On 29 April 2011 at 15.00-16.30 hrs., Dr. Panitan Wattanayagorn, Deputy Secretary-General to the Prime Minister and Acting Government Spokesperson, Mr. Thani Thongphakdi, Director-General of the Department of Information and Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, and Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, Royal Thai Army Spokesman, gave a press conference to a group of foreign and Thai journalists regarding the Thai-Cambodian border situation, covering further developments since the previous briefing on 28 April 2011. The briefing was followed by a Q&A session. Gist as follows:

 

·        The Acting Government Spokesperson stated that the Thai Government was deeply disappointed over the ongoing clashes over the night following the mutual understanding reached by Thailand and Cambodia on measures to cease hostilities in the area. He expressed the Thai Government’s condolences to the families of those military officers and civilians who had lost their lives and were injured. In all, seven lives had been lost and many injured, while more than 30,000 people had been evacuated. He emphasized that the Thai Government was concerned about the incidents that occurred and called on the Government of Cambodia to honour the measures agreed upon on 28 April to ensure cessation of hostilities and restore peace to the concerned area. In this regard, he hoped that talks between local officers, which took place on 29 April, would be an opportunity for local officers to resume discussions to try to implement the measures that had previously been agreed upon to put an end to armed clashes in the area. 

·        Dr. Panitan further reaffirmed the Thai Government’s commitment to resolving the problem, noting that Thailand did not and would not initiate attacks against other countries and that the use of force would only be for defending Thailand’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and the lives of Thai people. He underscored Thailand’s readiness to have dialogue with Cambodia at all levels, whether at the local level, between Ministers or between leaders. Looking ahead to the ASEAN Summit, Thailand looks forward to informing ASEAN friends of the situation and is looking into the possibility of arranging a meeting between Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Prime Minister Hun Sen.

 

·        Noting that Cambodia had issued a statement stating that it had submitted a request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an interpretation of the ICJ’s judgment on the Temple case in 1962, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said that this was done in accordance with Article 60 of the Statute of the ICJ. Thailand had been informed earlier about this development and was awaiting formal notification.

·        This move by Cambodia is not beyond expectation. Assessment of Cambodia’s actions from the beginning indicates that it would move in this direction. Furthermore, during the meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hor Namhong had informed Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on 4 February 2011 that if no progress could be made in the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC), the Cambodian side would submit its request to the ICJ to interpret the aforementioned ruling of the Court.  

·        From Thailand’s perspective, this put all the jigsaw pieces in place.  This action by Cambodia reflects the fact that Cambodia has been harbouring an ulterior motive. By initiating armed clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border since 22 April 2011, Cambodian had laid the groundwork and created an environment which it hoped would be conducive for it to go to the ICJ. On its part, Thailand is ready and has been making the necessary preparations for quite some time now, including establishing a working group and seeking the services of foreign legal advisers on this case. 

·        Be that as it may, Thailand still believes that bilateral negotiation remains the best approach to address border issues which are inherently bilateral in nature. However, given the fact that the Cambodian side has sought an interpretation from the ICJ, the Thai side is prepared to take appropriate action. Although seeking recourse with the ICJ is another avenue to address the issue peacefully, this decision by Cambodia reflects its disregard and wish to bypass the role of ASEAN in helping facilitate the bilateral process between Thailand and Cambodia, which was regrettable.

·        In addition, the Acting Government Spokesperson added that on 29 April 2011, the Prime Minister had instructed that a special committee of experts be established to deal with the case. He reassured Thais and friends of Thailand that the country would be prepared to present facts and evidence to the ICJ when the time comes.

 

·        The Royal Thai Army Spokesman said that clashes reoccurred at 21.00 hrs. when Cambodia fired small arms and grenades and the Thai side made a proportionate response. Sporadic clashes followed overnight and ended at 06.00 hrs. These clashes took place despite the fact that on 28 April 2011, Lieutenant-General Thawatchai Samutsakorn, Thailand’s Second Army Region Commander had held talks with Lieutenant-General Chea Mon, Cambodia’s Fourth Military Region Commander at Chong Jom, during which it was agreed that the results of their discussions, including a preliminary agreement to cease hostilities, would be reported to their superiors.    The clashes led to the death of one soldier and seven soldiers being injured on the Thai side. 

