Prev Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 Next 119 replies to this topic

[Plus]

1. It was not the Unesco document that was ruled unconstutional, but Thai Cambodian communique.

2. Details of the Cabinet meeting where this communique was signed were never made public. No one knows which ministers were even present.

[A_Traveller]

^^ Yes I did read those contemporaneously and the supporting documentation from the previous listing requests. How many here recall the concerns raised last year about listing discussions? The reality here is that this site, still contested in Thai minds, and a 'useful' drum beat for nationalists of all persuasions, means that an entirely sensible approach, which should have been the case years ago as an example of cooperation was a non starter.

Thaksin comments aside, I really don't know what possessed anyone {MFA?} here to think that such a declaration would go unchallenged, and given the resultant of the communiqué itself, the probability of a constitutional challenge {'97 or 06}. In all other discussions about this over the years the Thai position has been immutable.

One could create a endless chain of Machiavellian intent here, Thaksin {favour} -> Samak {light bulb} ->FM is an amateur -> 'Re-shuffle ->reduce the loyal brethren -> juggle partners -> maintain power -> reduce targets for dissent -> reduce Thaksin clout behind the scenes.

Regards

[dr_Pat_Pong]

We'll all miss Khun Noppadon.  

[A_Traveller]

^ Just have to improve our aim then.

Regards

[Heng]

Not a bad windfall for a couple of month's "work."

[sriracha john]

Plus, on 2008-07-11 10:03:25, said:

1. It was not the UNESCO document that was ruled unconstitutional, but Thai Cambodian communique.

2. Details of the Cabinet meeting where this communique was signed were never made public. No one knows which ministers were even present.

resulting in....

Democrat member Suthep explains why he could not file impeachment against PM  
  
The Democrat Party Secretary-General Suthep Thuagsuban, says the Opposition could not file an impeachment motion against the Prime Minister and Defense Minister Samak Sundaravej.

Mr. Suthep explained that the Opposition could not gather sufficient information related to the Preah Vihear issue from the past Cabinet's resolutions [notes].

However, Mr. Suthep says it is quite strange that other facts and information, besides the Preah Vihear case, are available on the website of the Government House.

He says the government previously claimed that it has kept the Cabinet's resolution [notes] concerning the Preah Vihear controversy.

He says it is unusual for such an important agenda to be left out in the government's memorandum [notes], and thus, he could not exercise the Information Act in order to file an impeachment motion against the Prime Minister.

- ThaiNews / 11-07-08

=============================================================


In the smoky backrooms where these deals are hammered out, the lighting is often poor which precludes the writing of even rudimentary note-taking.

Edited by sriracha john, 2008-07-11 11:09:03.

[slimdog]

geriatrickid, on 2008-07-11 09:49:04, said:

How many of you read the actual UNESCO document that shows the agreement? It is not a treaty, nor is it a legal contract. All it was was an agreement that the site had importance. There is no discussion or agreement of ownership. Despite the assumptions of some, this agreement was public and was not secret. I think if people dig deep enough they will see some pressure brought to bear by academics and religious figures in an attempt to protect what is a remarkable artifact. The UNESCO designation will allow funds to be given to preserve the site. This could not be achieved without the agreement. Those are the rules. Continued bickering would have meant a deterioration of the temple beyond preservation thresholds.

Geriatrickid

The Constitutional court ruled treaties are defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed
by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and
whatever its particular designation;

My understanding of this definition is that any agreement which Thailand makes with another country, regardless of what it is about, e.g Territorial, Jusidictional, Economic, Commercial etc is regarded as a treaty, and as such will have to in future go before Parliament and if voted in favour of, presented to the King for signature.


A_Traveller

The reason I believe that Noppadon signed the original "Treaty" in Paris, was that to not do so would have been unconstitutional. This (I believe) is because the previous government had agreed in Principle to UNESO tosupport  Cambodia's application. So refusing to support it may well have contravened Article 82 of the present Constitution.


Plus

My reason for stating that it was not unconstitutional under the 1997 Constitution was due to a statement in the Thai press by Meechai Ruchuphan, which stated the clause 190/5 as the only reason for the unconstitutional verdict in the court. As that clause was not in any previous constitutions. Maybe your understanding of the Constitutions of Thailand is better than mine, in which case I appologise for saying you were wrong...

OMR

You asked about who people think will be the next Foreign Minister?

