KI Media: “STOP SENDING KHMER MONEY! STOP ASKING FOR MONEY” plus 24 more

KI Media: “STOP SENDING KHMER MONEY! STOP ASKING FOR MONEY” plus 24 more

STOP SENDING KHMER MONEY! STOP ASKING FOR MONEY

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 04:33 PM PDT


By Michael Kheng

Hun Sen Government received more than a billion dollar in aid last year, every year. Last year, Australian Government send over $64 million in aid, how much did your family get?

Every year, Hun Sen keeps telling the world how great Cambodia is, or Siem Riep as one of the most beautiful city in the world or our Phnom Penh sky city compared to other countries, yet fails to address the country's problem and growing concern, such as the land eviction, growing death on the road, growing corruptions, death threats and bribery, abusing human rights and the line between rich and poor.

Since the late 80s, we (overseas Khmer) have been sending millions of dollars to our families and relatives in Khmer. It's has been 30 years since Hun Sen has been in power, yet Hun Sen and his CPP comrades has never once thanked us on national television for our contributions, often labeling us as Khmer abroad who knows nothing, or traitors, and many of us as "Talking shit about our country".
We overseas Khmer, love our Khmer country, love our Khmer people, and love our family. By continuing to do what we do, we're NOT only helping our families to survive but also help to PROLONG their misery and Hun SEN ruling.

The stupid part is that majority of our families and relatives who are suffering continue to vote for CPP Party every National Election, since Pol Pot Regime. What does Hun Sen and his comrades do with over a billions dollars in aid every year? Why are there so many BANKS in Khmer, Why do the transfer fee continue to raise, who owns all those BANK and branches?

Next time you send Khmer money or before asking for money ask yourself questions or ask your families these questions.

Why after 30 years, our country and people is the poorest nation in Asia?
Why after 30 years, Khmer of the most corrupted country in the world?
Why after 30 years, Hun Sen continue to steal our money?

We appreciate any comments or feedback in relation to any topics above. Please join us for debate at: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2151860763269&set=p.2151860763269&type=1&theater

TED Talk: Revolution of Conscience by Stephen Smith of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:17 PM PDT

By Khmer Democrat, Phnom Penh
Remembering with Honor Series

BRILLIANT !!! A must-watch !

At an independently organized TED event (TEDx) held at USC in April 2011, USC Shoah Foundation Institute Executive Director Stephen D. Smith discussed the importance of Holocaust remembrance and how the educational use of survivors' testimonies could inspire a "revolution in conscience" that could change the course of history.

"Just imagine if every single person in Europe [had] felt the pain of their neighbor and had listened one voice at a time, and had acted one voice at a time. The Holocaust would simply have been impossible."

"Revolution of Conscience"

ICJ's order (Full text)

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 08:18 AM PDT

July 18, 2011

Following is the full text of the International Court of Justice's order:

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the Application instituting proceedings filed in the Registry on 28 April 2011 by the Kingdom of Cambodia (hereinafter "Cambodia"), whereby, referring to Article 60 of the Statute of the Court and Article 98 of the Rules of Court, Cambodia requests the Court to interpret the Judgment it rendered on 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (hereinafter the "1962 Judgment"); Makes the following Order:

1. Whereas, in its Application, Cambodia states that, in the first paragraph of the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment, the Court declared that "the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia"; whereas it believes that the Court could not have reached such a conclusion if it had not first recognized that a legally established frontier existed between the two Parties in the area in question; whereas it implies that, in the reasoning of the 1962 Judgment, the Court considered that the two Parties had, by their conduct, recognized the line on the map in Annex I to Cambodia's Memorial (hereinafter the "Annex I map"), a map drawn up in 1907 by the Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission, as representing the frontier between Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand (hereinafter "Thailand") in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear; and whereas it recalls that, according to the jurisprudence of the Court, while in principle any request for interpretation must relate to the operative part of the judgment, it can also relate to those reasons for the judgment which are inseparable from the operative part;

2. Whereas, in its Application, Cambodia states that, in the second paragraph of the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment, the Court declared that "Thailand is 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"; whereas, according to Cambodia, this obligation derives from the fact that the Temple of Preah Vihear and its vicinity are situated in territory under Cambodian sovereignty, as recognized by the Court in the first paragraph of the operative clause, and "goes beyond a withdrawal from only the precincts of the Temple itself and extends to the area of the Temple in general"; and whereas Cambodia argues that the setting forth of this obligation in the operative clause of the Judgment indicates that it must be understood as a general and continuing obligation incumbent upon Thailand not to advance into Cambodian territory;

3. Whereas, according to Cambodia, Thailand believes that Cambodia's sovereignty is confined to the Temple and does not extend to the area surrounding it, authorizing Thailand to claim sovereignty over that area and to occupy it; whereas Cambodia claims that Thailand considers that the frontier in the area of the Temple has not been recognized by the Court and has still to be determined in law; whereas Cambodia asserts that, in the first paragraph of the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment, the Court clearly refused to confine Cambodia's sovereignty solely to the Temple, by determining the ownership of the latter "on the basis of the sovereignty over the territory in which the Temple is situated"; and whereas a dispute therefore exists, according to Cambodia, as to the meaning and scope of the 1962 Judgment, in particular with regard to the extent of Cambodia's sovereignty;


4. Whereas, in its Application, Cambodia maintains that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a request for interpretation of one of its judgments is based directly on Article 60 of the Statute, which stipulates that "[i]n the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party";

5. Whereas, at the end of its Application, Cambodia presents the following request: "Given that 'the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia' (first paragraph of the operative clause), which is the legal consequence of the fact that the Temple is situated on the Cambodian side of the frontier, as that frontier was recognized by the Court in its Judgment, and on the basis of the facts and legal arguments set forth above, Cambodia respectfully asks the Court to adjudge and declare that: The obligation incumbent upon Thailand 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' (second paragraph of the operative clause) is a particular consequence of the general and continuing obligation to respect the integrity of the territory of Cambodia, that territory having been delimited in the area of the Temple and its vicinity by the line on the Annex I map, on which the Judgment of the Court is based";

6. Whereas on 28 April 2011, having filed its Application, Cambodia, referring to Article 41 of the Statute and Article 73 of the Rules of Court, also submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures in order to "cause [the] incursions onto its territory [by Thailand] to cease" pending the Court's ruling on the Request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgment;

7. Whereas, in its request for the indication of provisional measures, Cambodia refers to the basis for the Court's jurisdiction invoked in its Application (see paragraph 4 above);

8. Whereas, in the said request, Cambodia claims that since 22 April 2011, serious armed incidents have occurred in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear and at several locations situated along the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, and that those incidents have caused fatalities, injuries and the evacuation of local inhabitants; and whereas Cambodia contends that Thailand is responsible for those incidents;

9. Whereas, in its request, Cambodia asserts that if that request were to be rejected, and if Thailand persisted in its conduct, the damage caused to the Temple of Preah Vihear, as well as the loss of life and human suffering as a result of those armed clashes, would become worse;

10. Whereas Cambodia adds that "[m]easures are urgently required, both to safeguard [its] rights . . . pending the Court's decision — rights relating to its sovereignty, its territorial integrity and to the duty of non-interference incumbent upon Thailand — and to avoid aggravation of the dispute";

11. Whereas, at the end of its request for the indication of provisional measures, Cambodia asks the Court to indicate the following provisional measures pending the delivery of its judgment on the Request for interpretation:

"- an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Thai forces from those parts of Cambodian territory situated in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

- a ban on all military activity by Thailand in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

- that Thailand refrain from any act or action which could interfere with the rights of Cambodia or aggravate the dispute in the principal proceedings"; and whereas it asks the Court, on account of the gravity of the situation, to consider its request for the indication of provisional measures as a matter of urgency;

12. Whereas on 28 April 2011, the date on which the Application and the request for the indication of provisional measures were filed in the Registry, the Registrar informed the Thai Government of the filing of these documents and forthwith sent it signed originals thereof, pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article 38, paragraph 4, and Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court; and whereas the Registrar also notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of this filing;

13. Whereas on 4 May 2011, the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court, pursuant to Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, had fixed 30 May 2011 as the opening date for the oral proceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures;

14. Whereas, pending the notification provided for by Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the Rules of Court by transmission of the printed bilingual text of the Application to the Members of the United Nations, the Registrar informed those States of the filing of the Application and its subject, and of the filing of the request for the indication of provisional measures;

15. Whereas, since the Court includes upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of the Parties, each of them proceeded, in exercise of the right conferred by Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute, to choose a judge ad hoc in the case; whereas Cambodia chose Mr. Gilbert Guillaume for this purpose and Thailand chose Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot;

16. Whereas at the public hearings held on 30 and 31 May 2011, in accordance with Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, oral observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures were presented by:

On behalf of Cambodia: H.E. Mr. Hor Namhong, Agent,

Sir Franklin Berman,

Mr. Jean-Marc Sorel;

On behalf of Thailand: H.E. Mr. Virachai Plasai, Agent,

Mr. Alain Pellet,

Mr. James Crawford,

Mr. Donald McRae; whereas, during the hearings, a question was put by a Member of the Court to both Parties, to which replies were given in writing after the closure of the oral proceedings; and whereas each Party submitted to the Court its comments on the replies given by the other Party to that question;

17. Whereas, at the end of its second round of oral observations, the Kingdom of Cambodia asked the Court to indicate the following provisional measures:

"- an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Thai forces from those parts of Cambodian territory situated in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

- a ban on all military activity by Thailand in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

- that Thailand refrain from any act or action which could interfere with the rights of Cambodia or aggravate the dispute in the principal proceedings";

18. Whereas, at the end of its second round of oral observations, the Kingdom of Thailand asked the Court, "[i]n accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and having regard to the Request for the indication of provisional measures of the Kingdom of Cambodia and its oral pleadings . . . to remove the case introduced by the Kingdom of Cambodia on 28 April 2011 from the General List";

Dispute as to the meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment and jurisdiction of the Court 19. Whereas, when it receives a request for the indication of provisional measures in the context of proceedings for interpretation of a judgment under Article 60 of the Statute, the Court has to consider whether the conditions laid down by that Article for the Court to entertain a request for interpretation appear to be satisfied;

20. Whereas Article 60 provides that: "The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party"; and whereas this provision is supplemented by Article 98 of the Rules of Court, paragraph 1 of which reads: "In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of a judgment any party may make a request for its interpretation . . .";

21. Whereas the Court's jurisdiction on the basis of Article 60 of the Statute is not reconditioned by the existence of any other basis of jurisdiction as between the parties to the original case; whereas it follows that, even if the basis of jurisdiction in the original case lapses, the Court, nevertheless, by virtue of Article 60 of the Statute, may entertain a request for interpretation provided that there is a "dispute as to the meaning or scope" of any judgment rendered by it; whereas the Court may indicate provisional measures in the context of proceedings for interpretation of a judgment only if it is satisfied that there appears prima facie to exist a "dispute" within the meaning of Article 60 of the Statute; and whereas, at this stage, it need not satisfy itself in a definitive manner that such a dispute exists;

22. Whereas a dispute within the meaning of Article 60 of the Statute must be understood as difference of opinion or views between the parties as to the meaning or scope of a judgment rendered by the Court; and whereas the existence of such a dispute does not require the same criteria to be fulfilled as those determining the existence of a dispute under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute (Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), Judgment No. 11, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13, pp. 10-12; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 325, para. 53);

23. Whereas, moreover, it is established that a dispute within the meaning of Article 60 of the Statute must relate to the operative clause of the judgment in question and cannot concern the reasons for the judgment except in so far as these are inseparable from the operative clause (Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 35, para. 10; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 323, para. 47);

24. Whereas the Court must now ascertain whether a dispute appears to exist between the Parties in the present case, within the meaning of Article 60 of the Statute;

25. Whereas Cambodia asserts that a dispute exists between the Parties as to the meaning and scope of the 1962 Judgment in three respects;