·        The Army Spokesperson opined that, looking positively, the clashes might have resulted from miscommunication and there may have been issues of command and control amongst the Cambodian troops since the Fourth Army Region Commander who led the talks with Thailand’s Second Army Region Commander was not directly responsible for the area where the clashes took place. Be that as it may, in the evening of 29 April 2011, talks between the commanders of units stationed on the front line were arranged in Osamet District, Odor Meanchey Province. Issues discussed included making sure that units under their respective command exercise caution in the use of their weapons in order to prevent misunderstandings that might lead to clashes, and exchanging information on how to initiate contact between the two sides if incidents were to occur so that they could promptly coordinate with each other. All this shows Thailand’s sincerity in trying to end armed clashes through peaceful means. Thailand would continue to monitor whether Cambodia would be able to turn the results of the negotiations into concrete action.

 

·        Colonel Sansern said that the Thai side would continue to monitor closely the situation whether what had been discussed between the two sides would lead to concrete results. This first step of ensuring the cessation of hostilities had to be met before further discussions could be held on other matters, such as how to reduce the risk of further clashes. Talks could also then be elevated to a higher level.

 

 

During the Q&A session that ensued, the following issues were addressed:

 

 

·        Asked whether the clash on 28 April 2011 was caused by miscommunication among the Cambodian side, the Army Spokesman said that considering from the participants in the talks on 28 April, the Thai Second Army Region Commander is the person in charge of the area, while Lieutenant-General Chea Mon is not.  There was thus a possibility that there might be some problems relating to the chain-of-command and messages might not have been effectively conveyed to those in the frontline. 

 

·        The Acting Government Spokesperson added that regardless of what actually happened, what’s clear was that on the Thai side, there was no specific order or cause to start the shooting.  He reaffirmed Thailand’s commitment to the measures agreed, saying that the Thai military has been reporting to the Government about the situation on a continuous basis, and the Prime Minister has been closely monitoring the situation. He called on the Cambodian leaders to make sure that their solders are committed to these measures. 

 

 

·        Asked about theprogress of bilateral processes and the issue about the dispatch of the Indonesian observer team to the border area, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said that the Joint Boundary Commission met in Bogor, Indonesia on 7-8 April 2011 and discussed various issues, particularly the issue of the company to do the production of aerial mapping of the border area between Thailand and Cambodia and the dispatch of joint field survey teams to do survey work in the area, which locations where the recent clashes took place. Since then, there was a decision by the Thai Constitutional Court regarding the three agreed minutes of the previous meetings of the JBC, which states that the JBC has not concluded its work so there is no need yet to seek parliamentary approval. Therefore, the JBC could continue with its work until such time that it finalizes an agreement which will then be submitted to the Cabinet and Parliament for approval.

 

·        He noted that given the afore-mentioned progress, Thailand was hopeful that another JBC meeting could take place soon. Thailand was therefore disappointed with recent events at the border because it had thought that things were progressing in the right direction and achieving satisfactory progress until the clashes took place on 22 April. It has become quite apparent that these clashes were efforts by Cambodia to lay the groundwork for the decision to go to the ICJ to seek an interpretation of the Court’s ruling back in 1962 regarding the case of the Temple.

 

 

·        In response to further questions regarding issues raised in Cambodia’s submission to the ICJ, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said that Thailand was still waiting for official notification from the ICJ. Once received, this would provide a clearer picture about Cambodia’s request. However, from the statement issued by the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation on 29 April, it could be that Cambodia would request the ICJ to make an interpretation of what constitutes the “vicinity” of the Temple as they believed that there remain some interpretation issues of the Court’s decision which have led to different views about the right over the so-called “disputed area” of 4.6 square kilometres.  

 

·        As for the timing of Cambodia’s submission, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hor Nam Hong had told his Thai counterpart that if there was no progress in the JBC, Cambodia would seek an interpretation of the ICJ’s decision.  The assessment of the Thai side is that what has happened has been to prepare a environment that would be conducive for them to request an interpretation.

