By MR Pridiyathorn Devakula
Published on July 21, 2008
This article is the first part in a series by MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, former deputy prime minister and finance minister, focusing on the troublesome negotiations before, and the potential problems after the listing of the Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site
In 2005, Cambodia submitted a proposal to the World Heritage Committee for Preah Vihear Temple to be listed as a World Heritage site. It was told then to gather more academic details to support its plan. The following year, Phnom Penh applied again, and this time the proposal was included on the World Heritage Committee's agenda for its 31st meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2007.
Thailand lodged a protest before that meeting and proposed to the Cambodians that the two countries submit a joint nomination of the site, reasoning that structures of historical value on the Thai side should be included to make it a "complete" World Heritage site. The Thai proposal was rejected.
Finally, at the Christchurch meeting, the same Cambodian map that triggered the Thai protest was submitted. Worse still for Thailand, much of the information about the temple and the historical details submitted were seen by Bangkok as having been distorted to the extent that structures on the Thai side were not considered part of the temple. In other words, Cambodia said the main temple site, which the World Court ruled it owns, was enough for "temple" status, and that the main site had strong ties with ancient Cambodian communities.
This, Thailand believed, distorted many historical facts. For example, it was claimed that the stairs that were laid down from the temple to the Thai side were built later, and therefore should not be considered an original part of the temple. It was said that the original stairs were the narrow and broken ones built on the eastern side from Cambodian territory. From the Thai point of view, it is unlikely that these narrower stairs were intended to serve as the main entrance to the temple.
The 159-step main staircase is located north of the Hindu temple and led to ancient communities north of the site where it is believed that local residents helped take care of the temple. Beyond those stairs on the Thai side some other structures are situated, including a pond that could have been used by ancient local villagers. Those structures and the temple, according to Thailand, are obviously architectural elements of the same period, albeit when Khmer King Suryavarman the First (1002-1050) built Preah Vihear. Cambodia insists the pond was a natural water source and Phnom Penh made no mention of any ancient locals on Thai soil.
The debate over such differences was inconclusive and both countries were advised to cooperate and Cambodia was told to find a way to gain the support of Thailand in time for the next World Heritage Committee meeting, which was held earlier this month in Quebec.
On August 15-17, 2007, a Thai delegation to Cambodia informed Phnom Penh that Thailand was willing to cooperate, but insisted that Bangkok's reservations concerning the historical value of the structures on the Thai side be considered. The Thai stance was that a joint nomination should be explored and that both countries should find a way to register all related structures. Cambodia refused.
Late last year, Cambodia took officials from the International Council on Monuments and Sites, who came from four countries, on a tour of the temple so that they could provide their academic opinions to the World Heritage Committee.
Rather than taking them up the main stairs to the temple on the Thai side, the officials, who had come from the US, France, Belgium and India, were flown in by helicopter.
In January of this year, Cambodia sought support from many countries, including France, the US, Belgium, India, China and Japan, to assist in the preparation of Phnom Penh's progress report. Two Thai delegates who joined in the preparations found out that the Cambodian map still encroached on the Thai border and Cambodia did not want Thailand to be actively involved in the management of overlapping zones. (Thailand was only allowed to submit management plans for the Thai side, whereas the foreign experts and Cambodian officials took charge of the plans for the overlapping areas.)
In addition to that, Cambodia's doubtful historical data was virtually endorsed by foreign academics. The French experts, in particular, claimed that the Preah Vihear Temple plan was designed according to Buddhist geometry that involved ancient structures down below on Cambodian soil. The French experts' imagination saw Preah Vihear and the surrounding areas as something resembling the five-hilltop Khao Pra Sumane. However, in its latest document, Cambodia changed that to "three" hilltops that symbolised three most important Hindu Gods.
The Thai party was not into furthering these "imaginings" and thought that no matter what picture one conjured by watching the Dongrak mountain range from the Cambodian side, there was only one clear motive: to devalue the significance of any attachment the Thai side had to the temple.
Despite strong Thai protests, Bangkok's delegation was outnumbered. It subsequently ended its participation, and on January 14 the Thai ambassador to Cambodia was assigned to inform the international party working on the progress report of the walkout and Thailand's objection to the use of a map that encroached on Thai territory.
