Prasat Preah Vihear is one of Cambodia’s most famous temples.
Set on top of a 525 meter high cliff on the Dangrek Mountains in between Cambodia’s Preah Vihear Province and Thailand’s North Eastern Si Sa Ket Province the temple has been the site of centuries of occupation and conflict.
Building started in the 9th century but most of what still stands today was built in the 11th and 12th centuries by the Khmer Kings Suryavarman I and Suryavarman II.
It actually predates Angkor Wat (Cambodia’s other world famous temple complex) by around 100 years.
The site was dedicated to the Hindu deity Shiva through the mountain gods of Sikharesvara and Bhadresvara and the complex is a representation of Mount Meru, the home of the gods.
Detailed inscriptions at the temple show accounts of King Suryavarman II including activities such as religious rituals and festivals.
In recent years the temple has been a popular tourist attraction with a steady stream of visitors arriving from the easily accessible Thai side.
Due to the temple’s location on the edge of a cliff the Cambodian entrance is somewhat more difficult to pass, although significant infrastructure development is expected in the next few years.
History of Siamese and Thai occupation
The Siamese first invaded Cambodia in the 1350’s with war and conflict becoming an ongoing occurrence between the two countries over the next 600 years.
By 1795 Siam had been able to annex Battambang, Siem Reap, Bongkol-Borei, Srei Sophorn and Siem Pang.
In 1814 Mlou Prei, Tole Peou, and Stung Treng also followed.
It was not until 1904 that Cambodia was able to begin recovering some of its lost lands thanks to the backing it was receiving as a French protectorate.
A joint commission was formed between Siam and France to demarcate their shared borders with Cambodia reestablishing ownership of several areas but also losing provinces such as Korat, Sisaket, Surin, Buriram, Champasak, Trat and others.
In 1907 a treaty was agreed between Siam and France which confirmed that land taken from Cambodia since 1790 had to be returned and a new map was agreed upon by both sides.
Siam agreed to the treaty and to the map, which clearly showed Preah Vihear being a part of Cambodia and not Siam, but when French power in the region began to wane during World War 2 Siam once again invaded Cambodia, this time with Japanese support.
From 1941 Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap provinces were all under Siamese occupation but when Japanese power was destroyed at the end of the war Cambodia was able to reclaim its lost provinces in 1946.
Disagreements over Cambodia’s border continued with the nation that was now known as Thailand.
In 1954 Thai soldiers invaded and occupied Preah Vihear temple after French troops had withdrawn from Cambodia following the country’s declaration of independence.
This time Cambodia was able to fight back using its newfound status as a sovereign nation on the international stage.
By 1795 Siam had been able to annex Battambang, Siem Reap, Bongkol-Borei, Srei Sophorn and Siem Pang.
In 1814 Mlou Prei, Tole Peou, and Stung Treng also followed.
It was not until 1904 that Cambodia was able to begin recovering some of its lost lands thanks to the backing it was receiving as a French protectorate.
A joint commission was formed between Siam and France to demarcate their shared borders with Cambodia reestablishing ownership of several areas but also losing provinces such as Korat, Sisaket, Surin, Buriram, Champasak, Trat and others.
In 1907 a treaty was agreed between Siam and France which confirmed that land taken from Cambodia since 1790 had to be returned and a new map was agreed upon by both sides.
Siam agreed to the treaty and to the map, which clearly showed Preah Vihear being a part of Cambodia and not Siam, but when French power in the region began to wane during World War 2 Siam once again invaded Cambodia, this time with Japanese support.
From 1941 Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap provinces were all under Siamese occupation but when Japanese power was destroyed at the end of the war Cambodia was able to reclaim its lost provinces in 1946.
Disagreements over Cambodia’s border continued with the nation that was now known as Thailand.
In 1954 Thai soldiers invaded and occupied Preah Vihear temple after French troops had withdrawn from Cambodia following the country’s declaration of independence.
This time Cambodia was able to fight back using its newfound status as a sovereign nation on the international stage.
1962 International Court of Justice Ruling
Unable to resolve the situation bilaterally Cambodia and Thailand took the matter to the ICJ in 1959 and agreed to abide by whatever ruling was issued.
Thailand was confident of a positive outcome to their benefit but in hindsight they were badly informed and believed far too much in their own propaganda.
In 1962 judgment was made in Cambodia’s favor that assigned them sovereignty of Preah Vihear and ordered the Thai Army to withdraw from the area.
The official reasoning behind the decision was as follows:
CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS)
Judgment of 15 June 1962
Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.
In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.
Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.
*
* *
In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission
In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear.
In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.
The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908.
Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.
The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.
The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia.
Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear.
But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.
From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.
The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the
line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.
For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.
Thailand was confident of a positive outcome to their benefit but in hindsight they were badly informed and believed far too much in their own propaganda.
In 1962 judgment was made in Cambodia’s favor that assigned them sovereignty of Preah Vihear and ordered the Thai Army to withdraw from the area.
The official reasoning behind the decision was as follows:
CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS)
Judgment of 15 June 1962
Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.
In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.
Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.
*
* *
In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission
In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear.
In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.
The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908.
Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.
The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.
The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia.
Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear.
But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.
From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.
The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the
line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.
For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.
Preah Vihear during the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot Regime
Cambodia’s dark years of agrarian dictatorship under Communist leader Pol Pot were brutally savage with their attempts to subvert and destroy the Khmer people and their ancient heritage.
The temple was held by Lon Nol aligned soldiers until 1975 when it fell to the Khmer Rouge following their takeover of Phnom Penh and the collapse of the Republican government.
The Khmer Rouge held the temple throughout their 3 year rule and when the Vietnamese invaded in 1978 it became one of their key resistance holdouts.
For the next twenty years the area became a site of conflict and tragedy including the 1979 expulsion of thousands of Khmer refugees by the Thai Army at gunpoint forcing them over the heavily mined border which resulted in hundreds of casualties.
Periods of occupation continued throughout the 80s and 90s until the temple ended up as the location of the final surrender agreement of the remaining Khmer Rouge army and Cambodia’s elected government in 1998.
With the establishment of peace Cambodia set about constructing an access road and de-mining the area to prepare the temple for its much anticipated reopening.
The temple was held by Lon Nol aligned soldiers until 1975 when it fell to the Khmer Rouge following their takeover of Phnom Penh and the collapse of the Republican government.
The Khmer Rouge held the temple throughout their 3 year rule and when the Vietnamese invaded in 1978 it became one of their key resistance holdouts.
For the next twenty years the area became a site of conflict and tragedy including the 1979 expulsion of thousands of Khmer refugees by the Thai Army at gunpoint forcing them over the heavily mined border which resulted in hundreds of casualties.
Periods of occupation continued throughout the 80s and 90s until the temple ended up as the location of the final surrender agreement of the remaining Khmer Rouge army and Cambodia’s elected government in 1998.
With the establishment of peace Cambodia set about constructing an access road and de-mining the area to prepare the temple for its much anticipated reopening.
2003 Reopening and the Thai Riots
On 15 January, 2003 Preah Vihear was re-opened on the Cambodian side of the border after an access road to the area had finally been constructed (it had been re-opened on the Thai side in 1998).
Organized by the Governor of Phnom Penh Chea Sophara there was a ceremony and party held at the temple that attracted a crowd of around 10,000 who made their way up the mountain carefully following the designated pathway and keeping away from the areas that still remained heavily mined.
The re-opening helped greatly to reinforce Cambodia’s pride in their national heritage and it was unfortunate that a few months later a negative and inaccurate story appeared in the media claiming a Thai soap opera star was calling for the return of Angkor Wat to Thailand.
This led to outrage in Phnom Penh and mobs besieged the Thai Embassy and numerous Thai businesses, many of which were looted and burned to the ground.
While there was said to be a political element to these actions it is clear that everybody was surprised at the extent of the national anger that was raised.
Memories of occupation and invasion were clearly not forgotten.
Organized by the Governor of Phnom Penh Chea Sophara there was a ceremony and party held at the temple that attracted a crowd of around 10,000 who made their way up the mountain carefully following the designated pathway and keeping away from the areas that still remained heavily mined.
The re-opening helped greatly to reinforce Cambodia’s pride in their national heritage and it was unfortunate that a few months later a negative and inaccurate story appeared in the media claiming a Thai soap opera star was calling for the return of Angkor Wat to Thailand.
This led to outrage in Phnom Penh and mobs besieged the Thai Embassy and numerous Thai businesses, many of which were looted and burned to the ground.
While there was said to be a political element to these actions it is clear that everybody was surprised at the extent of the national anger that was raised.
Memories of occupation and invasion were clearly not forgotten.
UNESCO World Heritage Listing
On July 7, 2008, Preah Vihear was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site following the unanimous approval of all 21 members of the World Heritage Committee in Quebec, Canada at its 32nd session.
The listing instantly lifted Preah Vihear from being a little known temple to an internationally recognized landmark of Khmer civilization.
World Heritage Status will increase the temple’s profile and open up millions of dollars in funding to help preserve and promote the complex.
The listing instantly lifted Preah Vihear from being a little known temple to an internationally recognized landmark of Khmer civilization.
World Heritage Status will increase the temple’s profile and open up millions of dollars in funding to help preserve and promote the complex.
Cambodia Celebrates
Upon hearing the news of Cambodia’s success in listing Preah Vihear as a UNESCO World Heritage site the entire country erupted in jubilant celebrations.
Cambodia rarely wins anything, let alone international acknowledgement of their ancestor’s awesome cultural legacy that so often gets conveniently ignored by their neighbours.
Impromptu parties and processions filled the streets of Phnom Penh and pagodas across the country rang their bells in unison.
The CTN TV station held a live concert that attracted 10,000 people and Bayon TV station also put on a concert for the triumphant return of the Cambodian delegation who had secured the listing at the UNESCO meeting in Canada.
There was much dancing, cheering, singing and flag waving in a spectacular moment of complete national unity.
Cambodia rarely wins anything, let alone international acknowledgement of their ancestor’s awesome cultural legacy that so often gets conveniently ignored by their neighbours.
Impromptu parties and processions filled the streets of Phnom Penh and pagodas across the country rang their bells in unison.
The CTN TV station held a live concert that attracted 10,000 people and Bayon TV station also put on a concert for the triumphant return of the Cambodian delegation who had secured the listing at the UNESCO meeting in Canada.
There was much dancing, cheering, singing and flag waving in a spectacular moment of complete national unity.
Thailand Invades
While Cambodia was celebrating the UNESCO listing Thailand was undergoing a severe political battle between the popularly elected People Power Party and their bitter opponents who aligned under the PAD banner (People’s Alliance for Democracy).
Thai people have different opinions about the temple they call Phra Viharn.
Some don’t believe it is part of Thailand, some do and some don’t care.
However, PAD and the Democrat had seized on the issue and after the listing they helped to elevate the situation into an international crisis.
The Army was deployed in increasing numbers to secure the Thai side of the border after Cambodia closed the entrance to the temple for fear of demonstrations and protests from Thai ultranationalists.
On 15 July three protesters managed to illegally cross the border and were detained by Cambodian soldiers.
The Thai Army then also crossed into Cambodian territory in order to secure the release of the three protestors, although after negotiating their release the Thai Army then proceeded to make camp around a nearby pagoda and refused to leave despite requests from the Khmer monks.
Despite requesting assistance from ASEAN and the United Nations Cambodia is told to sort the matter out bilaterally.
As of August the military face off continues, thankfully without any violence as yet.
Thai people have different opinions about the temple they call Phra Viharn.
Some don’t believe it is part of Thailand, some do and some don’t care.
However, PAD and the Democrat had seized on the issue and after the listing they helped to elevate the situation into an international crisis.
The Army was deployed in increasing numbers to secure the Thai side of the border after Cambodia closed the entrance to the temple for fear of demonstrations and protests from Thai ultranationalists.
On 15 July three protesters managed to illegally cross the border and were detained by Cambodian soldiers.
The Thai Army then also crossed into Cambodian territory in order to secure the release of the three protestors, although after negotiating their release the Thai Army then proceeded to make camp around a nearby pagoda and refused to leave despite requests from the Khmer monks.
Despite requesting assistance from ASEAN and the United Nations Cambodia is told to sort the matter out bilaterally.
As of August the military face off continues, thankfully without any violence as yet.
King Father Sihanouk Speaks Out
King Father Sihanouk, who led the successful 1962 bid for Cambodia’s sovereignty over Preah Vihear, sent an open communiqué to the media on 08 July, 2008 stating:
I. Certain journalists are writing that the main entrance to the Preah Vihear temple faces Thailand and not Cambodia.
II. The Thais have said, say and have written and write that one of the “proofs” of Thai ownership of Preah Vihear is constituted by the fact that access to the temple is infinitely more easy from the Thai side rather than from the Cambodian side.
III. These journalists and these Thais seem to ignore the following historic facts, ones which amply prove that the mountain and the temple of Preah Vihear are 100% Cambodian and belong 100% to Cambodia.
a/. The construction (10th and 11th centuries) of Preah Vihear by two successive Khmer Kings and is a purely Khmer work.
b/. The mountain and the temple of Preah Vihear could be found, during the 10th and 11th centuries, “very much in the interior” of Kampuchea, in the Khmer Empire, of which the borders extended for hundreds of kilometers, to the north, the east and west, much further than the current Cambodian borders with Thailand and Laos.
As a consequence, the mountain and the Preah Vihear temple could be found not on the Cambodia-Siam (Thai) border but “deep in the interior” of the Kingdom (of the Khmer Empire) and the “main entrance” of Preah Vihear “looked” not towards Siam (Thailand) but to Kampuchea.
c/. The International Court in the Hague, which in 1962, rendered justice to Cambodia, did not ignore all this, and let me, once again, offer them a respectful and admiring homage.
d/. Thanks to Khmer Sovereignty and the Khmer empire (Angkorian in particular) , present day Thailand is very rich in Angkorian style Khmer temples and monuments.
[It is] absolutely wrong and gives proof to the meanness, which, in Thailand, causes to Cambodia and its people undeserved and anachronistic troubles concerning the temple of Preah Vihear, instead of devoting ourselves to the harmonious and fruitful development of our friendship and our (authentic) brotherhood (Thai-Cambodian).
Norodom Sihanouk
I. Certain journalists are writing that the main entrance to the Preah Vihear temple faces Thailand and not Cambodia.
II. The Thais have said, say and have written and write that one of the “proofs” of Thai ownership of Preah Vihear is constituted by the fact that access to the temple is infinitely more easy from the Thai side rather than from the Cambodian side.
III. These journalists and these Thais seem to ignore the following historic facts, ones which amply prove that the mountain and the temple of Preah Vihear are 100% Cambodian and belong 100% to Cambodia.
a/. The construction (10th and 11th centuries) of Preah Vihear by two successive Khmer Kings and is a purely Khmer work.
b/. The mountain and the temple of Preah Vihear could be found, during the 10th and 11th centuries, “very much in the interior” of Kampuchea, in the Khmer Empire, of which the borders extended for hundreds of kilometers, to the north, the east and west, much further than the current Cambodian borders with Thailand and Laos.
As a consequence, the mountain and the Preah Vihear temple could be found not on the Cambodia-Siam (Thai) border but “deep in the interior” of the Kingdom (of the Khmer Empire) and the “main entrance” of Preah Vihear “looked” not towards Siam (Thailand) but to Kampuchea.
c/. The International Court in the Hague, which in 1962, rendered justice to Cambodia, did not ignore all this, and let me, once again, offer them a respectful and admiring homage.
d/. Thanks to Khmer Sovereignty and the Khmer empire (Angkorian in particular) , present day Thailand is very rich in Angkorian style Khmer temples and monuments.
