Let's hear where the parties stand on border issues

Candidates in the upcoming election should make clear how they propose to settle the ongoing Preah Vihear boundary conflict with Cambodia.

Political parties in the race for the July election need to make clear their policy on Cambodia, as the case of the disputed Preah Vihear Temple at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be a ticking time-bomb for the new government after the poll.

The Cambodian government has requested that the ICJ clarify the scope and meaning of the 1962 judgement on the case in order to exercise its sovereignty over the temple and its vicinity.

The court ruled that the temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia, and ordered Thailand to withdraw troops and personnel from the temple and its surrounding areas deemed as Cambodian territory. Thailand complied with the court's ruling, but Cambodia considers that what Thailand has done is not enough, and wants the court to make clear what "the territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia" is.

There are many potential options in dealing with this case. Over the nearly five decades since the ICJ ruling, Thailand's governments have tried to deal with Cambodia outside the courtroom by exercising good relations to interpret the 1962 judgement jointly and define the boundary line in the areas around Preah Vihear. The two countries have a memorandum of understanding on land-boundary demarcation, signed in 2000, and have also set up a Joint Boundary Commission to survey and demarcate the boundary.

The bilateral instrument and mechanism previously seemed to work properly to define the entire land boundary, until Thai nationalist groups together with the Democrat Party opened historical wounds by opposing the Cambodian plan to inscribe the Preah Vihear Temple as a Unesco World Heritage Site.

The World Heritage inscription of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction that is claimed by more than one state shall in no way prejudice the right of the parties to the dispute. However, Thai nationalist groups and the Democrat Party over its past few years in power have been, and still are, worried over the loss of the right to claim the vicinity around Preah Vihear and even the right to reverse the 1962 ICJ ruling. The outgoing government has tried by all means over the past two years to prohibit Cambodia from management of the World Heritage-inscribed temple.

Phnom Penh has reacted fiercely to the obstructionist Thai move, resulting in a series of military clashes in the border areas, which has caused the loss of lives of civilians and soldiers on both sides. Rather than giving up, the Thai government has exploited the armed conflict as an excuse to block further Cambodia's management plan for Preah Vihear. But this is not the end of the story, as Cambodia has opened a new battlefront at the ICJ to seek a permanent solution to the boundary conflict.

Legally speaking, the game in court is not to Thailand's advantage, since the ruling was made in favour of Cambodia. When the court ruled in 1962 that Preah Vihear belongs to the Cambodian side, the judges should have cleared up exactly where the boundary is. The court at the time used a French-made map to define the boundary. If the court had interpreted the ruling on the line of previous judgements, Cambodia would also have got what it claims.

The ruling Democrat Party chose to fight in the court and instructed the Foreign Ministry to set up a legal team to go to the ICJ. Lose or win, the party must take responsibility for the consequences.

Other political parties running in the election should offer alternatives. The other option for Thailand is to settle the matter out of court and return to the bilateral instrument and mechanism to define the boundary. It would be better if the two countries could restore good relations and sit down equally to help each other define the boundary and benefit from the potential the temple and adjacent area offers in terms of trade and tourism.

Candidates in the upcoming general election must inform the electorate of how they stand on this issue, as it is one of the most important issues facing Thailand at this juncture. How the public chooses will have a direct bearing on how this issue is eventually resolved.

The Nation