Jump to content

Meerkat

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Meerkat

  1. We shouldnt forget that it was Noppadol who signed the agreement that led to this situation, and it seems with cabinet backing although it has never been expained why the UN said it had been signed on May 22 and not June 18 after a cabinet meeting as claimed by the Thai government.

    It has been explained, and I posted as such with a link when you brought up the question before. In a nutshell, the May signing was marked "Subject to Cabinet Approval". The UNESCO chap (Saeffer?) referred to the incorrect document and has now said as such.

    Without the signing there would have been no protest, no border dispute escalation etc. It would have been easier for the government to just continue the long trend through many governments of calling for joint approach. Then again if one wanted to be cynical one could claim the busines interests of certain people necessitated a change in approach. Just saying like....

    This ignores two inescapable facts regarding the difference of this year's listing as compared to previous ones.

    Firstly, the listing application was going to go ahead anyway, with or without Thailand's support. That the junta had publicly stated last year that Cambodia could go for a unilateral listing with Thai support only puts the application even more in Cambodia's favour (regardless of whether the junta were being sincere or not). That it happened on the PPP's watch is nothing more than bad timing - the application would have gone in regardless of who was in power.

    Secondly, once Cambodia had refused a joint listing and changed the scope of the listing this year to only include territory within the 1962 ICJ ruling, rather than it's original broader one (that included disputed areas), Thailand didn't have a legal leg (territorially speaking) to stand on to oppose the deal. They could hardly object to a foreign nation applying to list its own (internationally accepted) soil could they? In fact given that the UNESCO charter specifically includes a clause to the effect that listing in no way undermines a nation's rights to sovereignty, one could argue that even if the listing had included disputed territory, it wouldn't have stopped the WHC approving the larger map anyway.

    Given these two crucial differences in the application compared to previous ones (along with of course Cambodia's unceasing lobbying of WHC members over the years), it is hardly stretching the boundaries of credibility to suggest that they were going to get the listing approved this year come hel_l or high water (which of course they did, in spite of the last minute objections of Thailand).

    So what was the (or indeed any) government to do? Continue to argue against listing even if futile, as Plus has suggested, or try and get an agreement which at least gives Thailand something out of a bad deal? The communique did that, although it was appallingly presented and as we now know unconstitutional, but now it's had to be withdrawn anyway Thailand has lost a lot more (both in reality and in "face") than it would have otherwise. There was always going to be a certain amount of unhappiness with any listing, but it was a combination of Noppadom's PR ineptitude, the MFA's obvious misunderstanding of the new constitution, and the rabid antics of the PAD and to an extent the Dems who have converted what should have been the win-win situation that the junta foresaw last year into the massive lose-lose situation that we have now.

    Ironically the best thing for all involved now would be for the communique to go through parliament properly and be reinstated (which might require some tweaking). This would allow Thailand and Cambodia to co-manage the site and would rid the need of the other seven nations' involvement that the WHC has recommended (and which in theory may be seen as ceding sovereign rights). It's finally time for a bit of common-sense on the issue but I'm not holding my breath.

  2. Only one reference to MPG.....I have an '06 Ford Escape, my friend has a Fortuner. Both are nice in their own way. The Toyota is bigger which is nice when a passenger but I rather like the nimbleness of my Escape when driving.

    My friend says he only gets about 9 mpg. I get 21 mpg. This would be a concern given the recent prices of fuel.

    9mpg in a Fortuner? Wow, is that the petrol or diesel version? I've had my diesel one for about three years now and average around 32mpg (or around 27 per US gallon) with a mixture of urban and ex-urban driving. You sure you're not getting the units mixed up? I could understand around 9km/l with urban driving (but that's still around 25mpg/21mp US g).

  3. This "building Cambodia's road with Thai taxpayers money" canard keeps coming up, so let's have a look at a few facts.

    The road improvement was an ASEAN initiative (part of ASEAN Highway 123 - the "Southern Economic Corridor"), and that initiative itself is part of the UN Asian Highway Project, founded in 1959, but which only started to really gain traction after 1999. The road was not just an isolated Thai-Cambodia project.

