The Asean Economic Community in Thailand

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars of ASEAN is the ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN Political and Security Community also the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The main objective of the ASEAN Economic Community is to develop the potential of trading and market size of ASEAN countries whether by opening free trade within the region or capital mobility and skilled workers. As the pillars. It’s mean that all three must function simultaneously, anchoring and stabilizing the structure and strengthen the ASEAN community. However, ASEAN member countries are still facing problems both within and between regions for ex. the Rohingya Muslims migrated to south of Myanmar. This also including Thailand facing with unrest situation in the southern border, the problem of border demarcation in disputed areas around Prasat Khao Phra Viharn Temple between Thailand and Cambodia and including regional terrorism. The regional conflict is evident in the past. The tension of the conflict in the South China Sea, which has five overlapping sovereign states: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

The dispute first begins over the territorial sovereignty of the temple and later extended to a 4.6 km area land adjacent to the temple premises. This temple was known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thai and Preah Vihear in Cambodia was establish in an 11th and 12th century during the golden era of Khmer civilization. It is disputed that Cambodia has more powerful competing claims over Thailand as the origin of the temple belongs to the Khmer empires but Thailand has its own claims and evidence to protect which the territory originally belongs to Thais. The elaborate and distorted history, hyped nationalist sensation and force politics have created the situation much worse and contentious to bring up with a suitable conclusion.

The borderline between Thailand and Cambodia has not been evidently demarcated and the obligation and pacts signed among the two countries are debatable. The question over where exactly the border between Thailand and Cambodia lies still the crux of the debate today. The instant argues over the boundary has also continued to the elaborated of two other Hindu temples named Ta Krabey and Ta Krabey, located 150kms west of the temple.

The genesis of the argue dates back to the period of the French protectorate, and the boundary pacts of 1887 and 1893 signed among the Siamese and the French according to that the Thais had claimed the whole territory on the left bank of Mekong River. To evade Thailand’s government the Cambodian king asked French protectorate status in 1863. In 1904, the Thais and French colonial authorities controlling Cambodia signed pacts according to the boundary line would run along the watershed along the eastern section of the Dangrek Mountain. The Dangrek was made as a boundary under the Convention signed among France and Siam signed on 7 October 1902.

Under the Article 3, a mixed commission was made up by the two that surveyed and stated which the boundary will go between Kel pass and the Col de Preah Chambot along with the Preah Vihear temple area. The mixed commission’s report did not say any reference to the Dangrek Mountain. While the commission concluded with its lasts reports, together on 23 March 1907 Siamese and France government signed pacts (Pacts among France and Siam with a protocol regarding the democratic of the border). Under this contract, Thai ceded the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon, and Siem Reap to the French to negotiate for Dan-Sai and Krat.

The Thai government asked the French to do a survey and ready for a new topographical map. In 1907, the French officials had sent nearly 11 maps to the Thai authorities. According to one of the maps produced the border was designed with the basins of Namsen and Mekong on the one hand and Nam Mou on the other. This averted the watershed line locating the temple under Cambodian territory. The Thai challenged disputing which the map had no binding characters as it was not approved by the mixed commission.

In 1941, Thailand’s army seized the Siem Reap and Battambang provinces back. In 1954, they also seized and occupied the Preah Vihear territory after the withdrawal of the French army from Cambodia

In 1959, Cambodia cited the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at Hague and filed a case on Thailand. The first submission by Cambodia to the ICJ stated which Thailand should withdraw its armed forces that have been stationed in the temple since 1954. Second is that the owner of the Temple of Preah Vihear should belong to Cambodia.

On the 15 June 1962, the ICJ requested the jurisdiction in favor of Cambodia and insisted that the judgment was based on valid maps made during the 1904 and 1907 border agreement that precisely display the temple in the Cambodian territory. It also instructed Thailand to return every of the artifact and antiquities to Cambodia. This judgment stirred up anger reactions from Thailand.

Thailand radically remonstrates with this judgment and stated which the 1907 French survey map cannot be regarded final to define the territorial owners as it is not an official document of the border commission and it had not taken into audit the mixed commission contract made in 1904. But the ICJ summarize which the Thais authorities unable to provide a clear exception to the maps made by the Cambodian in 1907, neither did they made any alternate maps. The court, therefore, realizes bound to help the owner right of the temple to Cambodia.

In 1963 Cambodian under Prince Sihanouk officially took the possession of the temple. He announced which the Thai people will be permitted to visit the temple without a visa. He allowed the Thai’s to maintain the temple artifact despite the ICJ’s command.

Any further negotiations to resolve the argued failed as Thailand did not completely agree on the ICJ judgment. Negotiations and passes on demarcation and delimitation of the boundary retrieved on track only in 1997. A Memorandum of Understanding was contracted throughout Thailand and Cambodia on 14 June 2000 on the survey and demarcation of the borderland. Under MoU, a Joint Boundary Commission was made to fix the argued border areas. However many more contracted and understandings came to be made, yet the agreement occurred in 2008. For instance the first-ever joint ministry meeting in 2003, institution of the joint panel managing the sanctuary in March 2004, unable to come up with any major development.

The consequence of the general elections in Thailand 2011 with Thaksin’s Pheu Thai party coming to power under his sister Yingluck Shinawatra gives hopes for recovering the broken relationship between the two nations. Rather, many questions grow on the lately voted governments together with settling this dispute. As for the election results will be enough to change Thailand beyond its bitter division with Cambodia is extremely doubtful. By constant remonstrate and challenges from the competitor party, will Yingluck Shinawatra succeed in addressing the authority distributing challenges inside the country together with the inter-state conflicts? Yingluck’s will face with the major problem from its competitor. The competitor has already begun to question the political legitimacy of Yingluck and her crew. Thaksin’s come to Cambodia with Yingluck in August 2011 had drawn high criticisms from the Democratic Party. Yingluck is seen not as the country’s new leader but as a Thaksin’s stand-in. There has been continuous argue in Bangkok which any policy defined and executed by the new government will have the imprints of Thaksin Shinawatra

In the one hand, where there is still hope which relation between Thaksin and the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen will be a positive factor for Yingluck to adjust the relationship between the countries. There is a constant fear which like her ancestor Yingluck too might abandon her country for the utility of other bilateral benefits.

In February and April 2011, the armed conflict between these countries had provoked a major threat to the regional peace and stability.

ASEAN must act soon to control any such confrontation in the future. The conflict, if not placate, will come up a major challenge to ASEAN’s credibility as a regional organization. The two important articles in the ASEAN Charter outline the covenants for settlement of argues. Article 22 of the Charter says that all ASEAN member countries must form and keep a dispute settlement mechanism. As Article 23 says which the members to a dispute can ask for ASEAN to give mediation, good offices or conciliation, However, ASEAN is unable to come up with any settlement to the dispute despite repeated efforts. The initiatives taken by the ASEAN Chair so far, to mediate between the two countries to settle the dispute have failed. The ASEAN position in 2011, Indonesia had proposed the two countries to pass a spectator crew to the disputed territory. Settlement on this could not be met, as both the disputed member did not reach any clear conclusion. As a member of ASEAN both Thailand and Cambodia need to abide by the rule of its pacts of friendship and Cooperation. This pact says which all ASEAN members should peacefully settle inter-state disputes and avoid application of the threat of force among the states. Yet, ASEAN members have failed to abide by the anchor of the peaceful settlement of the dispute mechanism so far. Furthermore, this pacts does not give any framework for operational protection to address a crisis situation.

However, ASEAN’s conciliation is essential, under the widespread circumstances any third party intervention will be awfully contentious. Panachai K, 1581002332

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars of ASEAN is the ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN Political and Security Community also the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The main objective of the ASEAN Economic Community is to develop the potential of trading and market size of ASEAN countries whether by opening free trade within the region or capital mobility and skilled workers. As the pillars. It’s mean that all three must function simultaneously, anchoring and stabilizing the structure and strengthen the ASEAN community. However, ASEAN member countries are still facing problems both within and between regions for ex. the Rohingya Muslims migrated to south of Myanmar. This also including Thailand facing with unrest situation in the southern border, the problem of border demarcation in disputed areas around Prasat Khao Phra Viharn Temple between Thailand and Cambodia and including regional terrorism. The regional conflict is evident in the past. The tension of the conflict in the South China Sea, which has five overlapping sovereign states: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

The dispute first begins over the territorial sovereignty of the temple and later extended to a 4.6 km area land adjacent to the temple premises. This temple was known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thai and Preah Vihear in Cambodia was establish in an 11th and 12th century during the golden era of Khmer civilization. It is disputed that Cambodia has more powerful competing claims over Thailand as the origin of the temple belongs to the Khmer empires but Thailand has its own claims and evidence to protect which the territory originally belongs to Thais. The elaborate and distorted history, hyped nationalist sensation and force politics have created the situation much worse and contentious to bring up with a suitable conclusion.

The borderline between Thailand and Cambodia has not been evidently demarcated and the obligation and pacts signed among the two countries are debatable. The question over where exactly the border between Thailand and Cambodia lies still the crux of the debate today. The instant argues over the boundary has also continued to the elaborated of two other Hindu temples named Ta Krabey and Ta Krabey, located 150kms west of the temple.

The genesis of the argue dates back to the period of the French protectorate, and the boundary pacts of 1887 and 1893 signed among the Siamese and the French according to that the Thais had claimed the whole territory on the left bank of Mekong River. To evade Thailand’s government the Cambodian king asked French protectorate status in 1863. In 1904, the Thais and French colonial authorities controlling Cambodia signed pacts according to the boundary line would run along the watershed along the eastern section of the Dangrek Mountain. The Dangrek was made as a boundary under the Convention signed among France and Siam signed on 7 October 1902.

Under the Article 3, a mixed commission was made up by the two that surveyed and stated which the boundary will go between Kel pass and the Col de Preah Chambot along with the Preah Vihear temple area. The mixed commission’s report did not say any reference to the Dangrek Mountain. While the commission concluded with its lasts reports, together on 23 March 1907 Siamese and France government signed pacts (Pacts among France and Siam with a protocol regarding the democratic of the border). Under this contract, Thai ceded the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon, and Siem Reap to the French to negotiating for Dan-Sai and Krat.

