group. Being a good student, I try to think critically & logically on issues. Since some of you are educators, I’d like to present my comments & logics for your review & further comments. I hope to increase the awareness, ignite the interest on the history of SE Asia and change the perception that Khmers were the most influential & civilized group of people in the region.

Below are the WC judges’ decision & statements (after the bullet point) and my comments (in highlight) for your review & consideration.

On the Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

• Item A-1 is the World Court’s precise decision on Prasart Pra Viharn. Nine (9) of the twelve (12) judges found that the temple was situated in territory under Cambodia’s sovereignty.

Here, the WC did not clearly specify how close or far the land/territory around the ancient structure belongs to Cambodia.

But per item B-6 and B-7 on page 37 & 38 of Exhibit B, the judges referred to the sovereignty over the portion of territory in which the temple is situated. This means, we have the good reason to argue, that Thailand has the sovereignty on territory beyond the portion of the land (immediate perimeter) where the temple is. But it is very important for us to clearly understand that the World Court’s judges gave the temple to Cambodia as well (see B-5 on page 36 of Exhibit B), not just the land it situates on. Please do not let others fool or mislead you about this fact any longer.

• Item A-2 refers to the application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904.

Being the 1^st treaty, it became the Parent Treaty which is like the main & most important law. It set the tone or preamble to be further followed by future acts on the subject matter. It’s like the Constitution that is used to create other subsequent related treaty or laws to supplement the first one. The judges were wrong to give no weigh or ignore this Parent (or Grand Parent)Treaty while accepting others done later with mal-intent or hidden agenda. The World Court also recognized this treaty as the Parent Treaty (see item B-2 on page 34 of Exhibit B). If what prescribed in the Parent Treaty carries no value, why did they have the treaty to begin with? Disregarding it (natural watershed line) but opting to go with man made one just does not make good sense. As we all know, it is the man who made, has made & will make mistakes. It is the man who created biases and prejudices. It is the man who killed & has killed one another besides killing those less intelligent animals. It is the man who has destroyed the environments including forests or jungles once abundant in the world. All these things happened even during the times when religion founders were alive preaching for higher morality while raising the awareness of consequences on evil deeds.

So, it is not uncommon at all that whether intended or not, mistake(s) will occur during the work process of determining the border lines using the means other than the natural watershed line. This is what happened to the Annex 1 map unilaterally drawn by Frenchmen

• Item A-3 mentions that in the eastern sector of Dongrek range where Pra Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the Watershed line.

This clearly established the fact, per the 1st or original treaty of 13 February 1904, that wherever visible and possible, the natural Watershed line was to be first choice used in marking & settling the boundaries. It should be also understood even without clearly specifying that, on the location or territory without the Watershed line, then a fair and equitable method (as the alternative means) be employed with the consent from both sides to delimit the border. In the Kao Pra Viharn case, the watershed line is clearly present in addition to the cliff and mountain range that physically separates our country from Cambodia on the low land below. The Court’s opinions (see item B-3 & B-4 on page 35 of Exhibit B) about discounting & refusing to accept the use of the natural watershed line as the effective means of dividing boundaries were the main problem in this case. The 9 judges were wrong. As the most logical and practical method, the natural watershed line should be and has been internationally accepted as the primary line for dividing the borders just like rivers or lakes were used to separate many nations’ borders. Amur River separates Russia from China. Mekong River separates Thai & Laos. Uruguay Rivers is used as borderline between Argentina & Uruguay, between Argentina & Brazil. The Great Lakes are used to separate Canada & US border. So, the Court’s judges clearly were wrong in refusing to use the natural watershed line to mark the area on the Dongrak mountain range.

EXHIBIT B

• Item A-4 states that a MIXED commission (of Thai & French representatives) should travel along the Dongrak range for reconnaissance and that A French SURVEY OFFICER should survey the whole eastern part of Dongrak range.

Here, the fact is it was not a mixed commission but one with all members was Frenchmen; thus making it a tilted one, off from neutral. As the result, it’s very likely that its work was partial towards its protectoral client state of Cambodia. Moreover, how could a sole surveyor of French citizen/service man be trusted as impartial and fair without the proof & control or supervision? The fair & right thing to do was to have other neutral parties (at least 3 members) who have no vested interest to do the survey & mapping.

