Thailand calls for impartial review of alleged military use at Preah Vihear

ACM Prapas Sornchaidee, director of the Joint Information Centre on the Thailand-Cambodia Situation (JIC), said on Saturday (September 12) that Thailand had evidence indicating Cambodian forces had used the area around the Preah Vihear temple as a military position.

He stressed that Thailand’s position was based on the principle that using a World Heritage site for military purposes was a significant issue under international law.

The evidence presented by the Thai side included aerial images, coordinates and photographs of weapons allegedly located in the area, including anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), small arms and positions for anti-aircraft weapons.

Prapas said Thailand wanted the material to be examined impartially rather than conclusions being drawn solely from allegations made by either side.

He reiterated that Thailand had information indicating military activity in the area, as well as allegations requiring investigation that weapons had been fired from there at Thai forces.

Thailand was prepared to provide coordinates, times, images and other supporting information so the matter could be assessed on the basis of evidence, he added.

Protection does not disappear automatically

Asked whether Preah Vihear would automatically lose its protected status if Cambodian troops used the site as a military base, Prapas said the law was more complex and restrictive than that.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict requires parties to refrain from using cultural property and its immediate surroundings in ways likely to expose it to destruction or damage during hostilities, subject to narrowly defined military-necessity exceptions.

Asked whether Thailand would have the right to respond if weapons were fired from the World Heritage area, Prapas said any action would have to be assessed according to the facts and applicable law at the time.

The mere presence of troops or weapons would not automatically permit an attack, he stressed.

Under rules protecting cultural property, authorities would have to consider whether the location had become a military objective, whether feasible alternatives existed and what precautions could be taken to minimise damage to cultural heritage.

Those principles are set out more specifically in the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention, including provisions on imperative military necessity and precautions in attack.

Responsibility must be assessed from full sequence of events

Asked who should be held responsible for any damage to the temple, Prapas said the entire sequence of events had to be examined.

Investigators would need to establish who brought troops and weapons into the area, who fired from which location and when, and what the responding side was targeting before responsibility could be assessed fairly.

He argued that any examination should not begin only with images of damage after the event.

Thailand has previously called for an impartial review of evidence from all sides concerning allegations surrounding military activity and damage at Preah Vihear.

Prapas said World Heritage sites should be places of peace rather than tools of warfare.

All sides had a responsibility not to use cultural heritage for military purposes and not to attack cultural property unless the conditions prescribed by international law were met, he added.

Thailand was seeking the same standard for all parties: verification of the facts, protection of human life and protection of humanity’s cultural heritage.

“World Heritage sites should not be used as military bases or as shields for military operations,” Prapas said.

“If there are allegations that weapons were fired from such an area, the sequence of events should be examined — who fired, from where, when and at what target. Thailand is ready for the facts to be examined according to international standards.”