Banharm Silpa_Archa, is perhaps a long shot but would serve Samak's needs. Love or hate him, the vertically challenged one has held most of the top positions in this country, Prime Minister, Interior Minister even Finance Minister. The Democrats would be hesitant about attacking him, Thailand would have someone of stature (figuratively speaking) during the ASEAN meetings, he is not under any legal problems, other than Party dissolution, but even that would not bar him from being in the Cabinet.

[A_Traveller]

Quote

slimdog
The reason I believe that Noppadon signed the original "Treaty" in Paris, was that to not do so would have been unconstitutional. This (I believe) is because the previous government had agreed in Principle to UNESO to support Cambodia's application. So refusing to support it may well have contravened Article 82 of the present Constitution.

I believe that is in error, since certainly the Thais lobbied at the UNESCO meeting in '07 in New Zealand for joint listing or nothing, and the Cambodian listing attempt failed. Indeed after the '07 meeting UNESCO implied that they preferred to see a joint application. The only extant agreement prior to the communiqué was the MoU of 2000 which in brief said neither side should change anything. By the by, as late as January '08, the MFA spokesman Tharit Charungvat referred back to the MoU as, to paraphrase him, the status quo.

Regards

Edited by A_Traveller, 2008-07-11 12:36:20.

[Old Man River]

slimdog, on 2008-07-11 11:46:27, said:

OMR

You asked about who people think will be the next Foreign Minister?

Banharm Silpa_Archa, is perhaps a long shot but would serve Samak's needs. Love or hate him, the vertically challenged one has held most of the top positions in this country, Prime Minister, Interior Minister even Finance Minister. The Democrats would be hesitant about attacking him, Thailand would have someone of stature (figuratively speaking) during the ASEAN meetings, he is not under any legal problems, other than Party dissolution, but even that would not bar him from being in the Cabinet.

Banharn's name will come up often, but it will never be in any context other than the one he covets the most (i.e. PM).

I don't have a clue as to who the new foreign minister will be. On the re-shuffle, I think they will want to keep Mingwan around only because he is not a political threat to anyone and given his gift for gab, the foreign ministry might be a place to stick him. I realize it will be an embarrassment to Thailand if this happens, but really how could things be any more embarrassing than they already are?

[Meerkat]

A_Traveller, on 2008-07-11 12:31:06, said:

I believe that is in error, since certainly the Thais lobbied at the UNESCO meeting in '07 in New Zealand for joint listing or nothing, and the Cambodian listing attempt failed. Indeed after the '07 meeting UNESCO implied that they preferred to see a joint application. The only extant agreement prior to the communiqué was the MoU of 2000 which in brief said neither side should change anything. By the by, as late as January '08, the MFA spokesman Tharit Charungvat referred back to the MoU as, to paraphrase him, the status quo.

Regards

It's not just the UNESCO document itself that implies that the Surayud government was (begrudgingly) OK with a sole-listing. From TNA at the time:

Gen. Surayud said he had once told his Cambodian counterpart Somdej Hun Sen that a solution to the dispute must lead to a win-win situation for both sides.

The Thai prime minister said his government would not insist that Preah Vihear is partly owned by Thailand, but should the mountain be declared a UNESCO world heritage site, the move must benefit both countries.

and from The Nation:

"We have no objection to Preah Vihear shrine being a World Heritage Site. We support in principle Phnom Penh's request. We hope that the unsettled issues can be solved and the request be put forward for approval again next year," Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said yesterday.

I think the junta realised that Cambodia's lobbying over the years would lead to a sole listing this year, and was resigned to the fact that Thailand's best option was to try and get at least some concessions from the matter. The largest "unsettled issue" to the listing was of course the disputed area (in fact by the UNESCO convention that shouldn't be an obstacle anyway), but by limiting the map this time to boundaries within the 1962 ruling it put sovereignty beyond question. With that important change it was - as we have now seen - almost a certainty that Cambodia would get its sole listing.

[Plus]

Even if it was too late to stop it wasn't a reason for Noppadon not to try.

"the move must benefit both countries." - I don't see any benefits coming to Thailand from Noppadon's agreement, and there could have been many.

[A_Traveller]

^^ 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.

Regards
/edit add chevrons//

Edited by A_Traveller, 2008-07-11 14:50:58.

[Plus]

Speaking of chevrons - where can we get are nice icons to refer to the post directly above? A little red arrow would suffice, but it's not in the icon list.

[Meerkat]

A_Traveller, on 2008-07-11 14:50:25, said:

^^ 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.

