THAILAND'S VIEW OF THE PREAH VIHEAR TEMPLE ISSUE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 000871 SIPDIS SIPDIS PARIS PLEASE PASS TO USMISSION UNESCO E.O. 12958: DECL: 3/19/2018 TAGS: UNESCO PREL TH CB SUBJECT: THAILAND'S VIEW OF THE PREAH VIHEAR TEMPLE ISSUE BANGKOK 00000871 001.2 OF 002 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Thailand supports UNESCO's inscription of the Preah Vihear Temple as a World Heritage Site as long as Thailand's territorial rights are preserved; the temple sits in Cambodian territory at a point where the Thai-Cambodian border is not demarcated. As MFA Deputy Director General for East Asian Affairs Pisanu Suvanajata explained during a March 11 meeting, the RTG believes that to date UNESCO had considered only Cambodia's perspective of the issue. This was despite numerous attempts by the Thais to present their case to Cambodia and the international community, including a January 24 meeting in Paris with UNESCO's Assistant Director General for Culture Francois Riviere. This lack of balanced information culminated in Thailand's formal protest of and "disassociation" with Cambodia's February 1 progress report to the World Heritage Center. The Thais described the report as downplaying numerous topographical and historical facts based solely on information provided by Cambodian authorities. Throughout our meeting, Pisanu emphasized that Thailand wanted to avoid overt politicization of an issue the RTG currently viewed as relatively minor. In advance of the World Heritage Center's vote on the matter in July, the RTG planned to launch a proactive information campaign targeting World Heritage Council members. End summary. -------------- BACKGROUND: WHOSE BORDER IS IT? -------------- ¶2. (U) Situated on the edge of a 1,700 foot cliff and straddling the Thai-Cambodia border, the Khmer temple of Preah Vihear has been a point of contention between the two countries for more than 100 years. The source of the dispute is the border demarcation in the immediate vicinity of the temple, an overlapping area of 4.6 square kilometers. Cambodia relies on a 1907 map created by Thai and French colonial authorities (then ruling Cambodia) that follows the watershed line of the Dangrek mountain range, while Thailand prefers an updated map depicting a slightly different version of the watershed line south of the Cambodian boundary claim. ¶3. (U) In June 1962 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a judgment acknowledging Cambodia's sovereignty over the temple complex. MFA Deputy Director General for East Asian Affairs Pisanu Suvanajata stated that Thailand always respected the ICJ judgment on sovereignty, but that the ICJ did not address the border dispute. Following the ICJ decision, Thailand redrew its boundary claim to put the actual temple (but not the supporting buildings and land that comprise the rest of the complex) in Cambodian territory. But the two governments never finalized their overlapping border claims. As recently as 2003 the bilateral development commission (established between Thailand and Cambodia following the January 2003 anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh) agreed to jointly develop the area of the Preah Vihear temple, but left resolution of the border issue for an undetermined future date. -------------- RTG'S OPPOSITION TO HANDLING OF INSCRIPTION -------------- ¶3. (U) In a March 11 briefing, Pisanu, joined by colleagues from the MFA's Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, presented a clear case as to why Thailand disagreed with Cambodia's approach to the inscription of the Preah Vihear temple complex as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The RTG's primary argument is that Cambodia unilaterally submitted the nomination file to UNESCO without consulting or informing Thailand and without acknowledging the existence of conflicting border claims to the temple complex. In July 2007, on the sidelines of the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee, a 'Special Task Force on the Inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear as UNESCO World Heritage Site' met to discuss outstanding issues preventing the temple's successful inscription. The task force encouraged Cambodia and Thailand to develop an appropriate management plan to ensure the conservation of the temple. ¶4. (SBU) According to Pisanu, Thailand immediately offered Cambodia several options for technical assistance and cooperation. But instead of working together with Thailand, Cambodia independently solicited management plans and technical reports from French, Belgian, and U.S. specialists. Not until December 2007 did Cambodia respond to Thailand's proposals by requesting a Thai version of a management plan for the portion of the temple complex located in the disputed and access areas. Thailand dispatched a group of Thai experts to undertake a field survey at the temple site in early January. ¶5. (SBU) Pisanu explained that Thailand's experts presented their BANGKOK 00000871 002.2 OF 002 findings at a meeting convened by the Cambodian government for interested parties January 11-13. The stated purpose of the meeting was to exchange views on the various technical reports prepared for the progress report Cambodia had to submit to the World Heritage Center. The Thai experts concluded that the information used to prepare the French, Belgian, and U.S. reports derived solely from Cambodian authorities and that the findings of these foreign experts misrepresented important topographical and historical facts. Thailand felt this severely undermined the "universal value of the temple as a World Heritage Site," and could lead to "serious misunderstandings." However, Cambodia did not include the views expressed by the Thai experts in the draft version of the progress report. When Thailand complained, the UNESCO team and foreign experts maintained that they had no mandate to consider boundary or political issues. ¶6. (SBU) In response, Thailand lodged a formal protest before Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An and disassociated itself from the report. According to Pisanu, Cambodia went ahead and submitted the progress report to UNESCO with no mention of Thai opposition. The progress report also included a new claim that the temple's main entrance is not the primary staircase (which originates in Thai territory),but an access area from the west (which originates in Cambodian territory). -------------- PRESERVING THAILAND'S LEGAL POSITION -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Thailand believed in the importance of making permanent arrangements for the proper development and conservation of the Preah Vihear temple, stated Pisanu. The RTG's solution to the dispute would be to engage Cambodia to agree to a legal document that reserved each country's position on the border demarcation and detailed what could and could not be done in the disputed area. The idea would be to continue development of the temple as a World Heritage site while the border issue was being resolved. As such, rather than a unilateral inscription by UNESCO, Thailand would like to see the temple complex treated as a transboundary property, inscribed jointly by Thailand and Cambodia. Pisanu claimed that this was the Thai position all along. When asked what the Cambodians thought of this viewpoint, Pisanu responded he was "cautiously optimistic" his counterparts were open to the idea. ¶8. (SBU) Thailand submitted a formal statement to the Cambodian government during the first week in March again clarifying the Thai position. The RTG is now awaiting a response before follow-up meetings slated to occur later in the month. In the meantime, Pisanu stated that the Thais are working hard to prevent the issue from blowing out of proportion. The inscription decision is scheduled to be made during the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, to take place in Ottawa in July. In the lead-up to this meeting, Pisanu explained that the RTG intended to treat this as a technical issue, and wanted to avoid stirring up national sentiments. However, he expressed concern that with national elections to take place in Cambodia in late July, the Cambodian government or even opposition parties would try to politicize the issue to drum up support. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Thailand clearly supports UNESCO's inscription of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage Site, and appears to espouse concern for proper management and conservation of the temple complex. At the same time, in the past 100 years Thailand has not resolved this peculiar border dispute, and seems content to put off final resolution indefinitely. Today, the vast majority of tourists to the temple complex access it from Thai territory. UNESCO's pronouncement of the temple as a World Heritage Site located in Cambodia, and Cambodia's unilateral development of the site (including an alternative access point from Cambodia) may slightly diminish Thailand's tourism revenues. Thailand feels snubbed by UNESCO officials, which the RTG claims are not taking Thailand's concerns seriously, and now plans to take its argument to member countries of the World Heritage Committee. Our briefing was one of several Pisanu had scheduled this month. These briefings were to be supported by an excursion trip the MFA's Department of International Organizations was organizing for later this week for Bangkok-based diplomats. The trip was to have included a visit to the Preah Vihear temple. However, after the Cambodian Embassy in Bangkok protested that the RTG planned the excursion without seeking prior authorization from the Cambodian government, the MFA canceled the planned visit to the Preah Vihear temple. John