[It is] absolutely wrong and gives proof to the meanness, which, in Thailand, causes to Cambodia and its people undeserved and anachronistic troubles concerning the temple of Preah Vihear, instead of devoting ourselves to the harmonious and fruitful development of our friendship and our (authentic) brotherhood (Thai-Cambodian).
Norodom Sihanouk
Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres Letter to the Phnom Penh Post
Dear Editor:
My attention has been drawn to your reporting of events concerning the temple of Preah Vihear over the past week. I notice that your reporters have referred to Preah Vihear as being “a disputed 11th century Hindu monument”.
May I point out that the temple of Preah Vihear is not a “Hindu monument” but a Khmer sanctuary, built by Khmer kings and dedicated to Shiva the Hindu god. Indeed, construction of the temple was began under the rule of the Khmer king Jasovarman I (889-910 AD) and completed during the rule of one of his successors, king Suryavarman II (1113-1145).
It should be understood that for past Khmer kings, a sanctuary was first and foremost a cosmological recreation. Thus, the construction of Khmer sanctuaries in the form of multi-tiered Pyramids meant that the place was considered a sacred cosmic mountain. This was particularly noticeable in the temples dedicated to Shiva, because of the association with the god’s mountain home –Mount Kailasa-. A mountain or a cliff top location, as in the case of Preah Vihear, was always the first choice for the Khmer architects building these major temples.
The fact that Preah Vihear is a Khmer sanctuary and not a “Hindu monument” has been extensively acknowledged by most experts in Khmer architecture including in such books published in Thailand by Thai authors like Professor S. Siribhadra of Silpakorn University in Bangkok in 1992, Dr. Dhida Saraya in 1994 and by the Italian author Vittorio Roveda in 2000.
There is no dispute over the temple itself but rather over surrounding land that is claimed by both Cambodia and Thailand. The temple has always been Khmer, except for a period when it was occupied by Siam from 1431 to 1907. In 1431, under the reign of the Siamese king Chao Saam Phraya (Boromrajadhiraj II) who ruled from 1424 to 1448, in what is known as the Ayutthaya period of Siamese (Thai) history, the armies of Siam defeated the Khmer armies and forced the evacuation of Angkor and the capital of the Khmer Empire was moved to Oudong and then to Phnom Penh. The Siamese armies occupied Battambang, Sisophon, Siemreap-Angkor as well as Preah Vihear and they were annexed into Siam.
On March 23, 1907, king Chulalongkorn (Rama V) signed the Franco-Siamese boundary treaty with the President of France, by which Siam agreed to return Battambang, Sisophon, Siemreap-Angkor as well as Preah Vihear to Cambodia, under French protectorate, in exchange for Chantaburi, Trat and the land of Dan Sai in Loei province of today’s Thailand.
According to the American scholar Lawrence Palmer Briggs and to other French scholars, Siam had made no attempt to colonize the provinces or to convert its citizens into Siamese subjects. Indeed, during the whole period of Siamese suzerainty this region was the hereditary fief of a Cambodian family and was ruled according to Cambodian customs and few could speak the Siamese language, using always Khmer to communicate.
Thailand took advantage of the Second World War to regain part of the territory that it had previously returned to Cambodia, under French protectorate. However, we the defeat of the Japanese and the end of hostilities French authority was restored in Indochina and in 1946 by the treaty of Washington, Thailand ceded the border provinces back once again.
In 1953, when King Norodom Sihanouk obtained full independence for Cambodia and refused to join the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), Thailand, under the pretext to strengthen its border, established a police post in the Dangrek mountain range, just north of Preah Vihear temple and hoisted the Thai flag over the temple and expelled the Cambodian officials posted to the temple by the Royal Cambodian government.
Cambodia sent several diplomatic notes to Thailand seeking a negotiated solution of the problem but Thailand did not reply until August 1958 when negotiations were held in Bangkok but ended in failure.
