VZCZCXRO8991
RR RUEHCHI RUEHCN RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHBK #0871/01 0791027
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 191027Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2326
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0848
RUEHCHI/AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI 4963

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