A good idea to protest for the return of Preah Vihear to Thailand?

I thought it was cut and dried that the temple belonged to Cambodia. What is not entirely clear is who owns the land surrounding it.

At the end of the day does it really matter? It is not as if either Thailkand or Cambodia want to building housing estates on the land, or dig for oil. It is merely access to a Khmer temple, which should be accessible to all.

As for the protests, surely something such as a 50 strong group from out of town erecting stages and delivering speeches in a small village against the villagers wishes should be stopped immediately. They bugger off tonight leaving the villagers exposed to the possible wrath of the Cambodians! :mad:
 
It hasn't always been that way. The claim rests on a French map c.1902, and the Thais have never accepted that claim. Geographically, there is little doubt that the boundary should run along the ridge, but that is just common sense, which rarely counts for much.

That said, the best arrangement seems to be the one which obtained a few years ago, when the temple was Cambodian territory, but access from the Thai side was freely permitted. It's certainly not worth people's lives.
 
Thailand has never accepted the fact that it was awarded by the International Court of Justice. The fact being, They lost. Have you read the Judgement?
 
Political flexing, and Nationalistic Horse shit is what it is.

Raise the thing to the ground and let everyone get on with their lives. What a load of nonsense.:mad:
 
surin said:
Thailand has never accepted the fact that it was awarded by the International Court of Justice. The fact being, They lost. Have you read the Judgement?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know this, but there is a doubt whether the ICJ had jurisdiction. Boundary demarcation has to be accepted by both sides to be valid. Ta Meuan is another part of the boundary which is not fully defined.

If you go to Preah Vihear, you will see why I said the common sense solution would be to set the boundary along the ridge, which would make the temple and surrounding areas Thai. It wasn't even readily accessible from Cambodia until recently. Ta Meuan is rather different; the boundary area is flat, and you can walk across; I have.
 
Nick,

"At the end of the day does it really matter? It is not as if either Thailkand or Cambodia want to building housing estates on the land, or dig for oil. It is merely access to a Khmer temple, which should be accessible to all."

Actually wasn't there some bullshit about there being oil under that disputed land a while back? And, I do believe the Cambos did build a Wat and some houses/village on the disputed land in that area as well? I seem to remember something about that which caused a shitstorm of protest from the nationalists a while ago. Just saying. :)

Mike
 
It matters because people think it matters.

The legality of the matter doesn't solve any problems (cf Israel and the Palestinians).

The best solution, as I indicated above, is that which prevailed in the mid-90s... sovereignty to Cambodia, and free access from Thailand, rights over the disputed area left in abeyance. Killing people makes any solution harder to achieve.
 
isanbirder said:
Yes, I know this, but there is a doubt whether the ICJ had jurisdiction. Boundary demarcation has to be accepted by both sides to be valid. Ta Meuan is another part of the boundary which is not fully defined.

If you go to Preah Vihear, you will see why I said the common sense solution would be to set the boundary along the ridge, which would make the temple and surrounding areas Thai. It wasn't even readily accessible from Cambodia until recently. Ta Meuan is rather different; the boundary area is flat, and you can walk across; I have.
Click to expand...

For Christ sake IB..read the whole judgement properly. Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and Tanaka clearly stated that by Thailand becoming a Member of the U.N they agreed to the statutes of the Charter and therefore agree that a decision by a Statutory Body of the UN was binding. Thailand did at that time have the right to resign from UN and challenge the decision.
Of course they had jurisdiction over the matter or Thailand would not have entered the Court. Bad loser is not a reason to appeal.
 
surin said:
For Christ sake IB..read the whole judgement properly. Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and Tanaka clearly stated that by Thailand becoming a Member of the U.N they agreed to the statutes of the Charter and therefore agree that a decision by a Statutory Body of the UN was binding. Thailand did at that time have the right to resign from UN and challenge the decision.
Of course they had jurisdiction over the matter or Thailand would not have entered the Court. Bad loser is not a reason to appeal.
Click to expand...