At that time, in a gesture to keep the friendship between the two countries, Cambodia proposed two solutions to Thailand: a) the joint administration of the Khmer sanctuary and b) that the matter be referred to the International Court of Justice.
As Thailand did not reply to the Cambodian proposal, in October 1959, King Norodom Sihanouk decided to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice for adjudication.
Commenting on Cambodia’s decision to take the case to the ICJ, the leading Bangkok newspaper “Siam Rath” editorialised as follows:
“If Cambodia has taken this matter to the ICJ, we cannot prevent her from doing so. It is her right to do it. She is in her right because the ICJ is an organ of the United Nations having the mission of peacefully settling differences between its members… As for the Thai government, faced with this correct attitude on the part of the Cambodian government, it should accept it in a friendly spirit and with the honesty worthy of a member of the United Nations”.
On June 15th 1962, the judgment of the ICJ was announced. By nine votes in favour and three against, it held that Preah Vihear was under the sovereignty of Cambodia. The ICJ urged Thailand to immediately withdraw any military, police and any other guards or keepers from the site.
Thailand was disappointed by the ICJ’s judgment. It withdrew its Ambassador from France and its delegations from the SEATO Council and the Geneva Conference on Laos, in protest to what it felt was the “uncooperative behaviour of some of its SEATO allies”, members also of the ICJ, and which had voted for Cambodia.
The Thai Foreign Minister at the time, Mr Thanat Khoman, rejected the ICJ ruling of behalf of the Thai government and wrote to U Thant, the UN Secretary General, expressing his government reservations but providing no new legal argument which would back up the Thai government’s reservations.
Furthermore, and I think this is of fundamental importance, he attached to his letter to U Thant, a map in which it was clearly stated: ”The map representing the area where the Temple of Preah Vihear (Pra Viharn in Thai language) is situated, over which Thailand has relinquished her sovereignty”.
I fear that by continuing to refer to Preah Vihear as a “disputed 11th century Hindu monument”, your esteemed newspaper is contributing to the misunderstanding existing over the sovereignty of the temple which has always been a Khmer temple, built by Khmer rulers in honour of a Hindu god.
Yours sincerely,
Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres
Official Biographer of HM the King Father
Samdech Preah Upayuvareach Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia
Research Fellow, Monash University’s Asia Institute
My attention has been drawn to your reporting of events concerning the temple of Preah Vihear over the past week. I notice that your reporters have referred to Preah Vihear as being “a disputed 11th century Hindu monument”.
May I point out that the temple of Preah Vihear is not a “Hindu monument” but a Khmer sanctuary, built by Khmer kings and dedicated to Shiva the Hindu god. Indeed, construction of the temple was began under the rule of the Khmer king Jasovarman I (889-910 AD) and completed during the rule of one of his successors, king Suryavarman II (1113-1145).
It should be understood that for past Khmer kings, a sanctuary was first and foremost a cosmological recreation. Thus, the construction of Khmer sanctuaries in the form of multi-tiered Pyramids meant that the place was considered a sacred cosmic mountain. This was particularly noticeable in the temples dedicated to Shiva, because of the association with the god’s mountain home –Mount Kailasa-. A mountain or a cliff top location, as in the case of Preah Vihear, was always the first choice for the Khmer architects building these major temples.
The fact that Preah Vihear is a Khmer sanctuary and not a “Hindu monument” has been extensively acknowledged by most experts in Khmer architecture including in such books published in Thailand by Thai authors like Professor S. Siribhadra of Silpakorn University in Bangkok in 1992, Dr. Dhida Saraya in 1994 and by the Italian author Vittorio Roveda in 2000.
There is no dispute over the temple itself but rather over surrounding land that is claimed by both Cambodia and Thailand. The temple has always been Khmer, except for a period when it was occupied by Siam from 1431 to 1907. In 1431, under the reign of the Siamese king Chao Saam Phraya (Boromrajadhiraj II) who ruled from 1424 to 1448, in what is known as the Ayutthaya period of Siamese (Thai) history, the armies of Siam defeated the Khmer armies and forced the evacuation of Angkor and the capital of the Khmer Empire was moved to Oudong and then to Phnom Penh. The Siamese armies occupied Battambang, Sisophon, Siemreap-Angkor as well as Preah Vihear and they were annexed into Siam.