26. Whereas Cambodia argues, first, that the conclusion reached by the Court in the first paragraph of the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment, in which it asserts that the Temple "is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia", and the conclusion which it reaches "in consequence" in the second paragraph, namely that Thailand "is 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", are based on the Court's prior recognition, in the reasoning of the Judgment, of the frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear, as represented by the line on the Annex I map; and whereas, according to Cambodia, Thailand disputes this interpretation of the 1962 Judgment;

27. Whereas Cambodia maintains, secondly, that a dispute exists between the Parties as to the meaning and scope of the phrase "vicinity on Cambodian territory" used in the second paragraph of the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment to designate the area from which the Thai forces were obliged to withdraw; whereas, according to Cambodia, Thailand, believing that the frontier in the area of the Temple has not been established, is laying claim to "territory beyond the strict precincts of the Temple" and occupying that area regardless of the Judgment, in particular the second paragraph of the operative clause;

28. Whereas Cambodia argues, thirdly, that a dispute exists as to whether, as it claims, the obligation deriving from the second paragraph of the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment is of a general and continuing character, in so far as it is the consequence of the obligation incumbent upon Thailand not to infringe Cambodia's territorial sovereignty in the area of the Temple;

29. Whereas Thailand maintains that there is no dispute as to the meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment; whereas it does not dispute the fact that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in Cambodian territory, as is recognized in the first paragraph of the operative clause of that Judgment; whereas it claims furthermore not to dispute the fact that Thailand was under an obligation, pursuant to the second paragraph of the operative clause, to withdraw its military forces from the Temple or from its vicinity in so far as those forces were situated in Cambodian territory; whereas it asserts that this "instantaneous" obligation has been fully met by Thailand and cannot give rise to an interpretative judgment; and whereas Thailand maintains, in consequence, that the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction "to rule on Cambodia's Request for interpretation" and, therefore, to indicate the provisional measures requested;

30. Whereas Thailand claims that the sole aim of Cambodia's Application is to have the Court decide that the frontier between the two countries derives from the Annex I map; whereas Thailand observes that while, in the reasoning of its 1962 Judgment, the Court did indeed base itself on the Annex I map in order to decide that the Temple was situated in Cambodian territory, it did not deduce that the entire frontier in this area derived from that map; and whereas Thailand further notes that the Court clearly refused to rule, in the operative clause of its Judgment, on Cambodia's submissions to it regarding both the legal status of the Annex I map and the frontier line in the disputed area;

31. Whereas, in the light of the positions adopted by the Parties, a difference of opinion or views appears to exist between them as to the meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment; whereas this difference appears to relate, in the first place, to the meaning and scope of the phrase "vicinity on Cambodian territory" used in the second paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment; whereas this difference of opinion or views appears to relate, next, to the nature of the obligation imposed on Thailand, in the second paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment, to "withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers", and, in particular, to the question of whether this obligation is of a continuing or an instantaneous character; and whereas this difference of opinion or views appears to relate, finally, to the question of whether the Judgment did or did not recognize with binding force the line shown on the Annex I map as representing the frontier between the two Parties; whereas the Permanent Court of International Justice previously had occasion to state that a difference of opinion as to whether a particular point has or has not been decided with binding force also constitutes a case which comes within the terms of Article 60 of the Statute (Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), Judgment No. 11, 1927, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 13, pp. 11-12);

32. Whereas a dispute thus appears to exist between the Parties as to the meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment, and whereas it therefore appears that the Court may, pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute, entertain the request for interpretation of the said Judgment submitted by Cambodia; whereas, in consequence, the Court cannot accede to the request by Thailand that the case be removed from the General List; and whereas there is a sufficient basis for the Court to be able to indicate the provisional measures requested by Cambodia, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled;

Plausible character of the alleged rights in the principal request and link between these rights and the measures requested

33. Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights of the parties pending the decision of the Court; whereas it follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudge d by the Court to belong to either party; whereas the Court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by a party are at least plausible (Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, para. 53); and whereas, in proceedings under Article 60 of the Statute, this supposes that the rights which the party requesting provisional measures claims to derive from the judgment in question, in the light of its interpretation of that judgment, are at least plausible;