 

·        Asked whether Thailand would accept the outcome of the Court’s interpretation, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said that one should not prejudge what the Court would decide, noting that the Court would need to time to go through all the various evidence before it decides on how to proceed.  Normally, in considering any request before it, the ICJ would have to decide whether it would rule on the request and it would provide opportunity for the countries concerned to make observations and provide information to help the Court in its deliberation.

 

·        As for how long the ICJ process could take, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said that in the statement issued by the Cambodian foreign ministry, it mentions that Cambodia has requested for an interpretation about the boundary as well as for what they called “conservatory measures.” The request for “conservatory measures” could be deliberated upon rather quickly within 3-4 weeks, while the deliberation on the request for an interpretation of its 1962 ruling, judging from previous cases, may take nine months up to a year or even longer.

 

·        Asked about the committee to be set up in light of Cambodia’s request to the ICJ, the Acting Government Spokesperson said that details about this committee would be available in due course.  In principle, the committee, which would comprise relevant experts, would set the direction and approach on the case. He also stated that there would be continuity in the work of the committee, whether during the period of the caretaker government or after the new government is formed. In addition, as Cambodia’s move is something the Thai side has foreseen, preparations have already been made, and the ICJ would not be the only forum which Cambodia may take this issue to. 

 

 

·        Asked why the civilian governments of the two countries are not taking the lead in the talks but leave it to the military, the Acting Government Spokesperson said that since the Government came to office, negotiations or talks have taken place several times between Thailand and Cambodia. Prime Minister Abhisit had met with Prime Minister Hun Sen, often holding bilateral talks on the sidelines of international meetings they both attended. The fact that those talks took place reflects Thailand’s attempt to engage Cambodia peacefullyvia dialogue. The Foreign Ministry has also been working with Indonesia, in its capacity as the Chair of ASEAN, on the issue of the Indonesian observers.  Dr. Panitan noted further that the military is required by law and by the Constitution to protect the country’s sovereignty.  If Thailand is attacked, the military is bound to engage in protecting the land and the people.  Even after the House of Representatives is dissolved, the military would continue to follow the guidelines that the Government has announced in Parliament, which is that they can use force to defend the country but not to attack others. Talks between local military officers at the local level would have to be reported to their superiors, the Defence Ministry and the Prime Minister.  

 

·        The Foreign Ministry Spokesperson added that on 23 April 2011, Foreign Minister Kasit had spoken over the phone with his Cambodian counterpart, and they agreed to meet during the ASEAN Summit.  There have also been contacts with the Cambodian Ambassador in Bangkok.

 

·        Asked about the possibility of meetings between Thailand and Cambodia during the ASEAN Summit, the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said that the Thai and Cambodian Foreign Ministers agreed to meet at the sideline of the Summit, which would be a bilateral meeting, adding that ASEAN’s role regarding the Thai-Cambodian issue is to support and facilitate the bilateral process and not to mediate.   As for a meeting between Prime Minister Abhisit and Prime Minister Hun Sen, there is a possibility if the situation stabilizes.

 

·        In this connection, the Acting Government Spokesperson stated that there are three main points regarding the meeting between Prime Minister Abhisit and Prime Minister Hun Sen.  First, as a principle, the Prime Minister is committed to peaceful dialogue whether it be with the opposition group within the country or with countries that Thailand has issues with.  He is therefore willing to talk with Prime Minister Hun Sen.  Second, the talks should be agreed upon by both countries.  Third, Prime Minister Abhisit looks forward to improvement in the situation before the talks take place.  It is very difficult to have the meeting held while clashes continue, as this would not send a good signal to the international community.  If there is a big improvement, the Prime Minister could then be confident that the meeting would be productive.  This is why the Thai side is committed to having local officers continue to talk.  

 

·        Dr. Panitan also added that while Prime Minister Abhisit usually schedule bilateral meetings with other leaders when attending an ASEAN Summit, this time – given that he is expected to present the draft decree to dissolve the House of Representatives to His Majesty the King before leaving for Jakarta and the Government is looking into what, as a caretaking government, it can or cannot do – he has not yet scheduled any bilateral talks.

____________________