Opponents
of the Samak government find a new cause in a border dispute with
Cambodia
 The
censure debate against Thailand’s ruling Samak Sundaravej
administration is increasingly focused on a red herring -- the
government’s support for Cambodia’s application for World
Heritage status for a ninth-century temple at the centre of a long
standing border dispute.
While
the Samak government can be accused of many sins, the controversy
over the Preah Vihear temple is relatively minor in comparison.
However, in intensely nationalist Thailand any perceived threat
against national sovereignty and territorial integrity is sure to
provoke an outcry, and opposition parties out to oust the Samak
government have seized on the temple issue as yet another way to add
to the pressure.
Samak’s
government is already in the hot seat due to allegations of
corruption, an unnecessary attempt to amend the constitution, claims
of proxy politics and especially its inability to deal with rising
energy costs, inflation and economic issues, and particularly its
perceived closeness to the opposition’s bête noire, the
ousted former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.
Dissatisfaction
with the government has led to more than a month of street
demonstrations in Bangkok organized by the People’s Alliance
for Democracy, which was instrumental in Thaksin’s ouster by
the military in September of 2006. The current demonstrations begun
on 25 May, were initially organized to protest proposed amendments to
the constitution that were deemed as unnecessary and aimed only at
allowing the reinstatement of banned politicians of Thaksin’s
Thai Rak Thai party.
The
push for constitutional amendments was eventually dropped by Samak’s
People Power Party-led coalition government, but the street protests
continued, escalating their demands to the ouster of the Samak
regime. On June 20, the demonstrators broke through police barriers
to surround Government House, the seat of the Thai government. They
have remained there, setting up makeshift tents and vowing to stay
until Samak and his cabinet step down.
Rising
fuel and food costs have resulted in other protests across the
country by farmers, truckers and others that have added weight to the
PAD protests. However, as of yet, the PAD has received very little
support from the middle class, especially in Bangkok. The middle
class, who did come out in large numbers during the anti-Thaksin
demonstrations, are deemed to be essential for the successful removal
of the government, such as what happened to the Chavalit Yongchaiyudh
government in 1997 following the Asian financial crisis of the same
year.
The
demonstrators have also received little hint of sympathy from the
military or the royal family, also essential to their success. Samak
appears to have come to some kind of an agreement with Army commander
General Anupong Paochinda, who would prefer not to have to call the
army out of its barracks. Samak also has strong ties to the royal
palace, where his family has worked for generations.
In
a nationally televised meeting between Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej,
Prime Minister Samak and Samak’s deputies on 19 June, the King
appeared to give tacit approval to Samak’s administration.
King Bhumibol told Samak, “I expect that you will do what you
have promised and when you can do that, you will be satisfied.”
The monarch went on to say, “With that satisfaction the
country will survive. I ask you to do good in everything, both in
government work and other work, so that our country can carry on and
the people will be pleased.” That was two days after the
cabinet had ratified the Cambodian temple pact.
Samak,
however, played into the opposition’s hands when he allowed
Noppadon to sign the joint communiqué on the temple. The
opposition Democrats and the PAD are aware that the censure debate is
unlikely to unseat Samak’s administration without a break in
his coalition government. They are also aware that the protests do
not yet have the numbers or the crucial support of the middle
classes, the military or the royal court to bring about the
government’s downfall. By stirring up nationalist sentiment
and painting Samak and Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama and by
extension their government, as selling out Thailand to Cambodia, the
opposition hoped to sway more people over to its side.
The
day after the cabinet endorsed the Joint Communiqué, 18 June,
the PAD latched onto the deal to whip up nationalist fervor,
something that in ultra-nationalist Thailand is sure to win
supporters. The opposition Democrat Party followed suite in the
censure debate and made the issue a central component of their attack
on the Samak government.
The
Preah Vihear Hindu temple itself was built between the ninth and 12th
centuries. The temple grounds lie astride the Thai-Cambodian border
with the temple itself on the Cambodian side, but with the approach
and a ceremonial pool on the Thai side. A high, steep cliff on the
Cambodian side makes access very difficult making the only entrance
through Thailand.
The
area has long been contested by the Thai and Cambodian governments.
After French colonial troops pulled out of Indochina in 1954, the
Thai army occupied the site. In 1959, the Cambodian government
protested the Thai presence and took the case to the World Court,
whose 1962 decision said that the temple belonged to Cambodia. The
decision was based on a map drawn up by French colonial authorities
in 1907 as a result of a joint Thai-French border commission.
The
map that showed Preah Vihear temple on the Cambodian side of the
border was sent to the Thai government at the time. The World Court
cited the Thai government’s lack of objection to the map in the
intervening 50 years as proof of their acceptance of the border
demarcation. Thailand, while abiding by the court’s decision,
claimed it reserved the right to contest the issue. The court’s
decision did not, however, decide ownership of a further 4.6
kilometers of border to the west and north of the temple which remain
in dispute.
The
issue of ownership of the temple and the disputed border areas around
it came to a head again in 2007 when the Cambodian government put
forward the site to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization for World Heritage status. The attempt
resulted in protests from Thailand, especially since the proposal
included not only the temple but the 4.6 kilometers of disputed
territory. The military-backed government of Surayudh Chulanont, in
an attempt to diffuse any possible tensions over the area, suggested
a joint application, but this was rejected by the Cambodian
government.
Cambodia
refiled their application this year and again courted the Thai
government for its approval. This time Samak’s government
decided to support the Cambodian push for UNESCO registration. After
negotiations in Phnom Penh a joint communiqué endorsing
Cambodia’s application was signed by Noppadon and Cambodian
Deputy Prime Minister Sok An and endorsed by the Thai Cabinet on June
17. UNESCO is due to consider the application at a meeting in Quebec
on 2-10 July.
Democrat
Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva invoked nationalist feelings in the
parliament by telling lawmakers, “I hope that all Thai MPs will
show distruct of the prime minister and the foreign minister. And I
ask all Thai MPs to be open minded and listen to the opposition’s
information, so that they will realize what to do next.” The
loss of any territory is seen by most Thais as a grave affront to
national pride. In recent years there have been several shooting
matches between the Thai and Burmese armies over boundary disputes
along Thailand’s northern border. A brief border war was
fought with Laos in 1987-88 over a boundary dispute in the northeast.
Preah
Vihear temple, however, seems to be a non-issue. Samak certainly
seems to think so. During Monday’s censure debate he cited
Article 61 of the World Court’s regulations which states that,
“No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten
years from the date of judgment.” He further argued that
Thailand already lost the case in 1962 and it is time that Thais come
to terms with it. Samak and Noppadon have also claimed that both the
Army and the Survey Department have looked at the Cambodian map,
compared it to their own maps, and have agreed that the deal did not
infringe on Thai sovereignty. The army has yet to make a public
statement on the issue.
This
is something Thais are obviously not yet ready to do. Over 300
distinguished Thais, including several senators, artists and
academics, submitted a letter of protest to UNESCO over the decision
on 24 June. A petition was also filed with the Administrative Court
by opponents of the deal on the same day. The Administrative Court
was slated to hold a hearing yesterday to consider an injunction
against the cabinet’s decision.
The
opposition claims the decision should have been put before parliament
first since it could be deemed an international treaty. Article 190
of the constitution calls for treaties to be deliberated in
parliament before being agreed to. The opposition alleges that Samak
and Noppadon bypassed parliament and the Thai people in agreeing to a
deal that could affect national sovereignty.
At
issue for some is why did the Samak government rush into the deal and
not press for a joint application like the previous government? A
joint application, it is reasoned by some Thai academics and
politicians, would be advantageous to both sides and defuse land
disputes around the temple. Samak and Noppadon argue that the only
thing they have agreed to is that the temple is owned by Cambodia and
that no Thai land has been given up. Instead they have called for a
buffer zone be created out of the disputed 4.6 kilometers around the
temple.
The
PAD says they have the answer. They allege that the temple was
“sold” to Cambodia in exchange for gas deals in the
recently found gas fields off Cambodia’s coast and for a deal
to construct a casino on Koh Kong Island adjacent to Thailand’s
eastern Trat province. Although no real concrete evidence has been
presented to back up these claims, the lack of trust in the Samak
government is enough for most people to believe it is possible.
Rather
than argue about more relevant issues, like the economy, inflation,
rising fuel prices, the continuing insurgency in the South and
allegations of the PPP government functioning as a proxy for
Thaksin’s banned Thai Rak Thai, all of which the government has
done almost nothing about, the opposition and the PAD have resorted
to stoking the fires of nationalism over an ancient Khmer temple
whose ownership was decided 46 years ago and is perched on about
seven kilometers of land that has almost no relevance to the lives of
the majority of Thais besides those who run tours to the temple or
own shops selling food, drink and souvenirs in the area. The ploy is
unlikely to work.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Coal surge is unabated, raising environmental concerns
Government objective: Hear no evil, speak no evil
Nobody blames the Khmers for their attempt to inscribe the Temple on the World Heritage list. If I were a Khmer, I would praise the Cambodian Government for it.
However, since I am a Thai (of 100% Chinese bloodline), China is my ancestral country while Thailand is my mother land. I, along with other fellow Thais, am obliged to protect Thailand's sovereignty.