OPEN LETTER

To Mr. Kasit Pyromya
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand
c/o E-mail: div0704@mfa.go.th
And To Whom It May Concern:

Dear Madams/Sirs:
I have read Thai ministry’s publication of Mr. Kasit Piromya interview with the media of the outcome of the UNSC meeting on 14 February in New York and I referred to the press conference yesterday, 17 February 2011, by Samdech Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia.

May I comment point by point the following:
1) Mr. Kasit Piromya said “...Cambodia’s submission of a letter addressed to the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, in her capacity as the President of the UNSC for the month of February.”
Mr. Kasit has twisted the wordings.. Mr. Kasit should instead say “Cambodia’s submission of a letter addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, H.E. Mrs. Maria Ribeiro Viotti, ” and that “...she is Ambassador of Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN.
It should be noted that the Presidency of the UN Security Council is held in turn by the Members of the Council comprising 15 Member States in the English alphabetical order of their names. Each President holds office for one calendar month.

2) Mr. Kasit said “all UNSC member countries shared the view that bilateral mechanisms between Thailand and Cambodia remain necessary.
However, through her statement to the media thereafter the Council meeting, Madame President said “the UN Security Council urged Cambodia and Thailand to display maximum restraint and to establish a permanent cease-fire.”
She further stated that “the Council expressed support for ASEAN’s active efforts regarding the situation between Cambodia and Thailand, encouraged the parties
to continue to cooperate with the organization in this regard. And that the issue is expected to be discussed at the meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers on 22 February {next week}.”
With this respect, Mr. Kasit has again twisted the facts, and lied about the outcome of the meeting for his own purpose, (Thailand’s consistent policy of deception) to mislead Thai and international opinion. He said that “the outcome of this meeting showed that Cambodia’s objective of getting the UN involved was not achieved,” and added that “on the contrary, the UN has requested that Cambodia return to bilateral negotiations with Thailand.”
In fact, the Security Council encouraged both parties to utilize third party mechanism, the ASEAN.

3) Furthermore, Mr. Kasit said that “he has informed the UNSC meeting that the negotiation process between Thailand and Cambodia was still on-going through mechanisms such as the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission for Demarcation of Land Boundary (JBC), the General Border Committee (GBC)...”
Thai Minister has intentionally forgotten, obviously it was not the case. The minutes of the three meetings {of JBC} have been at stand still, and perhaps have been laid in rest, in the Thai Parliament for years. As per Thai constitution, it needs to be adopted! For that reason, Thai government cannot move the case further. Cambodia knows this well, and for this Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen has more than enough patience, that the bilateral negotiation with Thailand is in deep freeze!

4) To the question whether the outcome of the UNSC meeting would be binding on other international organizations such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Mr. Kasit replied that “following the outcome of the meeting, there would have to be further negotiation between Thailand and Cambodia. The UNSC did not forward the matter to the ICJ. Nevertheless, should Cambodia wish to present its case to the ICJ, it could do so, and Thailand would be ready to deal with that.” The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “Nevertheless, he {Mr. Kasit} believed that at this point, bilateral negotiations could still move forward.
Again, may I bring the attention of the public opinion to the above mentioned mechanisms as stated by Thai Foreign Minister.
There should be no bilateral talks. The talks can move forward only with the presence of the third party. To that end, the UN Security Council requested the Chairman of the ASEAN to entertain the two parties, which Thailand has steadfastly refused.

In his press conference yesterday Cambodia Prime Minister re-iterated
once again as he has always requested repeatedly for the assistance from ASEAN and/or from the UN to settle the so-called “border dispute” and the border clashes. But, Thai Prime Minister has always opposed it. This time Thailand has no other choice, but must be prepared to attend the round table in Jakarta on 22 February 2011.
Samdech Hun Sen, for his part is ready. He has instructed Cambodia’ s Foreign Minister to prepare a draft “Settlement Agreement” paper, if agreed by both parties it should be signed in the witness thereof by a neutral third party, in this case it would be logically be the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia.
It should be a binding agreement mechanism and may contain some wordings such as “...the parties agree to establish a permanent ceasefire and to implement it fully and resolve the situation peacefully and amicably and through effective dialogue...”. For that, I did agree with the statement of H.E. Mrs. Maria Ribeiro Viotti.
With the above mentioned mechanism, Thailand may refer to the establishment of Franco-Siamese Settlement on 17 November 1946 signed in Washington, DC in accordance with the international norm redacted by the General Act of Geneva of 26 September 1928 concerning “Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.” The border issue is an international dispute.
If all mechanisms as suggested by the UNSC or the ASEAN fail, Cambodia may bring the dispute to the ICJ as that would be inevitable.
As far as the International Court of Justice in The Hague is concerned, the frontier line which is currently in dispute, as Thailand has always raised, Thailand has already itself accepted the Court decision.
I would like to draw the public attention to the International Court of Justice of the United Nations and its judgment delivered on June 15, 1962 based on Annex I Map. The Court said and I quote: “Thailand in 1908-1909, did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line. The Court concluded further that the acceptance of the Annex I map by the Parties caused the map to enter the treaty settlement and to become an integral part of it; and thereby conferred on it a binding character”.
To this end, the Court found that the “Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia”; and that “Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw all military, police or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.”

According to the Court decision, it means that the vicinity of the Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. There is no such a so-called “overlapping area” for 4.6 km2 as claimed by Thailand.
Cambodia’s government has always used the internationally recognized map in every negotiation or document. Cambodia never uses a unilateral or non-internationally recognized map. Unlike Cambodia, Thailand did use its own unilateral and secret map, which lacks the international legitimacy to claim the so-called 4.6 km2 which goes against the 1904 Convention and 1907 Treaty which founded the basis for demarcating the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand.
Thank you for your kind attention in my open letter.

Enclosures:
Done in Phnom Penh, February 18, 2011
Sam Sotha
Former Ambassador for Mine Action,
Explosive Remnants of War (ERW), Cluster
Munitions and Disarmament
CC: H.E. Mr. Khiev Kanharith
Minister of Information
Royal Government of Cambodia