dailykhmerpost ​​​​​​

BANGKOK (AP) – Fighting between Cambodian and Thai soldiers erupted Sunday evening for a third day along a disputed border near an 11th century temple, shattering a shaky cease-fire.

The two sides exchanged mortar and artillery fire across the darkened mountainous border for over two hours. There were no immediate reports of casualties or damage.

"Cambodian forces have fired artillery that have landed close to Thai positions," Gen. Pol Vey, commander of Cambodia's front-line forces, told Deum Ampil Radio, a station close to the government.

The area of fighting was about 3 kilometers from the historic Preah Vihear temple, a U.N. World Heritage Site that belongs to Cambodia under a 1962 World Court ruling disputed by many Thais. There were unconfirmed reports that the fighting was spreading closer to the temple.

The fiercest border clashes in years erupted Friday between troops along the border and a second round of heavy fighting occurred Saturday, despite agreements to halt the clashes. Sporadic artillery fire in those clashes left at least five people dead — one civilian and one soldier from Thailand and one civilian and two soldiers from Cambodia.

Both sides have blamed each other for the fighting, which on Saturday also caused minor damage to the Preah Vihear temple near a strip of disputed land that Thai nationalists have seized on as a domestic political issue.

"Cambodian troops started firing into Thai territory and we fired back," said Thai army spokesman Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd. He said the weaponry used Sunday by the Cambodian side included Soviet-made BM-21 rocket launchers which have a range of at least 12 miles (20 kilometers).

A Cambodian government spokesman, Phay Siphan, accused the Thais of firing first.

"The fighting broke out as Thai forces entered the Cambodian side," he said. "They walked into Cambodian territory and began the fighting."

Sunday's clash started just hours after commanders stationed on both sides of the border met in the afternoon and said they would continue to respect a Saturday cease-fire and pledges not to deploy more troops to the area.

Officials on both sides said some villagers who had fled but then returned to their homes Sunday afternoon were again evacuated.

Tensions between the Southeast Asian nations have risen in recent days because of demonstrations in the Thai capital, Bangkok, demanding that the government oust Cambodians from land near the Preah Vihear temple.

Thailand's Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva called earlier Sunday for a peaceful solution to the border dispute, but warned that Thai soldiers would defend national sovereignty if attacked.

"I insist that the dispute on the border issues must be solved through nonviolent means," Abhisit said in his weekly address to the nation. "Thailand never thought of invading anyone, but if our sovereignty is violated, we have to protect it ultimately."

The Preah Vihear issue was virtually dormant until Cambodia successfully applied in 2008 to UNESCO to have the temple declared a World Heritage Site, an application backed by the government in power in Thailand at the time.

Thai nationalists have argued that the action threatened Thailand's sovereignty, though their protests were seen mainly as a way of rallying criticism to help oust the Thai government. Both countries' leaders, defending their patriotic credentials, then built up military forces at the border.

While a full-blown war is unlikely, nationalist passions are inflamed in both countries, with no clear way to settle the long-standing territorial dispute surrounding the temple, built during a time when Cambodia's Khmer empire ruled over much of Thailand

By Khmerization
7th Marc, 2011
Read The History of the Khmer-Thai Conflict through the eye of a foreigner.

Preah Vihear temple was constructed by the Khmer kings Suryavarman I (1002 -1050) and Suryavarman II (1113 -1150) and was controlled by subsequent Khmer rulers until the late 18th century. It fell under Siam’s (Thailand’s) control around 1794 when Siamese rulers, taking advantage of a weak and fractured Cambodia, annexed Battambang, Sirisophorn, Tonle Ropov, M’lou Prey (parts of present day’s Stung Treng province) provinces and Siem Reap province which administered Preah Vihear temple before Preah Vihear province was created in 1962 (1).

Due to internal feuding and prolonged and protracted internal strife, Cambodia has become so weak in the later part of 18th and 19th centuries that Cambodia’s eastern part of the Mekong River was controlled by Annam (Vietnam) and the western part of the Mekong River was controlled by Siam (Thailand).

The French Protectorate and the War with Siam

Fearing that Cambodia might eventually be totally swallowed by Vietnam to the east and Thailand to the west, King Norodom (Sihanouk’s great grandfather) had invited King Napoleon III of France to establish a protectorate over Cambodia in 1863.

In 1867, the Siamese rulers recognized France’s protectorate over Cambodia, but Siam still maintained control over Battambang, Sirisophorn, Tonle Ropov, M’lou Prey provinces. In 1883, King Norodom had signed a treaty to put Cambodia under the French colony. Since then, France had always wanted to recover Cambodia’s and Laos’ lost provinces from Siam. In 1886, France fought a brief war with Siam when combined French, Cambodian and Laotian troops pushed Siamese troops beyond the left bank of the Mekong River in Laos in an attempt to liberate all Laotian and Cambodian provinces on the western side of the Mekong River, including Cambodia’s Tonle Ropov and M’lu Prey provinces and Laotian Champassak province.

In 1893, France fought another naval war with Siam on the Gulf of Thailand when French naval forces defeated Siamese naval forces and captured Siamese provinces of Trat and Chantaburi and French naval vessels had reached Bangkok through Menam on 8th July 1893 and gave King Chulalongkorn the ultimatum of France’s wish to re-integrate provinces on the left bank of the Mekong River to France control (2). On 29th July 1893, Siamese King Chulalongkorn had accepted the term of France’s ultimatum. On 3rd October 1893, France and Siam signed a treaty to return all Laotian provinces and the Cambodian provinces of Tonle Ropov and M’lou Prey to French control. France did not demand Siam to return Battambang and Siem Reap province, where Preah Vihear temple was situated, to Cambodia yet, but it had put a clause in the treaty to ban Siam from stationing any Thai troops in the provinces.

However, under the provision of article 3 of the 1893 treaty, France has the rights to recover all Laotian and Cambodian provinces annexed by Siam and provided unrestricted French powers to ensure the protection of all Laotian and Cambodian ethnic minority living in those provinces. The article stipulates “about the rights of France to provide protection to Khmers, Annamites (Vietnamese) and Laotians living inside Siam. France has the obligations to provide protection to these people by laws not to be oppressed by Siamese authority”. This clause means that Siam had lost its sovereignty over all Laotian and Cambodian provinces annexed by Siam. Furthermore, it would mean the return of all of these provinces to Laos and Cambodia.

Realising that Siam had been hard-pressed by France, Siamese King Chulalongkorn embarked on a tour to Russia, Germany, England and then France to garnish support and to lobby them to press France to abandon its ambition to recover all annexed Laotian and Cambodian provinces. In France, he asked French President Félix François Faure to cancel the 1893 Treaty. The French president agreed to cancel the 1893 treaty if Siam agreed to return Battambang, Siem Reap and Chantaburi to French control.

The Return of Battambang and Preah Vihear

In 1902, France cancelled the 1893 treaty and renounced its rights to protect all Khmers, Laotians and Vietnamese living in Siam, by only accepting the return of M’lou Prey and Tonle Ropov provinces, which cover only 20,000 km2. This agreement outraged the French public and the French parliament refused to ratify it. In 1904, France had negotiated a treaty and forced Siam to return M’lou Prey and Tonle Ropov to Cambodia. Under a secret clause in this treaty, Siam is required to transfer all police powers to France in Battambang, Siem Reap and Sirisophorn provinces.

In 1906, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau ordered the French Protectorate Authority to enter into a negotiation with Siam for the return of many more Cambodian annexed provinces. The 1907 Franco-Siamese treaty was concluded on 23rd March which required Siam to return Battambang, Siem Reap (Preah Vihear province was still under Siem Reap) and Sirisophorn provinces to Cambodia. The French parliament ratified the treaty 20 days later. The Mixed Franco-Siamese Commission, which was established a few years earlier, began to conduct border surveys to demarcate the Cambodian-Siamese borders and to plant border posts. After the demarcation works were completed, the Franco-Siamese Commission commissioned the topographic maps called the Dangrek Map. The Dangrek Maps (Annex 1) were produced and they put Preah Vihear temple under Cambodian sovereignty. Siam was given 11 copies of the maps and it had accepted the maps in their entirety (3).

