Border conflict

Observations, thoughts and your stories about living in Thailand, share them here. 'My life in Thailand' or 'Observations on Living in Thailand'.

Moderators: Sometimewoodworker, MGV12, BKKBILL, pattayapope

Border conflict

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:55 am

<moved from 'No surprise here' - mod>

I'm not sure if this should be posted here or not, however: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/3 ... r-conflict
Yesterday on FM 88 I listened to legal arguments from the ICJ on Phrea Vinah temple and the surrounds. If anyone is interested it's in English on the radio. I haven't listened to the Thai side yet, but they were mauled by Cambodia yesterday... especially the Thai Armed Forces (encroachment non withdrawal).
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Shastadad » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:06 am

I can't help but think that this whole case in front of the ICJ is going to be an exercise in futility, since the Thais have showed their intransigence on this issue in the past

I seriously doubt if they will mai pen rai if the court rules against them but will complain that the whole world is again picking on them
Shastadad
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Roger Ramjet » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:16 pm

shastadad,
This hearing is only about the translation (read line on a map) of the 1962 ruling defining the exact line of demarcation. It's actually in, I think annex J, but Thailand disputes the map because they claim it doesn't agree with what their interpretation of where the line should have been. This is the "only" reason the Thai Army has refused to relinquish control of the HINDU temple and pull back their troops. It's all just a misunderstanding of the 1962 ruling.
All that being said, the Cambodian legal team have forced out, through the ICJ, classified documents originating from the Thai side which would cause a few people to have red faces, including the fact the Thai army erected a barbed wire fence on their own volition to ostensibly to keep Thais in and it declared it was "the" demarkation line. The Thai Government are saying this was done in an act of good faith and is what caused the confusion. Or are they? From what I read in the Nation and Bangkok Post the Thai army is not at fault, the ICJ is.
Add to that the encroachments, the refusal of the Thai side to withdraw its troops when ordered to do so by the ICJ and you have a can of worms.
At one stage the Thai army even claimed that Anchor Wat was really Thai and were considering taking it back.....once the area had been demined by the Cambodians. The listing and protection of these ancient temples by the UN has suddenly caused a monumental fight for the tourist dollar and having been to Anchor Wat before it was demined I must say it is spectacular and well worth preserving for history's sake. It's really a pity both temples went to rack and ruin during all the fighting and through constant neglect. In other words nobody, Thai or Cambodian, really cared about either for decades.
I can never understand why Thailand didn't take over joint running of the Hindu temple when it was offered by Cambodia and the UN.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Roger Ramjet » Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:40 am

For those interested here's the original judgement. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php ... &k=46&p3=5
Yesterday it was all about maps, 50 odd I believe and which one you looked at, and how you interpreted the map that you were looking at. And for each time something was proven, it was later disproven or rebutted.
And here you can only say "why didn't the ICJ make the two sides sit down at a table and hash out a treaty whereby both sides looked after the "Hindu" temple. That point I haven't heard raised yet, but after doing a quick search it looked better for Cambodia (as one of their Princes was Hindu) than Thailand.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Shastadad » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:21 am

Bangkok Post headline today, a poor choice of words, IMHO

cambo.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Shastadad
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Roger Ramjet » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:14 am

Shastadad,
Shastadad wrote:Bangkok Post headline today, a poor choice of words, IMHO


But a lot better than a female lawyer who can read a map (the Australian Army needs her as an Officer) being fawned over by The Nation. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/nationa ... 04303.html Actually I was rather amused when I listened. The ICJ seem to have misplaced one of three sections of a map, that, or its been pilfered, but the Thais say that section is irrelevant, so it must be. I did like the argument that because Prince (then) Norodom (The King of Cambodia is an elected monarch) didn't say anything about the Thai barbed wire fence, then it must be in the right place.
All that being said, I like that ICJ, it has given everyone a chance to interject, correct, lay allegations, become angry, ask questions, correct earlier statements and present anything and everything that they think will sway the vote in their favour. Whichever way it goes it is a very fair hearing.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:04 pm

I hope the 92% include the rabid Thai army commander, but I fear not. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/3 ... border-war
I have often asked myself why the Border Disputes Committee is made up of soldiers, not politicians.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Border conflict

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:23 am

User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm


Return to Life in Thailand

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests