• 
• 

Published on March 12, 2008

Mr Ric Souen might be excused for his misunderstanding, which apparently arose from The Nation's reporting that "Bangkok opposes Phnom Penh's plans to list it [Preah Vihear Temple] as a United Nations' World Heritage site before ownership is settled." Two separate issues are pertinent here, namely, the ownership of the Preah Vihear Temple and the listing of the temple as a World Heritage Site.  To set the record straight, I wish to state the following points:

1. On the ownership of the temple itself, Thailand has been abiding by the International Court of Justice judgement of June 15, 1962, that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under Cambodian sovereignty. This is clear and straightforward.

2. While the court has clearly ruled on the sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear, the question of the boundary line between Thailand and Cambodia was not addressed by the court and remains an issue to be resolved by the two countries. As there are overlapping claim areas along the border, in 2000 the two governments signed a MOU establishing the Thai-Cambodian Joint Boundary Commission to jointly conduct surveys and demarcate the entire stretch of the boundary. According to Article 5 of the MOU, both sides have also agreed to refrain from undertaking any action that would change the environment of the area under the conflicting boundary claim.

3. What is also clear is Thailand's support in principle for the listing of the temple. However, what concerns Thailand is that Cambodia's proposal also includes the protection zones ("zonage") surrounding the temple, which extend into the said overlapping claimed areas. To address this issue, both sides are now discussing the possibility of a joint management of the zones in overlapping claim areas, which we believe to be a possible solution in the interim given the mutual goodwill and the close neighbourly relations between both Kingdoms. 

I hope this letter will help enhance readers' understanding of this delicate issue.

Chainarong Keratiyutwong

Director, Press Division

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

----------------------------------

Anti-Israel sentiment ignores historical 'facts'

There have been many letters in the press in the past few months that are highly critical of Israel's self defence, even going so far as to categorise Israel as being genocidal against the Palestinians. The implication being that the Jewish people have no right to be in Israel. The fact is that King David established the city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 1312 BCE, 2,000 years before the advent of Islam. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity and Arab invaders only possessed the territory that is now Israel twice - from 634 until the Crusades in June 1099, and from 1292 until the year 1517 when they were evicted by the Turks. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish holy scriptures; it is not mentioned once in the Koran. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem. In 1948 Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders so that they could militarily purge the land of all Jews. Sixty eight per cent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is roughly the same. Arab refugees within modern Israel only began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

In Israel, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths. The story is different for Jews living under Arab rule.

This hatred of the Middle East's only democracy, Israel, by Muslim writers is easily understood; the ultimately self destructive support given to them by the liberal left is much more difficult to understand.

Laowuwan

Krabi

Send us your views in an instant!

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor'

in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation