TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
ICJ will not bring peace, but ASEAN will
Cambodia shocked Thailand recently, after owning the Preah Vihear temple for 49 years
Change Size
C
ambodia shocked Thailand recently, after owning the Preah Vihear temple for 49 years. On April 28, 2011, Cambodia submitted a request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an interpretation of the Court’s judgment from June 15, 1962. After a month, the ICJ began hearings at the Hague on May 30-31, 2011.
“Only the clarification of the verdict on June 15 from the ICJ can end the border dispute. The border conflict does not end with a ceasefire or the third-party observers, which can only help ease the tense situation for awaiting the border resolution,” Cambodian PM Hun Sen said at a graduation ceremony at the Royal University of Phnom Penh on Feb. 22, 2011.
“It’s impossible for the joint management plan for Preah Vihear temple with Thailand [to work],” Hun Sen reiterated recently.
Will the ICJ’s clarification bring peace and end the current Thai-Cambodian conflict permanently? Will the ICJ’s decision be good for ASEAN, as well?
Cambodia brought forth a legal petition to the ICJ merely to find legal justification to urge Thailand to withdraw its military from the sites, to ban all Thai military activities at Preah Vihear’s border and to stop acts that can be categorized by Cambodia as intervention.
To counter this, there are three basic arguments for Thailand that have been made against Cambodia, as argued by the head of the Thai delegation at the ICJ.
As Prof. Alain Pellet said, “Thailand believed the Temple case of 1962 was not related to the issue of the boundary line — and since Thailand had duly complied with the ICJ judgment, there would be no issue requiring interpretation.”
Furthermore, Prof. James Crawford said, “[The] ICJ had no jurisdiction and authority to make additional decisions for Cambodia, as the case was outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.” Prof. Donald M. McRae further added that Cambodia’s request for indication of provisional measures “did not satisfy the court’s criteria.
The ICJ had no urgency or imminence to justify the demand of Cambodia. Cambodia’s request was unbalanced and highlighted progress made on the ground, including on the issue of dispatching an Indonesian Observers Team to the Thai side of the border.”
Starting from those contrasting illustrations, the ICJ’s judgement will not be easily accepted or automatically put peace in place. In the next 45 days — around July 15, 2011, as promised, the ICJ will have an answer. Thai-Cambodian relations, in turn, will not be the same again, with the existing conflict prevailing and no immediate end in sight.
Whatever the ICJ’s statement, one of the conflicting parties will not be in favor nor want to comply. For example, no one will withdraw the soldiers from the borders as it will eliminate their own respective sovereignty.
The Thai-Cambodian dispute is at stand-still, and disagreement will continue. Peace is again at stake, but hopefully the ceasefire can still be controlled at the border.
As long as Thailand and Cambodia restrict their dispute to political parameters, they have a right to settle the issue at hand. However, when a war is declared, endangering the civil society and the stabilization of the Southeast Asian region, ASEAN has the right to find a solution. Indonesia, as the ASEAN 2011 chairman, did. Even the UNSC mandated ASEAN to find immediate political mechanisms to mediate the conflict through establishing a workable ceasefire.
The question is, why did Cambodia undergo a trilateral negotiation with Thailand and Indonesia on May 9, 2011, in Jakarta, and then, a week before the 2011 ASEAN summit, bring the case before the ICJ? Jakarta’s package solution from May 9, 2011, which had been agreed upon by Thailand and Cambodia, was the most realistic workable solution.
When Cambodia decided to bring the case before the ICJ, it ensured that peace would not be established immediately. Even in the case of no-compliance, the UNSC, if necessary, can send a peacekeeping mission to the Thai-Cambodian border during conflict.
As members of the ASEAN family — who expects peace — it is disappointing to see how Thailand and Cambodia irresponsibly and deliberately disregarded their previous commitment to implementing Jakarta’s May 9, 2011, package solution.
This is the clearest example of a broken commitment amid the ASEAN community-building process. The way that Thailand and Cambodia heve dealt with their border dispute is disgraceful.
It is more than a negative political lesson that is being learned and witnessed by our fathers, children and the younger ASEAN generation. The right to peace, security and stability in the Southeast Asian region is our ultimate goal for the future, not the past.
ASEAN’s sacred mission of achieving peace, stability and prosperity must be built and strengthened by our leaders’ true commitment and honesty — not by their empty promises.
The writer is an Indonesian diplomat. The opinions expressed are personal.
_____________________
Letter to the editor: Response from Thai Embassy
The Jakarta Post | Fri, 07/01/2011 8:00 AM | Opinion
Ple Priatna’s article (“ICJ will not bring peace, but ASEAN will”,
published June 19) made a number of sweeping statements that require
further elaboration.
First, Thailand has never disregarded its
commitment to implement the package solution that was discussed in
Jakarta between the foreign ministers of Thailand, Cambodia and
Indonesia. Thailand had always made it clear to Cambodia and Indonesia
that the dispatch of the Indonesian Observers Team (IOT) would only
proceed once Cambodia withdrew its troops from the Temple of Phra Viharn
and Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda and surrounding areas.
This is
important because its troops there in violation of international
conventions on the protection of cultural properties as well as the 2000
memorandum of understanding on the Survey and Demarcation of Land
Boundaries between Thailand and Cambodia. The aforementioned has long
been Thailand’s position and was not just raised during recent
discussions. Indeed, Thailand has communicated this position at least 13
times to various parties on different occasions.
Second, there
is no reason for Thailand to prolong or escalate a conflict that would
not only put Thai civilians living along the border at harm but also
jeopardize what Thailand has long been working for in advancing ASEAN on
its road toward becoming an ASEAN Community, and promoting relations
with Cambodia, with whom we are a major trading partner and investor.
Indeed,
Thailand has always sought to promote the nation-building process in
Cambodia, pursuing various forms of cooperation with its government and
people.
Finally, it must be reiterated that Thailand has always
been sincere in its commitment to contain the situation and address it
peacefully with Cambodia through dialogues and negotiations. Toward this
end, we have embraced the facilitating role conducted by Indonesia as
the ASEAN Chair. For example, it was in fact the initiative of Thailand
to invite the IOT to the Thai side of the border — a position which was
conveyed at the Informal ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting in Jakarta
since Feb. 22.
It is therefore disappointing to see Cambodia
bypass ASEAN first by referring the border issue to the United Nations
Security Council in February and subsequently to the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) in April, much to the detriment of ASEAN’s
credibility. Mr. Priatna was right in questioning Cambodia’s motives in
this regard.
Thanatip Upatising
Ambassador of Thailand to indonesia
Jakarta