    Funding for the ASEAN roads in poorer countries comes in the form of soft loans or grants from either neighbouring countries or supranationals (institutions like the Asian Development Bank). In Cambodia's case it has received funding for infrastructure projects from various countries in the region, a comprehensive list is here. The aid from Thailand in that case was mostly as a soft loan (300m grant, 870m baht loan), so the whole "1 billion baht giveaway" is not strictly true. It is hardly surprising either that funding for this stretch of road came from Thailand - ASEAN highlights improved transportation links for Thai exports from an improved Route 123. In the list you can also see for instance that Vietnam is providing aid for a stretch of road that similarly goes from Cambodia to the Viet border. Perhaps they've got a casino at the end of that one too...

    By the way one of the final pieces of legislation of the Surayud junta in January was for the recommendation for - what a coincidence - another chunk of aid (USD 41m or around THB 1.3bn) for yet another road in Cambodia to link it to the Thai border. No doubt there'll be a military casino at the end of that one. Hmm...or maybe that's just a part of the ASEAN "East-West Economic Corridor" instead.

    I don't discount that Thaksin and pals may have been involved in various felonies, but to automatically assume that Thai taxpayers have been used solely for his benefit in this case (especially in light of the context above) is tinfoil hat territory. I guess though that if you repeat an accusation often enough, it becomes the truth in the eyes of many.

  4. Great news if it holds of course, but stopping years of ill feeling in just a few months is unrealistic so I'm doubtful. That there have even been discussions between the government and some of these groups is a good thing though. Would be interesting to know what the quid pro quo was from the government but not holding my breath.

    Even if there's a general cease-fire from the groups mentioned, I'd still expect pockets of violence from other groups sadly, so there's still tons to do (thinking back to the Omagh bombing in N. Ireland three months after the Good Friday Agreement for starters).

  5. I also want to know the law on this:

    Whenever I travel, I like to carry a chainsaw for general use. Back in Zimbabwe, I can carry an anti-tank rocket launcher and a vial of biological warfare agent. I also carry a personal atomic weapon which (in a pinch) can be put in a sock for an alternate weapon (a smelly kill-all-including-me weapon )

    Jeez - we are talking about BKK, not a warzone.

    Just stick to a nice smile, no arrogance and learn some Thai - you'll be safe, I assure you.

    Simon

    You jest, but stranger things have happened - from the New Zealand Herald, and reprinted in the current issue of Private Eye.

    "They found in the overhead compartment a chainsaw in a bag that was leaking petrol into the compartment. His plane was delayed as the owner was identified and the chainsaw removed and put with the main luggage. The owner of the chainsaw said security had stopped him but had let him through because it wasn't one of the things on their list to confiscate."

    Full article here, 3rd story down. :o

  6. Always carry around a small penknife thingy when up-country for odd chores. Cheap Chinese one bought in Tesco that I doubt will last long. Would never get it out for personal defence though - liable to cause me more damage than anyone else!

    Would like to get something a bit better made like a Leatherman or Victorinox (Swiss Army). Anyone know if they're available in BKK (not fakes)? Thanks.

  7. The case has been on the cards for ages. I heard about it a week or two ago on a blog - it's why I was asking on an earlier thread if there was anywhere online I could get a list of the remaining cases before the EC, as I didn't want to post anything until I knew it was true. The English language press also totally ignored the 10 other cases that were dropped at the time too (5 PPP, 4 Dem and 1 Chart Thai I think from memory), but it was written about in Matichon.

    I agree with you that the PPP's trying to bring down the Dems with them, but not specifically with this case as it was already under consideration. You've now got the 60-odd MPs and Senators being accused of holding shares in breach of the Constitution. Perhaps what Samak's trying to do is show the Dems how unworkable it is, in an effort to get the rewrite.

  8. Well Tony, it's the EC who seem to think the case had enough merit to take on, and being a Red Card rather than Yellow it would seem to indicate some seriousness. Still, innocent until proven guilty.

    Just for my guide though, what level of bribery would you deem to be the cut-off point between legal/illegal? Somewhere between the price of a movie ticket and the oft-quoted "few hundred baht" obviously.

    What surprises me about this case is that until Samak brought it up on Sunday, the English language press seem to have totally ignored it. Odd considering the amount of column inches dedicated to highlighting EC cases against the coalition.

  9. And whats wrong with saying: forget about the past we are doing it together: you have the temple we the stairs...we join and rip off the tourists....here the mcdonalds, there the casino, etc etc as usual....

    That was effectively the junta/PPP deal.

    or you make alone what you want but we don't support it.

    That was the deal after the injunction. Cambodia got the listing anyway and Thailand's got what?

    As for the evidence linking it to Thaksin.... it is more a stampede of elephants......

    Show the evidence to the authorities. Please.

  10. Meerkat, we don't know the exact policy of the previous government regarding the listing, but one thing is sure - Noppadon has changed it, with disastrous results. What would have happened if he let the previous team to continue negotiations is anybody's guess, but one thing is sure - it wouldn't have ended so badly.

    If you don't know what the policy was, how can you know that he changed it? Plus, you were the one that brought up the argument that facts don't matter in this case, not me. The publicly stated policy of the junta was to get the deal done this month with Thai support; Noppadom changed nothing. Cambodia changed their bid so that Thailand couldn't even argue against it (effectively) if they wanted to. I've always said it was too late for any government to delay the listing. I note with a cringe that Samack nicked my point in his explanation today too. I'll send him a bill...

    It is extremely silly to lay blame on junta's government after Noppadon personally fired their man, took charge, and even patted himself on the back shortly before everything went south.

    Firstly I don't blame the junta, I applaud them. I said if you want to blame someone for the change in policy, blame them rather than this government. Yes Noppadom took over as chief of the panel himself; he's a smarmy git and a media-whore IMO - he wanted the glory. Were he to have suddenly reversed the whole tone of the talks though, don't you think there'd have been an outcry from the others on the team (which included not only the MFA but also the military)? The "damage" if you like was done before his watch, although again I don't consider it "damage".

    As for linking this case to Thaksin - it's a fuc_king elephant in the room, Noppadon himself was there on the day Thaksin's investment was announced. But let's pretend (for Prakhanong) that these two men don't know each other.

    Thaksin was as bent as a three-bob note like the rest of them IMO but that doesn't mean this was all a fit-up for his benefit. It would mean he was in cahoots with the junta and obviously that doesn't wash. Show me proof - no, show it to the NCCC.

    Lots of people and cultures existed in this land, this particular temple was dedicated to Hindu God Shiva, Thais do not have gods of their own, and neither do Cambodians. There's nothing wrong with calling it a Hindu temple.

    The word Hindu didn't exist in those days, btw.

    I'm not sure present day Cambodians are the real ancestors of the Khmer civilisation. They could be the people who destroyed it. After all even Angkor Wat was just a meaningless ruin for them for centuries until their figured out they can make money out of it.

    Thais, on the other hand, have always kept to their roots, they won't declare themselves jews if they suddenly find an ancient sinagogue here.

    I mentioned the Khmer now becoming Hindu thing as an example of the press pandering to nationalistic sentiment, nothing more. I've got no beef with those who think that the Temple should have been awarded to Thailand in 1962. I get pissed off with those who repeatedly can't understand that it wasn't and refuse to accept that it's now too late to appeal the matter.

  11. If substandard diesel is to be sold generally here I hope it's patently obvious which one is which at the pumps. It won't matter much with older engines, but newer ones get rather picky with the quality of fuel used. IIRC Jaguar's reason not to import the new XF diesel here was because current Thai diesel doesn't match up to Euro standards and would muck up the engine, let alone the older stuff.

    Governing by panic is rarely good governing.

  12. I know absolutely nothing about the history of the Khmer, but I found this recent article which says, "Preah Vihear, like Angkor Wat and all those other ‘Khmer’ temples, aren’t really Khmer or Cambodian. They were built by an entirely different people called the Khom, who unfortunately are no longer with us and have been replaced by a people who call themselves Cambodians and lay spurious claim to someone else’s heritage. Trouble is, it’s only Thai history that seems to know about these Khom." No idea what sources he has to make the claim though.

    Regarding why the 1962-1972 governments didn't appeal, I think it's because Article 61.1 of the ICJ Statute states, "An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence."

    So basically an appeal can only take place with new evidence. The law can be an ass sometimes (but not Thai law of course...that could see me put in contempt). :o

  13. But given that the new map is within the boundaries of the ICJ judgement, Cambodia in theory wouldn't have even needed any consultation with Thailand at all. Because there was consultation, we happen to know that the listing doesn't infringe on any Thai soil (approved by both the NSC and the Royal Thai Survey).

    That's the kind of approval I was talking about - without it no one could say the new map was undisputed. If Royal Thai Survey had said "Hold your hourses, we need more time", that would have been enough to postpone the listing until next year.

    Cambodia didn't need the RTS or the NSC to approve the new map, given that the map used is within the ICJ one. In fact, given that the UNESCO convention allows disputed sites to be listed anyway without prejudicing any territorial rights (Article 11/3 I think) it's a moot point (legally if not emotionally). Cambodia could bypass Thailand all together, go to UNESCO and say, "Every time we get close to a deal Thailand suddenly wriggles out, and we're worried what's left of the Temple will fall down without your help." There is precedent for UNESCO listing a disputed site - remember that in their eyes, the whole point of a listing is to protect these areas.

    Cambodia might have had enough members on the panel to vote it in anyway, but that's again Noppadon's responsibility. He spent three months supporting Cambodians instead of putting pressure on panel members to delay. Belated court injunction had no effect on their opinion, and you are right - it did more damage to Thailand's credibility than communique itself.

    A few months to try and undo more than a decade of campaigning to the selectors (the bulk of it done since they stepped up the process in 06/07) is IMO a task too hard to fairly blame anybody on the Thai side for not managing to do (regardless of which party had won the elections). Given that the (at least publicly stated) line taken by the MFA/Thai WHC during the previous government has been one of conciliation and support implies that it would be the incorrect stance to take anyway. But I guess that is a point of view based upon whether one thinks that Thailand wanted to try and do a deal with Cambodia or just stonewall them ad infinitum - one that I think we disagree on. The longer the site doesn't have protection though, the more potential there is for site degredation - everyone loses.

    On cooperation:

    Joint management should include areas far beyond the approved map. In fact Abhisit is expressing concerns that the management map will most certainly cover disputed areas. That map doesn't exist yet, it couldn't have been included in the communique.

    Now, seven country panel overseeing management on Thai side will not be liked here, there's no chance of that working smoothly.

    Abhisit is right to worry about co-management; the communique covered that, but there is now a vacuum with it gone. Cambodia has until February I believe to draw up those plans otherwise the WHC will effectively take it out of everyone's hands. I think the best way forward would be for the new FM to try and get Abhisit on-side (and explain it better to the public than Noppadom), submit the communique for parliamentary approvement (and there may be some changes to make) and then use it as the road-map going forward. The Dems have scored their political points already and there's no time to play nationalistic silly-buggers anymore.

    Now that the issue's been forced, reckon both sides can work on this together for the good of the country and the site?

  14. whatever... he traded a temple for a casino.

    Fair point, except that he didn't have a temple to trade.

    But Cambodia didn't had a temple as well, specially no stairs to it. Why making it top secret in a rush if there is no trade?

    Cambodia has had the Temple since 1962. That the entrance is on the Thai side - whilst being strange - is irrelevent. A Japanese company has put forward a proposal to build a cable car up to the site from the Cambodian side.

    No doubt in exchange for a casino. :o

    Secrecy in diplomacy is the norm, not the exception. That the negotiations had to be done by this month has been explained countless times.

    That there was secrecy with regards to Cabinet approval was undoubtedly wrong.

  15. Meerkat, if all you are trying to do now is to lay the blame on junta no matter what, fine.

    Noppadon has tried that, too, but no one bought it. Hypothetically speaking Thailand could have delayed the listing for another decade or so. At first they could have disagreed with the map, they could have spent another year just revising it. The fact that there's no legally accepted border demarkation plays nicely in Thailand's hand.

    Then they could have come up with counter proposal for a joint management of the whole site again, under disguise of "active participation", especially after Cambodian elections - new ideas, new thinking, new era.

    Not so difficult if you try.

    Disagree. You've stated before that Cambodia couldn't have done it without Thailand's approval of the map. As far as the original map went that included the listing of the disputed border I'd agree. But given that the new map is within the boundaries of the ICJ judgement, Cambodia in theory wouldn't have even needed any consultation with Thailand at all. Because there was consultation, we happen to know that the listing doesn't infringe on any Thai soil (approved by both the NSC and the Royal Thai Survey). If those two Thai bodies said as much, you're going to have a hard time persuading me that UNESCO or the ICJ would think differently had Cambodia just went for the application without any Thai input/map-checking whatsoever.

    Blaming the junta? To an extent yes I do. It was on their watch that the biggest Thai policy shift was made, that of publicly supporting Cambodia's listing. As I said before, it matters not one jot whether this was the truth or just a delaying tactic. It played straight into Cambodia's hands for gaining yet more support with the WHC. I've read somewhere (can't remember now but I'll try and find it if necessary) that Cambodia had already mustered more than enough selectors to get listed this year anyway. You say that even if it can't be stopped, Noppadom should have tried. I say that given that it can't be stopped, Noppadom should have tried to get something. As to how much the negotiating team actually did manage to get, that's a difficult thing to quantify without being directly involved. In the eyes of Thailand it will never be enough, in the eyes of Cambodia etc etc... Don't forget there was a lot of bad feeling from the Cambodian public because they thought the communiqué gave Thailand too much.

    On second thoughts "blaming" is the wrong word re the junta's role in this fiasco. I personally believe that they were begrudgingly for it as they knew they'd lost out to Cambodia anyway. I think they were trying to get some diplomatic Brownie points just as the present government was. Perhaps "applauding" the junta would be better for facing up to an uncomfortable truth (and believe me that grates to write).

    The logic and reason are on Thai side - as an historic site the temple and it's surroundings, including things like access roads and hotels, are inseparable and should be under unified management. That would be a real win for the temple, for Cambodians, and for Thais.

    Agree. The communiqué included such cooperation, but as it was ruled unconstitutional we have to go back to square one. From a weakened position IMO. Blame there goes solely with Noppadom and the MFA advisors who allegedly told him he didn't need parliamentary consultation. Prats the lot of 'em - that the communiqué was illegal did more damage to Thailand than the communiqué itself.

    >>>

    The 'active pariticipation' clause is interesting. It could be argued that without it there would be no listing. Last minute reverse by Thai courts (not even the FM or the government) against all earlier pledges and signed communique didn't count as a serious objection. The panel just ignored it, and rightly so, from their perspective.

    Summing up, the two major factors IMO that helped Cambodia get support for the listing (actually made it inevitable) this year were:

    1. The public announcement of a change in policy by the junta towards a sole application with Thai support (regardless of intent as to whether such policy shift were true or not), and

    2. A change in policy from the Cambodian side this year to limit the listing to the undisputed map. Undisputed in this case obviously meaning in the eyes of international law, not the ravings of a bunch of nationalists with another agenda or a poorly educated public on the matter. On that note, Abhisit apparently denied trying to whip up nationalistic fervour issue at last night's FCC talk he gave. I haven't had a chance to hear the tapes myself yet, but if true, it's a case IMO of, "I believe you. Millions wouldn't..."

  16. Plus, I've already said (more than once) that he screwed up. He screwed up selling it to the Thai people and he screwed up constitutionally. But as far as the negotiations themselves go, what was he (or anyone for that matter) supposed to have done to derail the process - start military action? You maintained in our earlier debate on the subject that Cambodia couldn't do it without Thailand's support. Well they've done it. Once the map was reduced to one within the 1962 judgement Thailand could go and take a running jump as far as the sovereignty issues go. UNESCO would have preferred otherwise, but when it came down to it Cambodia's lobbying over more than a decade has been more effective than Thailand's. At that point it's just a question of trying to make the best of a bad deal.

