Saturday, 7 August 2010, during a public meeting with the “People’s Alliance of Democracy”, the so‐called “yellow shirts”, Mr. Abhisit, Prime Minister of Thailand, declared openly : “About the land encroachment, we will cancel the MOU if the problem can’t be settled. We will use both diplomaticand military means”.
In a letter sent today to both the Chairman of the UN General Assembly and the Chairman of the UN Security Council, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen wrote that Thailand violates the Court judgment with troops stationing in the Keo Sikkhakiri Svarak pagoda of Cambodia.
What is the value of a Thai signature? How Thai officials do care about the legal documents they used to sign? Are these, as it was said, “only pieces of paper without biding obligations”? Who will remind the Thai Prime Minister that this is the classical language used in the 20 th century by dictators, a language that led to wars and devastations?
Mr. Abhisit seems to ignore that our world is not more the world of nationalist claims. It’s not the world of the past century. It’s a globalized world where, based on legal provisions, one prefers open frontiers, free trade zones, regional stability and cooperation. Does Mr. Abhisit want to return to the past world of nationalism and conflicts full of violations of legal agreements and international law?
Svay Sitha
Secretary of State
Chairman of Press and Quick reaction Unit of the Office of the Council of Ministers
Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of the Royal Government of Cambodia
On 14 June 2000, Cambodia and Thailand signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the survey and demarcation of the border line between the two countries. Article 1 of this MOU stipulates that the survey and demarcation of land boundary between the two countries shall be jointly conducted in accordance with the 1904 Convention, the 1907 Treaty and its annexed Protocol and the “Maps which are the results of demarcation works of the Commissions of Delimitation of the Boundary between Indo‐China and Siam set up under the Convention of 1904 and the Treaty of 1907 between France and Siam, and other documents relating to the application of the Convention of'1904and the Treaty of 1907 between France and Siam.”
The Prime Minister of Thailand is using threats. The first one is about the unilateral cancellation of a legal document that has the value of an international treaty. This MOU is nothing less than the implementation of the judgment by the International Court of Justice that said, in 1962, that it considers that “Thailand in 1908‐1909 did accept the map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Vihear in Cambodian territory.” The Court “ feels bound, as a matter of treaty interpretation, to pronounce in favor of the line as mapped in the disputed area.” The Court stipulated that “Thailand is under the obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity in Cambodian territory.”
In a letter sent today to both the Chairman of the UN General Assembly and the Chairman of the UN Security Council, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen wrote that Thailand violates the Court judgment with troops stationing in the Keo Sikkhakiri Svarak pagoda of Cambodia.
The second threat expressed by the Thai Prime Minister is to use military force against Cambodia.
Prime Minister Hun Sen underlined in his letters that Thailand, by doing so, violates two key provisions of the UN Charter that say : art 2.3 : “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” and art 2.4 : “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Prime Minister Hun Sen underlined in his letters that Thailand, by doing so, violates two key provisions of the UN Charter that say : art 2.3 : “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” and art 2.4 : “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Prime Minister Hun Sen requests that all the State Members of the UN and, in particular, of the UN Security Council shall be informed about the Thai threats violating both the UN Charter and the 1962 ICJ judgment.
It’s not the first time that Thailand disowns its signature. In 1952, it violated all the treaties and conventions signed during the French protectorate by sending military forces occupying the Temple and its vicinity. A military occupation that led to the ICJ decision and the evacuation of Thai troops from Cambodian territory. In 1992‐1993, by cooperating with the Khmer rouge troops that were fighting UNTAC personnel and by pushing back border stones inside Cambodian territory, both activities witnessed by UNTAC observers, it violated the Paris Peace Agreement of which Thailand is signatory State, and in particular the “Agreement concerning the sovereignty, the independence, the territorial integrity and inviolability the neutrality and national unity of Cambodia.” In 2008, it violated once again all the international legal instruments on the common border.
What is the value of a Thai signature? How Thai officials do care about the legal documents they used to sign? Are these, as it was said, “only pieces of paper without biding obligations”? Who will remind the Thai Prime Minister that this is the classical language used in the 20 th century by dictators, a language that led to wars and devastations?
Mr. Abhisit seems to ignore that our world is not more the world of nationalist claims. It’s not the world of the past century. It’s a globalized world where, based on legal provisions, one prefers open frontiers, free trade zones, regional stability and cooperation. Does Mr. Abhisit want to return to the past world of nationalism and conflicts full of violations of legal agreements and international law?
Svay Sitha
Secretary of State
Chairman of Press and Quick reaction Unit of the Office of the Council of Ministers
Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of the Royal Government of Cambodia