On 10 May 2011, Mr. Kasit Piromya, Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave a press conference at Suvarnabhumi Airport upon his return from Jakarta, Indonesia, about his meeting on 9 May 2011 with Mr. Hor Namhong, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, and Mr. Marty Natalegawa, Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Gist as follows:

1. The Foreign Minister, speaking about the background of the 9 May meeting, said that it was the result of the meeting on 8 May 2011 between the Indonesian President, the Thai Prime Minister, and the Cambodian Prime Minister, on the sidelines of the 18th ASEAN Summit, to discuss the Thai-Cambodian issue, during which they had assigned their respective Foreign Ministers to meet and further discuss the matter.

2. At the meeting on 9 May 2011, the Foreign Ministers concurred on a package of solutions rather than focusing on specific issues, like Cambodia’s position that Thailand approve the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Indonesian Observers Team (IOT), and Thailand’s position reaffirming that the dispatch of the IOT would only follow the withdrawal of Cambodian troops from the Temple of Phra Viharn and Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda and surrounding areas.

The Foreign Minister further explained that Indonesia, as a democratic society with rules and regulations would not be able to send the IOT to the Thai-Cambodian border until the exchange of notes on the TOR had been made.  In this regard, it was agreed that the exchange of notes on the TOR should proceed, following which Indonesia would be able to send a survey team to the border area to meet with Si Sa Ket Provincial Governor to prepare for the IOT, including on such issues as their accommodation.  Considered part of the Indonesian Embassy in Thailand, the survey team would also inspect the four locations on the Thai side of the border where the IOT would be stationed.  The dispatch of the 15 Indonesian observers to the border would be the next step which would not be operationalized unless the previous phase of the package has been fully implemented, especially the withdrawal of the Cambodian troops from the Temple of Phra Viharn and Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda and surrounding areas.  In addition, the Foreign Ministry, on behalf of the Government of Thailand, would have to formally submit a letter of invitation to the Government of Indonesia.

As for the next step, the Foreign Minister would have to report the outcome of the discussions and request the Cabinet to reconsider its 3 May 2011 decision so that he could sign the letter of acceptance for the exchange of note with Indonesia. The Foreign Minister reaffirmed that Indonesia fully understood that the IOT would not be sent if Cambodia did not withdraw its troops from the Temple of Phra Viharn, Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda, the community and the market.  The Foreign Minister noted that he had already telephoned and submitted a written report to the Prime Minister regarding the outcome of the meeting.

3. The Foreign Minister reaffirmed that Thailand’s position agreed upon among the Government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Defence was that Cambodian troops must withdraw from the Temple of Phra Viharn, because it was a violation of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Properties in the Event of Armed Conflict, and also from the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda, the community and the market, because this violated the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary between Thailand and Cambodia (MOU 2000).

The afore-mentioned has long been Thailand’s position and was not just raised during discussions on the TOR. Indeed, Thailand has communicated this position at least 13 times to various parties on different occasions. This indicated that Thailand’s position on the matter has always been consistent and continual, and that the discussion on this within ASEAN regarding the TOR for the IOT was also not new.  The Foreign Minister added that the dispatch of the IOT to the affected areas while Cambodian troops were still present in the area would legitimize Cambodia’s action and would affect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Thailand.  Hence, to claim that it was Thailand’s intention all along not to approve the TOR was not true.

4. Thus far, the Foreign Minister has made statements at ASEAN meetings, to the media, and to the Thai Parliament that the consideration of issues pertaining to national security would have to be done in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws, which required thorough deliberation and consultations among all concerned.  What was important therefore was not the speed of the decision making process.

5. Regarding the meeting on 9 May 2011, the Foreign Minister stated that the said meeting was not just one between Thailand and Cambodia, but one within the ASEAN family with Indonesia, as designated by ASEAN, helping facilitate and support Thailand and Cambodia to use existing bilateral mechanisms to resolve their problems peacefully.  The dispute between Thailand and Cambodia should not go beyond ASEAN as this could adversely affect ASEAN’s solidarity.

6. The Royal Thai Government has the political will to negotiate with Cambodia bilaterally, both on the incidents in the areas of the Ta Kwai and Ta Muen Temples and in the area of the Phra Viharn Temple, rather than having to draw the international community in.  It was incorrect therefore to assert that as a bigger country, Thailand has bullied a smaller neighbour. Thailand simply had no reason to do so.

7. Regarding news reports that Malaysia’s Deputy Foreign Minister blamed Thailand for the delay of the TOR for the IOT, the Foreign Minister said that the issue should not lead to misunderstanding between the two countries.  In this regard, the Director-General of the Department of East Asia Affairs had met with the Malaysian Charge d’Affaires to Thailand on the morning of 10 May 2011, during which the latter clarified that his Deputy Foreign Minister did not say what had been reported, that he only responded to the questions raised by the media, and that he was quoted out of context. The view of the other eight ASEAN Foreign Ministers, including Malaysia, on the issue has been clear, namely that the dispute should be resolved bilaterally with the facilitation of Indonesia as ASEAN Chair in order to resolve the problem peacefully and avoid further armed clashes.

8. In response to a question whether it would be possible to submit the agreed package to the Cabinet for its consideration given that the House of Representatives has been dissolved, the Foreign Minister said that his undertaking at the meeting on 9 May and the package therefrom were in accordance with the Cabinet’s decision on 3 May. In this regard, he reaffirmed that the principle, objective and position have not altered, which was that Cambodia had to withdraw its troops from the Temple of Phra Viharn and the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda, and which was known to both Indonesia and Cambodia.  Also, during the meeting on 9 May, the Cambodian Foreign Minister did not raise any question regarding this issue. He added that the implementation of the agreed package has to be done sequentially. If the first phase could not be completed, then it would not be possible to proceed to the following step. The Foreign Minister also said that he would be meeting with the Defence Minister to discuss details within the week.

In response to a question whether discussions on the withdrawal of troops would take place at the General Border Committee (GBC) meeting, the Foreign Minister said “yes,” noting that it was agreed that the first stage would be to approve the exchange of note on TOR for the IOT, together with the decision on the date for the next GBC meeting. The convening of the GBC meeting would be in the second stage, the date and venue of which would be discussed between the Thai and Cambodian Defence Ministers.  Whether Cambodian would withdraw its troop was a matter of politics of compromise.  But the main objective was to secure peace. This, however, did not mean that this would be a zero-sum game.  As both ASEAN members, Thailand and Cambodia had obligations to the organization.  The conflict therefore should not be prolonged or burden the international community.

***********************

11 May 2011