Conflict over Preah Vihear should be kept within the ICJ
As Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen put it, Thailand and Cambodia are like tongue and teeth; one cannot be removed from the other. "Whatever the court's decision will be, Cambodia and Thailand will not become enemies to each other," he said.
That is what the Cambodian leader told his followers – but such a statement could also bring people in both countries, notably in Bangkok, to realise that two brotherly neighbours could easily clash as they are so close to each other. Such conflict, however, would happen only over a short period; most of the time they live and work together peacefully and smoothly.
Unfortunately, history – notably that written by Thai politicians – puts only the conflict on the record.
Conflict over the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear has marred relations between Thailand and Cambodia for a long time. In its long history, the temple has lived peacefully – claiming the attention of people in the two countries only when it is the centre of dispute. Most conflict over the temple has been motivated by politics, either in Thailand or in Cambodia.
The most recent clash over the temple was driven mostly by disputes within Thai politics. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s ruling 50 years ago was supposed to give a peaceful settlement to the dispute, but it could not, as Thai politicians wanted to use it for domestic consumption.
In fact, Cambodia did not need to request the court to interpret the 1962 judgement until Thailand raised an objection to its proposal to list the temple as a World Heritage site.
The difference over the plot of land adjacent to the temple, which Cambodia wanted to take as a buffer zone for the World Heritage inscription, was settled before the declaration of the Preah Vihear’s World Heritage status in 2008. The land in the so-called disputed area of 4.6 square kilometres, mostly west and south of the temple, was not included in the buffer zone at the beginning. The World Heritage Committee’s resolution had already made it clear the land in question would not be included before settlement of the boundary dispute between the two countries.
In 2009 and 2010, the government, under the current opposition, employed all means to oppose a management plan submitted by Cambodia to World Heritage officials, although Thailand then had nothing to do with the committee.
Such a move developed into a military clash in February 2011 before the submission of a request by Phnom Penh for the 1962 judgement interpretation. Cambodia wanted the court to say where exactly is the “vicinity” of the temple in accordance with the previous judgement.
The court hearing last week in The Hague proceeded in a good manner and normal relations between Thailand and Cambodia. Agents and counsels of both sides, of course, mentioned the World Heritage listing of Preah Vihear to give the judges sufficient background to the case. The court trial in fact has nothing to do with the status and management of the World Heritage site.
Unbelievably, Thai opposition groups told the government to do as it did in the past – to continue opposing the management of Preah Vihear until the court made its judgement. Many politicians in the opposition camp told the government to register an objection during the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee, to be held in Phnom Penh and Siem Reap on June 16-25.
In fact, there was no issue concerning Preah Vihear on the agenda. Normally, the committee simply receives a report on all World Heritage sites’ management – work that mostly involves restoration and rehabilitation of the site.
Rational people, but also some politicians, realised that the court’s battle over the vicinity of Preah Vihear was minor compared to relations between the two countries. Conflict should be contained to the court under a legal framework and no one should add more or expand it to jeopardise the big picture.