The Thai government asked the French to do a survey and ready for a new topographical map. In 1907, the French officials had sent nearly 11 maps to the Thai authorities. According to one of the maps produced the border was designed with the basins of Namsen and Mekong on the one hand and Nam Mou on the other. This averted the watershed line locating the temple under Cambodian territory. The Thai challenged disputing which the map had no binding characters as it was not approved by the mixed commission.

In 1941, Thailand’s army seized the Siem Reap and Battambang provinces back. In 1954, they also seized and occupied the Preah Vihear territory after the withdrawal of the French army from Cambodia

In 1959, Cambodia cited the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at Hague and filed a case on Thailand. The first submission by Cambodia to the ICJ stated which Thailand should withdraw its armed forces that have been stationed in the temple since 1954. Second is that the owner of the Temple of Preah Vihear should belong to Cambodia.

On the 15 June 1962, the ICJ requested the jurisdiction in favor of Cambodia and insisted that the judgment was based on valid maps made during the 1904 and 1907 border agreement that precisely display the temple in the Cambodian territory. It also instructed Thailand to return every of the artifact and antiquities to Cambodia. This judgment stirred up anger reactions from Thailand.

Thailand radically remonstrates with this judgment and stated which the 1907 French survey map cannot be regarded final to define the territorial owners as it is not an official document of the border commission and it had not taken into audit the mixed commission contract made in 1904. But the ICJ summarize which the Thais authorities unable to provide a clear exception to the maps made by the Cambodian in 1907, neither did they made any alternate maps. The court, therefore, realizes bound to help the owner right of the temple to Cambodia.

In 1963 Cambodian under Prince Sihanouk officially took the possession of the temple. He announced which the Thai people will be permitted to visit the temple without a visa. He allowed the Thai’s to maintain the temple artifact despite the ICJ’s command.

Any further negotiations to resolve the argued failed as Thailand did not completely agree on the ICJ judgment. Negotiations and passes on demarcation and delimitation of the boundary retrieved on track only in 1997. A Memorandum of Understanding was contracted throughout Thailand and Cambodia on 14 June 2000 on the survey and demarcation of the borderland. Under MoU, a Joint Boundary Commission was made to fix the argued border areas. However many more contracted and understandings came to be made, yet the agreement occurred in 2008. For instance the first-ever joint ministry meeting in 2003, institution of the joint panel managing the sanctuary in March 2004, unable to come up with any major development.

The consequence of the general elections in Thailand 2011 with Thaksin’s Pheu Thai party coming to power under his sister Yingluck Shinawatra gives hopes for recovering the broken relationship between the two nations. Rather, many questions grow on the lately voted governments together with settling this dispute. As for the election results will be enough to change Thailand beyond its bitter division with Cambodia is extremely doubtful. By constant remonstrate and challenges from the competitor party, will Yingluck Shinawatra succeed in addressing the authority distributing challenges inside the country together with the inter-state conflicts? Yingluck’s will face with the major problem from its competitor. The competitor has already begun to question the political legitimacy of Yingluck and her crew. Thaksin’s come to Cambodia with Yingluck in August 2011 had drawn high criticisms from the Democratic Party. Yingluck is seen not as the country’s new leader but as a Thaksin’s stand-in. There has been continuous argue in Bangkok which any policy defined and executed by the new government will have the imprints of Thaksin Shinawatra

In the one hand, where there is still hope which relation between Thaksin and the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen will be a positive factor for Yingluck to adjust the relationship between the countries. There is a constant fear which like her ancestor Yingluck too might abandon her country for the utility of other bilateral benefits.

In February and April 2011, the armed conflict between these countries had provoked a major threat to the regional peace and stability.

ASEAN must act soon to control any such confrontation in the future. The conflict, if not placate, will come up a major challenge to ASEAN’s credibility as a regional organization. The two important articles in the ASEAN Charter outline the covenants for settlement of argues. Article 22 of the Charter says that all ASEAN member countries must form and keep a dispute settlement mechanism. As Article 23 says which the members to a dispute can ask for ASEAN to give mediation, good offices or conciliation, However, ASEAN is unable to come up with any settlement to the dispute despite repeated efforts. The initiatives taken by the ASEAN Chair so far, to mediate between the two countries to settle the dispute have failed. The ASEAN position in 2011, Indonesia had proposed the two countries to pass a spectator crew to the disputed territory. Settlement on this could not be met, as both the disputed member did not reach any clear conclusion. As a member of ASEAN both Thailand and Cambodia need to abide by the rule of its pacts of friendship and Cooperation. This pact says which all ASEAN members should peacefully settle inter-state disputes and avoid application of the threat of force among the states. Yet, ASEAN members have failed to abide by the anchor of the peaceful settlement of the dispute mechanism so far. Furthermore, this pacts does not give any framework for operational protection to address a crisis situation.

However, ASEAN’s conciliation is essential, under the widespread circumstances any third party intervention will be awfully contentious.