Published on July 21, 2008
This article is the first part in a series by MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, former deputy prime minister and finance minister, focusing on the troublesome negotiations before, and the potential problems after the listing of the Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site
In 2005, Cambodia submitted a proposal to the World Heritage Committee for Preah Vihear Temple to be listed as a World Heritage site. It was told then to gather more academic details to support its plan. The following year, Phnom Penh applied again, and this time the proposal was included on the World Heritage Committee's agenda for its 31st meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2007.
Thailand lodged a protest before that meeting and proposed to the Cambodians that the two countries submit a joint nomination of the site, reasoning that structures of historical value on the Thai side should be included to make it a "complete" World Heritage site. The Thai proposal was rejected.
Finally, at the Christchurch meeting, the same Cambodian map that triggered the Thai protest was submitted. Worse still for Thailand, much of the information about the temple and the historical details submitted were seen by Bangkok as having been distorted to the extent that structures on the Thai side were not considered part of the temple. In other words, Cambodia said the main temple site, which the World Court ruled it owns, was enough for "temple" status, and that the main site had strong ties with ancient Cambodian communities.
This, Thailand believed, distorted many historical facts. For example, it was claimed that the stairs that were laid down from the temple to the Thai side were built later, and therefore should not be considered an original part of the temple. It was said that the original stairs were the narrow and broken ones built on the eastern side from Cambodian territory. From the Thai point of view, it is unlikely that these narrower stairs were intended to serve as the main entrance to the temple.
The 159-step main staircase is located north of the Hindu temple and led to ancient communities north of the site where it is believed that local residents helped take care of the temple. Beyond those stairs on the Thai side some other structures are situated, including a pond that could have been used by ancient local villagers. Those structures and the temple, according to Thailand, are obviously architectural elements of the same period, albeit when Khmer King Suryavarman the First (1002-1050) built Preah Vihear. Cambodia insists the pond was a natural water source and Phnom Penh made no mention of any ancient locals on Thai soil.
The debate over such differences was inconclusive and both countries were advised to cooperate and Cambodia was told to find a way to gain the support of Thailand in time for the next World Heritage Committee meeting, which was held earlier this month in Quebec.
On August 15-17, 2007, a Thai delegation to Cambodia informed Phnom Penh that Thailand was willing to cooperate, but insisted that Bangkok's reservations concerning the historical value of the structures on the Thai side be considered. The Thai stance was that a joint nomination should be explored and that both countries should find a way to register all related structures. Cambodia refused.
Late last year, Cambodia took officials from the International Council on Monuments and Sites, who came from four countries, on a tour of the temple so that they could provide their academic opinions to the World Heritage Committee.
Rather than taking them up the main stairs to the temple on the Thai side, the officials, who had come from the US, France, Belgium and India, were flown in by helicopter.
In January of this year, Cambodia sought support from many countries, including France, the US, Belgium, India, China and Japan, to assist in the preparation of Phnom Penh's progress report. Two Thai delegates who joined in the preparations found out that the Cambodian map still encroached on the Thai border and Cambodia did not want Thailand to be actively involved in the management of overlapping zones. (Thailand was only allowed to submit management plans for the Thai side, whereas the foreign experts and Cambodian officials took charge of the plans for the overlapping areas.)
In addition to that, Cambodia's doubtful historical data was virtually endorsed by foreign academics. The French experts, in particular, claimed that the Preah Vihear Temple plan was designed according to Buddhist geometry that involved ancient structures down below on Cambodian soil. The French experts' imagination saw Preah Vihear and the surrounding areas as something resembling the five-hilltop Khao Pra Sumane. However, in its latest document, Cambodia changed that to "three" hilltops that symbolised three most important Hindu Gods.
The Thai party was not into furthering these "imaginings" and thought that no matter what picture one conjured by watching the Dongrak mountain range from the Cambodian side, there was only one clear motive: to devalue the significance of any attachment the Thai side had to the temple.
Despite strong Thai protests, Bangkok's delegation was outnumbered. It subsequently ended its participation, and on January 14 the Thai ambassador to Cambodia was assigned to inform the international party working on the progress report of the walkout and Thailand's objection to the use of a map that encroached on Thai territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment