Preah Vihear Temple
Preah Vihear Temple
Although its eight years old now this article makes for very interesting reading. When I informed my wife that Issan used to belong to Laos she would'nt have a bar of it. I hope this link works, its my first try at it. LAO-THAI BORDER
Temple Guide
This site has some photos, and a fairly detailed write-up:
http://www.btinternet.com/~andy.brouwer/pvihear.htm
Unfortunately for me, westerby, the particular computer I'm using right now has problems with many 'high-graphic' sites, and the Explorer window freezes up when I try to access it. Then my whole computer slowly begins phasing off into a general freeze, forcing me to shut down Explorer entirely to get out of it.
The BBC site has proven to be just such a problem site for my old machine. I'll have to access it from a different computer.
I was able to locate an article published on 'the Guardian' Web site just yesterday (Saturday, July 26) that gives a good description of conditions in that area just now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... d.cambodia
http://www.btinternet.com/~andy.brouwer/pvihear.htm
Unfortunately for me, westerby, the particular computer I'm using right now has problems with many 'high-graphic' sites, and the Explorer window freezes up when I try to access it. Then my whole computer slowly begins phasing off into a general freeze, forcing me to shut down Explorer entirely to get out of it.
The BBC site has proven to be just such a problem site for my old machine. I'll have to access it from a different computer.
I was able to locate an article published on 'the Guardian' Web site just yesterday (Saturday, July 26) that gives a good description of conditions in that area just now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... d.cambodia
Garnet & Jack
It is a debacle and those here should be shot.
Their mindset is in no way aimed at appeasing the masses, nor is it aimed at sorting out the problm over the temple.
However NOW when all other avenures have been exhausted, they are finally deciding to appoint a diplomat, who does at least understand diplomacy and has a good track record.
the fear of UN reprisals may have been the key to their decisions. Thailand has few freinds internationally over this site and commonsense as said before in other posts is a something Thai's do not have in large quantities.
Their mindset is in no way aimed at appeasing the masses, nor is it aimed at sorting out the problm over the temple.
However NOW when all other avenures have been exhausted, they are finally deciding to appoint a diplomat, who does at least understand diplomacy and has a good track record.
the fear of UN reprisals may have been the key to their decisions. Thailand has few freinds internationally over this site and commonsense as said before in other posts is a something Thai's do not have in large quantities.
Guns
Guns, where do you get your information concerning your statement "Thailand has few freinds Internationally over this site" I have heard no condemnation from anyone so far. If anyone is to blame its the French who drew up this Map in the first place. Personally I think both Countries should share the site and the cost of maintaining it. As Stan metioned, this is nothing more than an excercise in scoring political browny points, but the UN could at least have gone to the site first and then called for a vote, which they did not !!
-
Laan Yaa Mo
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 9244
- Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
- Location: ขอนแก่น
Thailand does have quite a few friends over this issue including many of the ASEAN states, and the United States.
One reason that has been put forward for the confrontation at the moment is yesterday's election in Cambodia and how it served Hun Sen to have a 'unity' issue against an old enemy to rally the country behind him.
This is true, but it does now explain what is going on in Thailand.
Clearly, PAD wants the current government out and is doing its best to make the government look weak and incompetent. Does it want a return to military rule and chao pha (godfather) politics or not?
As to the temple itself. I remember the controversy vaguely from the late 50s and early 60s.
This was at a time when the United States was looking for friends in the battle against communism.
Thailand was already onside and was a trusted and loyal ally of the United States.
Burma was going through a difficult transition from democratic constitutional parliamentary rule under U Nu to military rule under Ne Win.
I forget about Laos. Either Suvanna Phuma was leading a neutralist government or he had been replaced by Phoumi or one of the military figures. The United States did not like Suvanna Phuma's neutralist policy until 1962. North Vietnam was also putting Suvanna Phum'a neutralist policy under incredible pressure too. I forgot when Kong Le staged his coup to oust the right-wing militarists.
Anyway, Cambodia was a key to the United States. The flamboyant and charasmatic god-individual Sihanouk was ruling Cambodia and following a neutral policy. However, he often played the United States off against North Vietnam and vice-versa trying to get the best deal for Cambodia.
I think the United States might have supported Cambodia over the temple issue at the United Nations to try and sway Cambodia to lean more to the United States in its foreign policy. The Soviets and China would support Cambodia on the issue too.
I might be really wrong on this, but it would be interesting to see which way countries like the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada voted in the United Nations.
Owing to laziness on my part, I have not googled the information, which leaves me open to having more egg on my face than is normal.
There is no easy solution to the temple question. However, PAD can use it as a weapon to hammer the ruling government into a pulp by pointing out that they are weak and useless in defending important Thai interests.