[A_Traveller]

Forgive me could you point me to the referenced UNESCO summary since that doesn't match the data I have from UNESCO statements in '07 after the NZ meeting nor the various discussions through to April '08. One UN problem is the welter of paper albeit electronic that gets produced during this process.

Regards
/edit add referenced//

Edited by A_Traveller, 2008-07-11 15:44:53.

[Meerkat]

Apologies for not linking it this time; I had done so but on a different thread. It's in the UNESCO archives here (large pdf - pp 153-154). Agreed about the amount of documents flying around...

[Tony Clifton]

I'm curious, are these cretins rewarded with a state pension later on because they served Thaksin and then their country for a few months only? Is that what maybe Chalerm is also trying to do for his sons?

[A_Traveller]

^^ Thanks, after fighting Adobe {or is it the new style links in the forum software?} I was able to read it. I have to say that those whom I know who were there {NZ} came away with a different perspective, {which the text provides for} partly owing to the background documents which concentrated on the 'buffer zone' and therefore a view that reconciliation of the management of this would be critical to supporting any application going forward.

This perspective is further shown by the subsequent UNESCO meetings {with the parties and the appointment of Francesco Caruso as representative} on the subject which became intractable until the relatively sudden change of heart. By the by I wouldn't view non signature as a constitutional issue since the background had been potential support provided issues were resolved, and by UNESCO's action this position was understood.

Regards

Edited by A_Traveller, 2008-07-11 16:44:05.

[Tony Clifton]

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.

Edited by Tony Clifton, 2008-07-11 16:45:16.

[marshbags]

Heng, on 2008-07-11 10:49:51, said:

Not a bad windfall for a couple of month's "work."

Petty cash in comparison with his loyalty payments from the " surrogate one " during his continued employment for the obvious vested interests and objectives, which are not Thailands that,s for sure.

You what !!!!!!

marshbags  

Possibly all non taxable if their lugubrious past on this is anything to go by.

Edited by marshbags, 2008-07-11 17:28:28.

[Meerkat]

Tony Clifton, on 2008-07-11 16:43:08, said:

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.

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.)

[Harpov]

With all the changes with the constitutions etc. I don't blame the guy making a mistake if he ever did it intentionally I really doubt it. Everything he has said is true and Thai soverignty is not breached as claimed by opponents. Everyone knows that the temple belonged to Cambodia and all the lies were made up discredit the governement. If you look at it its all just politics and its sad really. Its a shame that whatever decision has to be made even those necessary are all made into a political issue thesedays by PAD and its supporters. So much for progress..... PAD is just continuing to spread their lies and inciting dangerous disputes with neighbours to make the news nothing more.
[/quote]


True words. Whatever the motivation, it's in Cambodia and built by the Khmers. Only really occupied by the LOS when opportunity arrived..............

[Old Man River]

Harpov, on 2008-07-11 19:06:51, said:

True words. Whatever the motivation, it's in Cambodia and built by the Khmers. Only really occupied by the LOS when opportunity arrived..............

I understand what you are trying to say, but the issue here is independent of whose property this is. Noppadon broke the law. He bypassed the approval process as set up in the Thai constitution.  It is a legal issue.

[Plus]

Meerkat, if Noppadon was following the course set by the junta government (and a very experienced diplomat and negotiatior Nitya Pibulsongkram), he wouldn't have replaced Thai chief negotiator, there were warnings all over the media that it would end badly for Thailand, and it did. Noppadon has finally taken responsibility for this fiasco (and it IS a fiasco, simply by reactions it produced), when will you let it go and admit he screwed up? Even if he had best intentions in his heart (which is very very hard to believe).

Temple was build by Khmers long long time ago. Ancient would be worshippers lived in what is now Thai terrotory and worshippers on Cambodian side don't even have an access to it. It was ruled as Cambodian territory on technicalities (Thailand didn't object to French maps de facto recognising them).

For Thais the ruling fifty years ago was quite a shock.

Imagine a trip there - the grand staircase, build up anticipation, and when you get to the top - you are suddenly in a diffrent country. It just doesn't make any sense.

[plachon]

Plus, on 2008-07-11 07:41:50, said:

Even if it was too late to stop it wasn't a reason for Noppadon not to try.

"the move must benefit both countries." - I don't see any benefits coming to Thailand from Noppadon's agreement, and there could have been many.

Maybe he assumed that what's good for the Boss, is good for the country. Bit like PPP/TRT's policies.