On March 23, 1907, king Chulalongkorn (Rama V) signed the Franco-Siamese boundary treaty with the President of France, by which Siam agreed to return Battambang, Sisophon, Siemreap-Angkor as well as Preah Vihear to Cambodia, under French protectorate, in exchange for Chantaburi, Trat and the land of Dan Sai in Loei province of today’s Thailand.
According to the American scholar Lawrence Palmer Briggs and to other French scholars, Siam had made no attempt to colonize the provinces or to convert its citizens into Siamese subjects. Indeed, during the whole period of Siamese suzerainty this region was the hereditary fief of a Cambodian family and was ruled according to Cambodian customs and few could speak the Siamese language, using always Khmer to communicate.
Thailand took advantage of the Second World War to regain part of the territory that it had previously returned to Cambodia, under French protectorate. However, we the defeat of the Japanese and the end of hostilities French authority was restored in Indochina and in 1946 by the treaty of Washington, Thailand ceded the border provinces back once again.
In 1953, when King Norodom Sihanouk obtained full independence for Cambodia and refused to join the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), Thailand, under the pretext to strengthen its border, established a police post in the Dangrek mountain range, just north of Preah Vihear temple and hoisted the Thai flag over the temple and expelled the Cambodian officials posted to the temple by the Royal Cambodian government.
Cambodia sent several diplomatic notes to Thailand seeking a negotiated solution of the problem but Thailand did not reply until August 1958 when negotiations were held in Bangkok but ended in failure.
At that time, in a gesture to keep the friendship between the two countries, Cambodia proposed two solutions to Thailand: a) the joint administration of the Khmer sanctuary and b) that the matter be referred to the International Court of Justice.
As Thailand did not reply to the Cambodian proposal, in October 1959, King Norodom Sihanouk decided to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice for adjudication.
Commenting on Cambodia’s decision to take the case to the ICJ, the leading Bangkok newspaper “Siam Rath” editorialised as follows:
“If Cambodia has taken this matter to the ICJ, we cannot prevent her from doing so. It is her right to do it. She is in her right because the ICJ is an organ of the United Nations having the mission of peacefully settling differences between its members… As for the Thai government, faced with this correct attitude on the part of the Cambodian government, it should accept it in a friendly spirit and with the honesty worthy of a member of the United Nations”.
On June 15th 1962, the judgment of the ICJ was announced. By nine votes in favour and three against, it held that Preah Vihear was under the sovereignty of Cambodia. The ICJ urged Thailand to immediately withdraw any military, police and any other guards or keepers from the site.
Thailand was disappointed by the ICJ’s judgment. It withdrew its Ambassador from France and its delegations from the SEATO Council and the Geneva Conference on Laos, in protest to what it felt was the “uncooperative behaviour of some of its SEATO allies”, members also of the ICJ, and which had voted for Cambodia.
The Thai Foreign Minister at the time, Mr Thanat Khoman, rejected the ICJ ruling of behalf of the Thai government and wrote to U Thant, the UN Secretary General, expressing his government reservations but providing no new legal argument which would back up the Thai government’s reservations.
Furthermore, and I think this is of fundamental importance, he attached to his letter to U Thant, a map in which it was clearly stated: ”The map representing the area where the Temple of Preah Vihear (Pra Viharn in Thai language) is situated, over which Thailand has relinquished her sovereignty”.
I fear that by continuing to refer to Preah Vihear as a “disputed 11th century Hindu monument”, your esteemed newspaper is contributing to the misunderstanding existing over the sovereignty of the temple which has always been a Khmer temple, built by Khmer rulers in honour of a Hindu god.
Yours sincerely,
Ambassador Julio A. Jeldres
Official Biographer of HM the King Father
Samdech Preah Upayuvareach Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia
Research Fellow, Monash University’s Asia Institute