Angry 'patriots' should study temple ruling more carefully

It makes no sense for Thais to scream and shout about territory lost at the Preah Vihear Temple. Last week’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgement merely confirmed its ruling of half a century earlier.

But nationalist groups here were furious when the ICJ ruled on November 11 that Cambodia had sovereignty over “the whole promontory of Preah Vihear”.

Legally speaking, the judgement made no changes to ownership of territory. It simply clarified what constitutes the “vicinity” of the temple ruins over which Thailand and Cambodia have argued for the past half-century.       

What belonged to Thailand before the ruling still belongs to Thailand, and what belonged to Cambodia remains Cambodian.

In 1962 the court ruled that Preah Vihear was located in Cambodian territory, and thus Thailand was obliged to withdraw its troops from the area. The Thai government reacted by drawing its own boundary line around the temple.

The court said last week that this “line cannot represent the correct interpretation of the territorial scope”. It went on to define the Preah Vihear promontory boundary in accordance with the line used in the French colonial Annex I map that formed the basis of its 1962 ruling.

The promontory boundary as defined by the court clearly places the east, south, southwest and west of the temple vicinity under Cambodian sovereignty. However there is room for debate over the northern boundary, since the ICJ merely said it follows the line of the Annex I map from northeast to southwest. The court gave neither a natural feature on the ground nor coordinates on any map or graphic as a guide to the northern boundary’s precise location.

The ICJ admitted that the boundary shown on the Annex I map is difficult to transpose as a precise location on the ground. But that could not be an excuse for Thailand and Cambodia to avoid full compliance with its ruling. Both countries are obliged to fully implement the judgement “in good faith”. The court insisted that neither party could impose a “unilateral solution”.

The underlying message was that Thailand and Cambodia should cooperate, as good neighbours, and deal with the judgement for their mutual benefit. If read carefully, the ruling offers both parties a winning solution for the territory dispute. Cambodia has not emerged with all the land, and Thailand has not been left empty-handed.

So it is senseless for Thai nationalists to demand that the government not comply with the court, claiming Thailand has lost territory to a ruling that went totally in favour of Cambodia.

As a member of the United Nations and of Asean, and as Cambodia’s neighbour, this country is fully obliged to recognise and comply with the ICJ’s judgement in good faith. Otherwise the decades-old dispute over this religious sanctuary will rumble on and on. 

While relations with Cambodia remain strong, this is an opportune time to heal this historical wound once and for all. It might take time, but after last week’s ruling, a solution is within our reach.