One reason that has been put forward for the confrontation at the moment is yesterday's election in Cambodia and how it served Hun Sen to have a 'unity' issue against an old enemy to rally the country behind him.
This is true, but it does now explain what is going on in Thailand.
Clearly, PAD wants the current government out and is doing its best to make the government look weak and incompetent. Does it want a return to military rule and chao pha (godfather) politics or not?
As to the temple itself. I remember the controversy vaguely from the late 50s and early 60s.
This was at a time when the United States was looking for friends in the battle against communism.
Thailand was already onside and was a trusted and loyal ally of the United States.
Burma was going through a difficult transition from democratic constitutional parliamentary rule under U Nu to military rule under Ne Win.
I forget about Laos. Either Suvanna Phuma was leading a neutralist government or he had been replaced by Phoumi or one of the military figures. The United States did not like Suvanna Phuma's neutralist policy until 1962. North Vietnam was also putting Suvanna Phum'a neutralist policy under incredible pressure too. I forgot when Kong Le staged his coup to oust the right-wing militarists.
Anyway, Cambodia was a key to the United States. The flamboyant and charasmatic god-individual Sihanouk was ruling Cambodia and following a neutral policy. However, he often played the United States off against North Vietnam and vice-versa trying to get the best deal for Cambodia.
I think the United States might have supported Cambodia over the temple issue at the United Nations to try and sway Cambodia to lean more to the United States in its foreign policy. The Soviets and China would support Cambodia on the issue too.
I might be really wrong on this, but it would be interesting to see which way countries like the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada voted in the United Nations.
Owing to laziness on my part, I have not googled the information, which leaves me open to having more egg on my face than is normal.
There is no easy solution to the temple question. However, PAD can use it as a weapon to hammer the ruling government into a pulp by pointing out that they are weak and useless in defending important Thai interests.
-
Laan Yaa Mo
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 9244
- Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
- Location: ขอนแก่น
So I was wrong. The dispute was settled by an international court in the Hague.
However, I was not completely wrong since American and French advisers aided the Cambodians and a team of advisers from Britain and Begium aided the Thai side.
Preah Vihear stands as a symbol of botched diplomatic efforts
By Nophakhun Limsamarnphun
[email protected]
The Nation
Published on July 26, 2008
Asda Chaiyanam, the former Thai envoy to the United Nations, told me the other day that a foreign government had spied on the Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry
However, I was not completely wrong since American and French advisers aided the Cambodians and a team of advisers from Britain and Begium aided the Thai side.
Preah Vihear stands as a symbol of botched diplomatic efforts
By Nophakhun Limsamarnphun
[email protected]
The Nation
Published on July 26, 2008
Asda Chaiyanam, the former Thai envoy to the United Nations, told me the other day that a foreign government had spied on the Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry
-
Laan Yaa Mo
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 9244
- Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
- Location: ขอนแก่น
The Cambodians are really tough and no nonsense
Past experience has not shown the Cambodians to have been tough since about the reign of Jayavarman VII (r. 1181-1220).
Cambodians can be very brutal and 'no nonsense' to their own people as the Khmer Rouge proved; however, they have had great difficulty defending themselves against Vietnam and Thailand since the fall of Angkor in 1431.
The main point is that there is no need for anyone to act tough and no nonsense.
Past experience has not shown the Cambodians to have been tough since about the reign of Jayavarman VII (r. 1181-1220).
Cambodians can be very brutal and 'no nonsense' to their own people as the Khmer Rouge proved; however, they have had great difficulty defending themselves against Vietnam and Thailand since the fall of Angkor in 1431.
The main point is that there is no need for anyone to act tough and no nonsense.
I think this is a very sensible approach to take to this issue.Aardvark wrote:Personally I think both Countries should share the site and the cost of maintaining it.
It is a Buddhist temple, both countries are majority Buddhist and it should be open to all to worship/visit.
Cambodian hardly have a good record of maintaining & handling ancient historical sites if one looks at Anchor Wat...
-
rickfarang
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: January 1, 2006, 6:01 am
- Location: Udon Thani
Actually I got my information from the nation 28th July 2008, where it was stated that over this matter Thailand has few freinds internationally. Try reading the press.
before offering comments.
i never comment on supposedly facts presented by others, however ifi find them incorrect, I may reply with another fact and let the information speak for itself.
And for information it is a Hindu temple, which has been stated before but seems to have be lost in following posts.
before offering comments.
i never comment on supposedly facts presented by others, however ifi find them incorrect, I may reply with another fact and let the information speak for itself.
And for information it is a Hindu temple, which has been stated before but seems to have be lost in following posts.
Guns