Salvaging 4.6sq km area 'a victory'

THE EXACT coverage of the Preah Vihear Temple’s promontory might matter for many nationalists but it pales next to the 4.6-square-kilometre area claimed by Thailand that was fortunately not included in the definition of the temple’s “vicinity” under Cambodian control by the World Court on Monday.
Patriotic groups that have been rallying for weeks against the government blamed it for letting the country cede territory as the International Court of Justice did not accept that the demarcation line as determined by a Thai cabinet resolution in 1962 represented the correct interpretation for Preah Vihear’s vicinity.
The big debate in Thailand now is how big is the area that Thailand has to surrender, while Cambodia, according to its Foreign Minister Hor Namhong, is in no rush to measure it.
Back in 1962, the same court awarded sovereignty over Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia and ordered Thailand to withdraw its troops and personnel from the temple and its vicinity.
The Thai government in 1962 drew a quadrangle of several square kilometres framing the temple to determine the vicinity. For Thai nationalists, anything far beyond this limit could be regarded as territory lost and somebody needs to be held accountable.
Virachai Plasai, the Thai ambassador to The Hague, said yesterday that the debate did not reflect the real battle in court.
“We should look at what Cambodia requested to the court and compare that to how the court ruled,” he said.
Cambodia’s claim that the disputed area of 4.6 square kilometres is within the vicinity of the temple was thrown out, he said.
The court limited its ruling to the promontory of Preah Vihear. What Cambodia got, according to the judgement, is sovereignty over the whole promontory.
To define the promontory, the court used the Annex I map and natural geographic features of the area.
“While the Annex I map deals with a part of the frontier region of more than 100 kilometres in extent, the court made clear that it had to pronounce upon only the disputed area,” according to the court, adding that “the disputed area is a small one”.
In Cambodia’s favour, the court rejected the 1962 Thai cabinet resolution line.
In Thailand’s favour, “the court did not address the issue of sovereignty over Phnom Trap, which is known in Thai as Phu Makua, or any area beyond the limits of the promontory of Preah Vihear”, he said.
Cambodia had argued that Phnom Trap should also be part of Preah Vihear’s vicinity.
As per the court ruling, Thailand retains its right to lay claim to Phnom Trap and other areas outside the Preah Vihear region although they might appear to be on the Cambodian side according to the Annex I map.
Even though the Preah Vihear promontory was described in the 2013 judgement according to its general features, it was not easy to pinpoint the real boundaries, according to legal and cartography experts at the Foreign Ministry.
The court did not attach a map or graphic to indicate the limits of the Preah Vihear promontory. Both sides might need time to deal with it, they said. The court gave no time frame for compliance.
Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul and his Cambodia counterpart Hor Namhong said the |two countries needed to come toge-|ther to observe the court judgement |fully through many diplomatic channels including the joint boundary committee.
Meanwhile, opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, speaking during a joint Parliament session discussing the Preah Vihear issue yesterday, said the ICJ |verdict had resulted in Thailand losing unspecified territory and advised Yingluck not to comply with the ruling just yet.
In response, Yingluck said she had never committed publicly to unconditionally complying with the ICJ ruling, and that she would act upon the issue relying on approval by Parliament based on requirements under the Constitution’s Article 190.
Yesterday’s session was held to discuss the ICJ ruling, which has puzzled the Thai public over whether Thailand had suffered additional loss of territory or sovereignty.
Abhisit highlighted the term promontory cited in the final ICJ ruling, saying it needed to be verified. He called on Yingluck to seek clarification on this unclear definition and respond properly to a call by the Cambodian government asking Thailand to withdraw all troops from the Preah Vihear temple and adjacent areas still in question.