OK Surin, I accept that. Yes, Thailand is a bad loser, but that doesn't stop people protesting. How many times has Israel flouted UN decisions? A decision by the UN or one of its statutory bodies is not the last word, however much we might like it to be.

Please read my last post again. It is only a stopgap solution, but unless something of the sort is done, people will continue to lose their lives for the sake of a rather battered ruin. You of all people should know that politicians will often whip up the patriotic fervour of the people by appealing to their feelings, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case..
 
isanbirder said:
OK Surin, I accept that. Yes, Thailand is a bad loser, but that doesn't stop people protesting. How many times has Israel flouted UN decisions? A decision by the UN or one of its statutory bodies is not the last word, however much we might like it to be.

Please read my last post again. It is only a stopgap solution, but unless something of the sort is done, people will continue to lose their lives for the sake of a rather battered ruin. You of all people should know that politicians will often whip up the patriotic fervour of the people by appealing to their feelings, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case..
Click to expand...

We're getting there IB..you agree, but UN does have the right through it's process and it is not a stop gap or piece meal situation...this next day in court will remind Thailand that a decision was made more than 50 years ago. Some Politicians may do what you say and I feel the former Prime Minister (even though I admired him occasionally), I feel he too did it prior to the run up to the last election here. They are fools to continue the protests and create a terrible situation with a neighbour that will have support from other ASEAN countries.
 
surin said:
We're getting there IB..you agree, but UN does have the right through it's process and it is not a stop gap or piece meal situation...this next day in court will remind Thailand that a decision was made more than 50 years ago. Some Politicians may do what you say and I feel the former Prime Minister (even though I admired him occasionally), I feel he too did it prior to the run up to the last election here. They are fools to continue the protests and create a terrible situation with a neighbour that will have support from other ASEAN countries.
Click to expand...

If we're not careful, Surin, we shall actually agree on something!

In law of course you're right. But most Thai politicians are unscrupulous, and care only for themselves and not for the country, and they will continue to exploit this situation for their own ends. I suspect the same goes for Cambodian politicians; in fact, from what I know of them, they're worse. I'm not even sure they want a solution; it's just too convenient to have an issue with which they can rabble-rouse whenever they want to, and the only people who suffer are the poor local people who don't have much of a say in the matter.

That's why I suggested reverting to the situation in the late 90s, until the two countries have political leaders who really care for something other than their own pockets. This may take a while. In the meantime everybody loses, except the politicians (and maybe the generals).
 
It has not helped either countries image or tourist numbers, I'd imagine

(BTW Thank you IB & Surin for an interesting read)
 
SurinFarang said:
It has not helped either countries image or tourist numbers, I'd imagine

(BTW Thank you IB & Surin for an interesting read)
Click to expand...

At least Thailand, after claiming a huge increase in tourist numbers, can hardly complain for that reason. But they probably will!
 
isanbirder said:
At least Thailand, after claiming a huge increase in tourist numbers, can hardly complain for that reason. But they probably will!
Click to expand...

Like the use of the word 'claiming' 5555

Maybe you two should start a thread about US gun laws/rights? ThumbUp6ThumbUp6Moon2
 
Maybe you two should start a thread about US gun laws/rights?


I hope IB would have the same point of view as myself regarding gun control. I cannot and will not speak for him, but in the end no one will win this argument. For some obscene reason they think that rights will be encroached...not reasonable thinking of a prudent man or woman...that lives may not be cut short by an act of violence.

I think we leave this one for them to sort out one day.
 
surin said:
Maybe you two should start a thread about US gun laws/rights?


I hope IB would have the same point of view as myself regarding gun control. I cannot and will not speak for him, but in the end no one will win this argument. For some obscene reason they think that rights will be encroached...not reasonable thinking of a prudent man or woman...that lives may not be cut short by an act of violence.

I think we leave this one for them to sort out one day.
Click to expand...

I think we probably would, Surin. When gun laws are discussed, reason flies out of the window. Yes, I think we will leave this one.
 
As long as you admit reason flies out the window from both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top