• 
• 

There is much about the issue that Thais should agree on but do not, due to different interpretations and motives.

The fact is the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia, as per a 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Thailand, which announced its disagreement and reserved the right to refile the case if it found any new evidence and laws in its favour, withdrew troops and removed the national flag from the temple in that same year.

However, many questions remain concerning sovereignty and its legality. The answers depend on political standpoints, which are not easy to judge as long as the case never reaches court again.

Does Thailand still retain sovereignty over the temple as the Cabinet at the time insisted in 1962 when it announced its disagreement with the ICJ ruling?

The government said the reservation made by then-foreign minister Thanat Khoman expired 10 years after the ruling, in accordance with Article 61 of ICJ regulations. As a result, Cambodia then had full right to do anything with the temple, including apply for it to become a World Heritage site.

In yesterday's no-confidence debate, the present opposition argued the disagreement and reservation were valid permanently, in accordance with Article 60 of ICJ regulations. That means the government should not do anything that could be construed as recognition of Cambodian sovereignty over the temple.

Is the joint statement signed by Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama and Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An supporting inscription of the temple as a World Heritage site equal to recognition of Cambodian sovereignty over the temple?

The government said Thailand lost its sovereignty in 1962 and that the joint communique made no change to the existing condition.

The opposition argued the joint statement changed the position of previous governments and thus rejected the reservation Thailand had made earlier.

Does the joint communique need to pass parliamentary consideration?

The government said the joint communique was not an agreement or treaty and had no legal binding as per Article 190 of the Constitution, so Parliament's endorsement was unnecessary. What is more, it made no territorial changes.

The opposition argued parliamentary procedure was required, since the joint communique was an agreement by assent and that it made changes in recognising Cambodian sovereignty.

Does the joint statement make any changes to the boundary?

The government said the inscription of Preah Vihear Temple on the World Heritage list would be without prejudice to the right of the two kingdoms on the demarcation work of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary. This is made clear in the fifth paragraph of the statement. The opposition argued the statement recognised Cambodian sovereignty beyond the ICJ ruling, so that Thailand no longer had the right to say anything about the boundary.

Why did Thailand need to give active support to the Cambodian application?

The government said that because the previous government had made an objection to Phnom Penh's application, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) could not grant approval without consulting Thailand.

Thailand removed its objection to a claim of a 4.6-square-kilometre overlapping area

since Cambodia deleted that area from its proposal.

The opposition argued the objection should not have been removed unless Phnom Penh allowed Thailand to apply jointly for the temple and its periphery as a World Heritage site and asked why the government had done everything in such a hurry.

The government said it handled the case within a set time frame, since Unesco's World Heritage committee was to meet again from next Wednesday until July 10. The temple inscription was proposed in 2006, and several rounds of negotiations over two years are enough. Two years cannot be seen as hurried.

The opposition argued Thailand did not need to follow the time line for Cambodia's interest, but rather it could oppose the application as long as such a stance served Thailand's interest.

Can Thailand join the Cambod-

ian proposal to list the temple as a World Heritage site?

The government said as long as the temple was under Cambodian sovereignty, Phnom Penh would not allow Thailand to join the application. The surrounding area, which Thailand claims as under its sovereignty, can be proposed for the scheme in the next session for Unesco World Heritage listings.

The opposition argued that no matter what Cambodia said, Thailand should insist on a joint application immediately. There is no need to wait another two years; otherwise, the application will be opposed.

Does the Preah Vihear case have any links with the business interests of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra?

The government said there were no such links.

The opposition argued the Preah Vihear case coincidentally took place alongside Thaksin's plan to invest in an entertainment complex in Koh Kong, Cambodia.

Has Thailand already lost sovereignty to Cambodia?

The government said the whole case of Preah Vihear had nothing to do with sovereignty. Thailand has not even lost the reservations over sovereignty it made nearly half a century ago.

The opposition argued the reservation to reclaim sovereignty over the temple had been lost.