The 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty

The 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty only allows the return to Cambodia of the provinces annexed by Siam after 1794. Under the treaty, Siam can retain all other 13 provinces it had annexed before 1794, including Kauk Khan (Sisaket), Surin, Nokor Reach Seima (Korat) , Buriram, Sakeo, Sankeac, Krat (Trat), Chantaburi, Neang Rong (Rayong) and so on, which had been annexed before 1794 (4). Under this treaty, Preah Vihear temple was put under Cambodia’s sovereignty.

The Thai Occupation of Preah Vihear temple and the 1962 ICJ Verdict

In 1954, less than one year after Cambodia gained independence from France and taking advantage of a weak Cambodia, Thailand sent its troops to occupy Preah Vihear temple. After 5 years of unsuccessful negotiations, Cambodia filed a complaint to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in 1959. On 15th June 1962, the ICJ, with the majority votes of 9 to 3, awarded the ownership of Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia. The judgment was accepted by Thailand and the 4.6 sq. km2 so-called “disputed zone” had not been claimed by Thailand for 46 years. The maps commissioned by the Franco-Siamese Mixed Border Commission in 1907 and provided to Thailand in 1908, and were used by the ICJ to reach its verdict in 1962, put the so-called “4.6 sq.km2 disputed zone” squarely under Cambodian sovereignty. With the majority votes of 9 to 3, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has adjudged:

“Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory”.

Thailand was obligated to withdraw all its troops and return all stolen artefacts to Cambodia. And in order to celebrate and to commemorate the ICJ victory over Thailand as well as to prevent future takeover of the temple by Thailand, the Cambodian government had created a new province in 1962 called Preah Vihear province, to honour the temple.

However, on 15th July 2008, one week after Unesco inscribed Preah Vihear temple on 7th July 2008, Thailand sent its troops to re-invade and re-occupy the Preah Vihear surroundings, the temple vicinity, and triggered a border conflict till today.

The so-called 4.6 sq.km2 disputed zone

The 1962 ICJ verdict (5) stated clearly that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw troops from “the Temple, or its vicinity on Cambodian territory.” Maps from the 1907 treaty put the temple and its areas, the so-called 4.6 sq. km2, or the temple’s “vicinity”, claimed by Thailand, inside Cambodia. So, the 4.6 sq. km2 did not exist and the 1962 ICJ verdict was clear: the so-called 4.6 sq. km2 areas or the temple’s “vicinity” currently claimed by Thailand have been judged to belong to Cambodia.

Conclusion

By the 1962 verdict of the ICJ, the 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty and the 1908 map, the 4.6 sq. km2 did not exist and therefore Thailand’s current act of aggression against Cambodia by forcibly occupying the 4.6 sq. km2 zone constitutes an invasion of a sovereign state that could proceed to cause a regional instability. Cambodia, as a member of the international community, should seek international legal remedy one more time to settle the matter once and for all.

References

(1) Battambang during the Times of the Lord Governor, p. 211.
(2) http://khmerization.blogspot.com/2011/02/franco-siam-war-of-1893-over-cambodia.html
(3) https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12de40a91a9412a4&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D3be3c9113b%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12de40a91a9412a4%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26realattid%3Df_fvlot44f1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbSpj69vA-re7UkvtTZFy8esdWxqyg&pli=1
(4) http://khmerization.blogspot.com/2008/09/king-sisowaths-1906-protest-letter-to.html
(5) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ct&case=45&k=46&PHPSESSID=df1449206e4b8593a7f78076e318b471/2008/01/preah-vihear_1961bmp.jpg

    

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is still firm on his opinion that a public referendum should be held before amending the charter, his lawyer and close aide Noppadon Pattama said.

Mr Noppadon said he personally believed that with strong campaigning more than one half of eligible voters would turn out to vote in the referendum, which would consequently reduce conflict in society.

He said the government was still of the opinin that a public referendum and amending the charter in the entirety was the best way out.

Amending the charter section by section would go against promises given to the people before the last election.

Thaksin agreed with the planned public referendum and amendment of the constitution in the entirety because it was the government and Pheu Thai Party's policy, Mr Noppadon said.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said after a meetng of a Pheu Thai committee for public relations and campaigning for a charter referendum that from the results of various opinion polls the party was confident more than one half of eligible voters would turnout to vote.

It was the responsibility for all concerned to explain to the people to make sure they understand that the amendment was actually not aimed at altering Section 309 or helping anyone in particular, he said.