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,
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 1st 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 2nd 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