    If the junta's declaration last year was all smoke and mirrors and they never really meant that Thailand should support a sole Cambodian bid, then it was a monumental foul-up on behalf of the junta's team to put in down in writing at last year's conference, because lo and behold it's up there in bold italics in this year's Cambodian bid. Forget the new communique, the junta itself did more damage to any Thai claim to a joint-listing by letting itself use such a clear-cut expression of support for a sole Cambodian one - it doesn't matter if it's binding or not, only that it's good propaganda towards the selection committee. Played straight into their hands on that one, so why do you believe they were such competent negotiators?

    It was always going to end in a certain amount of tears with such a controversial site, but is that the fault of the government that's only been in power (if you can call it that) for 6 months, or the 4 decades' worth of governments who couldn't bring themselves to admit to the people that they lost the ruling - a ruling that even required a voluntary condition to make it binding? A ruling that was only accepted within the then Cabinet and to the UN directly to try and hide their shame.

    As far as your questioning the ICJ ruling itself, I happen to agree that it's bizarre that Cambodia gets this outcrop that is all but impossible to mount but from the Thai side. Tough - take it up with 1962 government or the preceding ones that didn't protest at the proper time about the earlier maps. Take it up with the 1962-1972 governments who failed to produce new evidence during the period for appeal. The ruling was made, and the ruling is now final and without appeal.

    We are finally starting to see some of the injustices of Thaksin and his cronies' governments come to court. Don't make the mistake of accepting only those court decisions that agree with your point of view, on technicalities or not.

  17. Still , wasn't this conducted in a rush and secretely through cabinet instead of parliament? A popular method under Thaksin and one of the reasons why practically no minutes of Thaksin cabinet meetings exist today, secrecy was a must with all the scams they had going on. :o

    Yes I think it was done in a rush, but it was a rush of Cambodia's choosing, not Thailand's. Whilst the junta's assurance to Cambodia last year that they would be allowed to list the Temple this year was in itself non-binding IMO, the Cambodians would certainly have taken it as the green light they were looking for (and that assurance is big ammo for canvassing support from the other delegates - that's why the junta had star billing in their proposal.)

    They were going to apply this year whatever Thailand said even if it meant changing the proposal from a larger site to the smaller ICJ based one. On that basis the new government didn't have much time to try and get anything out of the deal. All I can see they did manage to get was co-management, better diplomatic relations, and perhaps Cambodia's support if Thailand decides to try and list the National Park on its side of the border but which includes some disputed area; part of the deal was that the disputed border would be settled by 2010 IIRC.

    Regarding secrecy, yes it's smelly. Greater transparency in all branches of government has obviously got to be the way forward. If there's evidence of wrongdoing for personal gain though, I'm sure the NCCC will take the case up - it's not as if there aren't a ton of people out there looking for a link (and even more of them automatically assuming one.)

  18. ^^ Forgive me but you missed the word mutuality, in the TNA element and I stated that UNESCO implied a joint listing after rejecting the listing in '07. There was no evidence for sole listing support by the previous government, in fact quite the reverse, with discussions focused on how to move for mutual listing and long term management of the site for the benefit of both countries.

    The new government decided in a key change of the country's long held position, to offer support for a sole listing by Cambodia.

    I don't see it that way at all. The UNESCO summary specifically states:

    "Accordingly, Cambodia and Thailand agree that Cambodia will propose the site for formal inscription on the World Heritage List at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 with the active support of Thailand."

    I don't think it could really be much clearer than that as to who the governments had decided was going to propose the site this year, nor that Thailand would support their proposal. The mutuality IMO is that Thailand would co-host/actively support/co-manage the site - the "win-win" situation Surayud has talked about. With the injunction, that mutuality has gone down the pan sadly. For mutuality to mean a joint-listing rather than a co-hosting, Surayud's comment about not insisting the temple is partly owned by Thailand doesn't make sense. I agree that UNESCO would have prefered a joint listing, but Cambodia have refused to go that way because it would imply Thailand had (part) sovereignty over the temple in contradiction to the ICJ ruling.

×
×
  • Create New...