• Item A-5 states that in January-February 1907, the President of French section reported to his Government that eh frontier-line has been definitely established (after being surveyed & FIXED). But there was no record of decision or reference made on the Dongrak region in the Commission’s meeting minutes after 2 December 1906 meeting.

The President of French sector did not honestly say who owned the temple. It’s a dishonest act for the President of French sector to hide the fact that his subordinates had already drawn up the boundary lines on the map giving the ancient temple to Cambodia when he reported to his nat’l government in France. Though the Mixed Commission was designated to work on the border delimitation, it was revealed here that they actually paid more focus & attention on the coming treaty of 23 March 1907. So, based on these statements, the French representatives had worked in concert manipulating information & facts to unilaterally preconceive the mapping & content of 23 March 1907 treaty (the 2^nd one) while our side was in the passive mode without knowing what actually had occurred in the remote corner of the kingdom.

• Item A-6 refers to the fact that the final stage of delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese govt, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers. Some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission. Amongst them was a map of the Dongrek range showing Pra Viharn on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as ANNEX 1 to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, and the map had never been accepted by Thailand.

Our legal team had presented the facts which sounded very reasonable & realistic. But despite these logical facts, 9 judges out of 12 were not convinced & chose to rely solely & only on the ANNEXT 1 map itself (which has the scale of 1:200,000 or so). Despite the fact that, in 1934-1935 (item A-9 of Exhibit A), the govt of Thailand had offered a more refined & accurate map to counter the Cambodian, and despite knowing that the Parent Treaty of 13 Feb 1904 which stated the border line be established based (primarily) on the watershed line, these judges chose to give no weigh or place no value to these facts but opted for the Annex 1 map instead. These show that the judges acted in bad faith, with negligence and prejudice no matter how well their explanations were.

• Item A-7 says that the ANNEX 1 map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production.

Despite the long list of logical arguments, facts and references including the parental treaty (done on 13 February 1904) & other subsequent treaties and/or agreements to support the claims made by our country’s legal team (see Exhibit A item A-9), the judges made their decisions based solely on the map called ”Annex 1” drawn by a team of French surveyors/officers. The fact as pointed out by the World Court ’s document here that the ANNEX 1 had never been formally approved by the MIXED COMMISSION, it clearly shows that the map had some problems & flaws. If the map was good enough in terms of fairness & accuracy, it would have been approved by the MIXED COMMISSION & forwarded to Thailand for acceptance. Moreover, our officials involved then would certainly know that the Annex 1 map could not be entrusted or relied on. That’s why Siamese officials did not formally accept or approve it despite repeated presentation & reference by the French counterpart. That’s why Siamese officials came up with the map of our own & brought it to the French in 1934-1935 (item A-8 & A-9 of Exhibit A).

Based on this, how could the World Court, in its deliberation (see item B-1 on page 32 of Exhibit B) consider that Thailand in 1980-1909 did accept the Annex 1 map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation? The Court’s view seemed to contradict to the fact as stated on item A-7 by the Court’s document itself summarizing their judgment. All 9 judges who voted for Cambodia further showed their prejudice by picking & choosing parts of the facts & created reasons to justify their decisions. There were 2 maps; yet they chose the French’s creation of Annex 1. In human behaviors, most people typically are not vocal. The great majority of people in many cultures are quite reserve. Most people tend to remain quiet even if they do not agree unless it’s the matter of life and death. In dealing with foreigners, barriers often come into play. These barriers include language, culture, and custom (procedural) practice. Additionally, because France was the world superpower, it was very possible that our officials felt intimidated then. Was there any coercion involved, I wonder? Was there any threat involved using the GUN BOAT DIPLOMACY type of tactic then, I wonder? Just because Thai or Siamese officials did not say and/or take action to object to the Annex 1 map, why did the judges chose to negatively interpret as our side had agreed by default? Why did the judges fail to think positively (for the benefit of the doubt & afore-mentioned barriers) that our side had not formally accept & disagreed with the Annex 1 map; that’s why we produced our own map 30 years later when our officials knew a little bit more & better in the mapping technique? Even if some Thai officials gave out the wrong map to others, it was just an inadvertent human error (like the case of left hand does not know what the right hand did) which should not become a key factor used against us.

As we know, before 1904, Frenchmen had traveled to all 7 seas & navigated to various corners of the world to map the localities and colonize them to be their territories as part of their global imperialistic expansion. They were the world’s superpower along with the English & Spaniards after the Portuguese & Dutchmen had become weaker. With their superiority in military power, technological skills (particularly in surveying & mapping), education & legal knowledge in addition to their cunning ability, a small & very backward country with little formal education & elementary knowledge of European languages/customs had little chance to stand up to the world’s superpower like France.

So based on these together with the language barrier, I can understand why our representatives dealing with the French officials in early 1900s did not (as indicated by Cambodian & the judges) take appropriate actions as they should to clearly (on equal footing) counter the Frenchmen’s questionable acts in the process of delimitating & settling the borders between Siam & France (+ Cambodia) then.

The international justice system was not properly served when the World Court’s judges failed to incorporate these factual conditions while ignored the evidence as presented for their consideration before making the judgments (based solely on the Annex 1 map) against Siam/Thailand but in favor of the Cambodia.

For your info, the word ”Annex” is the term usually & exclusively used by any government (either city or county) in its plan to claim a sizable land area not belonging to anyone to become its own territory. The land that a government tries to possess through ANNEXATION may include body or bodies of water (pond, lake) or whatever in the boundaries. I also had seen architects used the word Annex on their maps or blueprints for building projects. The examples include ”the Arnold Building Annex”, ”the Broadway Annex”, etc. So, when the Frenchmen used the name ”ANNEX 1” for the map of Siam & Cambodia they drew up, I could not help to think that French officials/govt representatives then would likely have the idea or intention to further ANNEX more sites or land from Siam to add to Cambodia’s side of the border because if 1 was established, 2-3 or 4 would follow. If it was not the case, then with Frenchmen’s proficiency of language, legal terms & incomparable superior technical knowledge, why they did not use other more appropriate term? This appears to me the Frenchmen involved at the time had hidden motive and the Annex 1 map, solely drawn up by the French team, was done in a bias manner favorable to Cambodia , France ’s protectoral state.

EXHIBIT C

Also for your info, though our team of lawyers, advisors and experts were larger than the Cambodia’s counterpart, the Cambodia was smart enough to recruit Dean Acheson (see Exhibit C) to help representing them on the case. Mr. Dean Acheson was the world’s most renowned diplomat during the post WW2 era. A Yale & Harvard Law School graduate, he was a lawyer by profession with the US Supreme Court experience and also a knowledgeable economist before leaving his legal practice to serve in the US Am-forces participated in the WW2 battles. He later became the US Secretary of State in President’s Harry Truman’s administration & earned the recognition as the Statesman afterward. He was also a strategist credited for being a primary architect of the infamous Cold War & playing the central role in the Marshall Plan, NATO, IMF, World Bank, WTO, and the Truman doctrine. His most famous move was to convince Truman to intervene in the Korean War.

Dean Acheson also was instrumental in framing the US policy on Vietnam persuading Truman to send aids to French forces in Indochina . I also thought that his present & involvement in the Prasart Pra Viharn lawsuit contributed immensely to outcome of the judges’ decisions. (Summarized from Wikipedia)

I agree that our immediate goal is to stop & prevent further loss of the 4.6 KM land. But I’d also suggest that the longer range is to find supporting evidence to convince the world that Prasart Pra Viharn was built, not by Khmers, but by another more civilized group of people who dominated the region before the rise of Khmers & Thais around 1000 AD & centuries thereafter. The ultimate goal is to re-affirm and/or re-establish the acceptance that natural watershed line must be the primary means as border marking method between Thailand & Cambodian borders. If it’s the case, it also should apply to the border area along Dongrak mountain range where Prasart Pra Viharn situated.

Thai government & officials must tell the world & the World Heritage Committee through mass media & independent NGOs that the site around Prasart Pra Viharn is littered with landmines. It was the work of the Khmer Rouge which Hun Sen was a member who had planted them there. But in recent years, Cambodian soldiers also have added many more while our Thai soldiers have tried to defuse & eradicate them. The environment surrounding Prasart Pra Viharn is extremely unsafe, and unsuitable or unqualified to be approved as the World Heritage site.Some one must reimburse Thailand for the costs of cleaning up the landmines, of the limbs & lives lost from the landmines planted by Cambodians.

Remember � the issue of landmines was so popular during Princess Diana’s final years of her life. People in developed countries still care a lot about this issue. We can reignite worldwide attention & interest to help our cause or to side with us in stopping Prasart Pra Viharn from further development. Remember that a buffer zone is needed around the World Heritage site. Without adequate surrounding space, the project can’t & will not go anywhere but be retracted or canceled.

Perhaps, Thai government should file a lawsuit against the French government for their questionable & dishonest acts which led to our loss of the territory & Prasart Pra Viharn because their officers intentionally ignored to follow the use of the natural watershed line in mapping the Dongrak mountain area for border delimitation. They knowingly drew the line eastward passing the ancient temple further into Thailand’s territory on the map which they solely created & was in charge of. Since they were the one who created the continuing problem & the mess, they must take responsibility.

Additionally, we should conduct deeper research in greater details about the ancient Hindu structures all over SE Asia to confirm that they were built first & mostly by the Cham people, not by Khmers whom Cambodians claimed to be their ancestors. The preceding underlined statement is my personal contention. Just because Anchor Wat temples are the largest, it does not mean that other smaller ones scattered in Vietnam , Laos , Thailand , and Burma were all built by Khmers.

In my next emails, I’ll share with you the information & facts that I’ve come across & gathered to help support my contention.

Thank you for your time & attention given,

Regards,

Peter

October 5, 2009

Dear Friends,

Attached above are some more files containing info for you & everyone to be aware of. They are all related to Khao Pra Viharn (the specific question ”APPEALING” you asked) and a pair of Thai citizens with Cambodian heat who gave interview to a foreign media along with news & opinions from people in Cambodia .

As you can see from the attached ”Frequently Ask Questions” section of the ”Practical Information” document, the answers on question 6 should give you the answer about appealing. The Court’s judgments are final and without appeal. But in the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.Despite this fact, there have been over 1000 appeal for revision or reversion of the judgments so far (please see the attachment with single page for some examples).

Additionally, a few months ago, I read somewhere in the World Court ’s proceedings & regulations which said that there was a 10 year statue of limitation for appealing on Prasart Pra Viharn case. And we all knew, 10 years has long gone. But I must confess that my memory is not as sharp as when I was 10-20 yr younger. Besides, I am not a lawyer. So, I could be wrong on this.

As Sun Wu wrote in the Art of War, there’re 2 lessons that came into my mind.

• Before engaging in war, one must learn to be familiar with the terrain & environment of the battle fields.
• Know your enemy & know your own strength (and limitation).

Because of these, I thought we should know How the World Court Works before filing the lawsuit or an appeal. I thought we should know what the Cambodians have been saying, doing or plan to do on the disputed temple. We should also know what would be the impacts on the economy & politics (international) from any hostile action taken either legally or by force.

If we’re going to appeal, we must know about the statute of limitation. And most importantly, we must have the new fact or evidence affecting the case which were unknown to the Court when the judges made their decision then.

As I mentioned earlier, our gov’t must establish a nat’l committee with the tasks to exclusively focus & deal with the issues on Prasart Pra Viharn & other ancient Hindu sites along the border. More & serious attention from leaders (civilian & military) must be given on this. Private advocacy groups must be formed to work closely & in coordination with the govt to solidify the efforts against Cambodian’s side to firmly hold our grounds, protect what we still have & reclaim what we have lost. The cohesive & comprehensive strategies with options must be formulated on the issue.

Thank you for your kind consideration of publicizing my comments & facts provided you on Prasart Pra Viharn. But I personally think that they are not good enough to deserve such consideration for publication. Besides, with everyone’s earnest & honest effort, the fact can be effectively passed on to others who have been misinformed or have not had any factual info on the WC’s actual decisions. As I mentioned to you before, the Cambodian’s side has spies who are closely monitoring us including ASTV & Manager Online. In addition to the increase in population & diversity, Thugsin & his cronies have greatest impact in the hike of hostile elements (in Thai society) that have no loyalty or patriotism towards ethics, our country & our beloved king. Some friends or people in the group could be foes & turning against us as what we’ve seen in Thai politics & during PAD’s movements in the long & hard fight during the past few years. So, for now, let’s keep things in private between/among us.

Regards,

Peter