34. Whereas, moreover, a link must be established between the alleged rights and the provisional measures sought to protect them (see Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 327, para. 58); and whereas, in proceedings under Article 60 of the Statute, this supposes that there is a link between the provisional measures requested by a party and the rights which it claims to derive from the judgment in question, in the light of the interpretation it gives to that judgment;

Plausible character of the alleged rights in the principal request

35. Whereas Cambodia contends that, in order to demonstrate the plausible character of the rights which it alleges in its request for interpretation and which it is seeking to protect - namely, the right to respect for its sovereignty in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear and, more generally, its right to territorial integrity - it is sufficient for it to establish that the existence of these rights may reasonably be argued; and whereas Cambodia points out that these rights are plausible in a number of respects, and in particular because they were determined with binding force by a judgment of the Court;

36. Whereas Thailand maintains that Cambodia, in order to establish the violation of the rights it claims to possess under the 1962 Judgment, refers to incidents that occurred at locations some distance from the Temple; whereas it asserts that, no matter how the 1962 Judgment is construed, the Court did not decide anything about such incidents or the localities where they occurred; whereas, according to Thailand, Cambodia has no plausible right under Article 60 of the Statute to obtain an interpretation in respect of those incidents; whereas, moreover, the rights invoked in the request for interpretation must be based on the facts examined in the 1962 Judgment and not on facts subsequent to that Judgment; whereas Thailand claims that the rights invoked by Cambodia in its request nonetheless concern facts which took place long after the 1962 Judgment; and whereas, therefore, according to Thailand, such rights are not plausible for the purpose of the present request for the indication of provisional measures;

37. Whereas it should, at the outset, be made clear that Article 60 of the Statute does not impose any time-limit on requests for interpretation; whereas the Court may entertain a request for interpretation in so far as there exists a dispute as to the meaning or scope of a judgment; and whereas such a dispute can, in itself, certainly arise from facts subsequent to the delivery of that judgment;

38. Whereas, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court does not have to rule definitively on the interpretation put forward by Cambodia of the 1962 Judgment and on the rights it claims to derive therefrom; and whereas, for the purposes of considering the request for the indication of provisional measures, the Court need only determine whether those rights are at least plausible;

39. Whereas, in the operative clause of its 1962 Judgment, the Court declared in particular that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia, and that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military forces stationed at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory; whereas the interpretation of the 1962 Judgment put forward by Cambodia in order to assert its rights ⎯ namely, the right to respect for its sovereignty in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear and its right to territorial integrity - is that the Court was only able to reach these conclusions once it had recognized the existence of a frontier between the two States and found that the Temple and its "vicinity" were on the Cambodian side of that frontier; whereas, according to Cambodia, the phrase "vicinity on Cambodian territory" includes the area surrounding the precincts of the Temple; and whereas, consequently, in Cambodia's opinion, Thailand has a continuing obligation not to infringe Cambodia's sovereignty over that area;

40. Whereas the rights claimed by Cambodia, in so far as they are based on the 1962 Judgment as interpreted by Cambodia, are plausible;

41. Whereas this conclusion does not prejudge the outcome of the main proceedings; whereas it is nonetheless sufficient for the purposes of considering the present request for the indication of provisional measures;

Link between the alleged rights and the measures requested

42. Whereas Cambodia maintains that the aim of the provisional measures requested is to

protect rights which it invokes in its request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgment, namely, its sovereignty over the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear and, more generally, its territorial integrity; whereas it notes that Thailand's territorial claims cover the entire area of the Temple, beyond the strict precincts of the latter, and that these claims are reflected in the presence of Thai armed forces in that area, forces which Cambodia requests be withdrawn immediately and unconditionally; whereas Cambodia also asks the Court to indicate the measures requested so as to avoid an aggravation of the dispute in the principal proceedings; and whereas it is upon the rights thus asserted by Cambodia that the Court, in Cambodia's view, must focus in its consideration of the request for the indication of provisional measures;

43. Whereas Thailand claims that Cambodia's request for the indication of provisional measures does not meet the condition whereby a link must exist between the rights which form the subject of the proceedings before the Court on the merits of the case and the provisional measures being sought; whereas Thailand asserts in particular that Cambodia's request refers to a matter that cannot be the subject of an interpretation - the status of the Annex I map - and that it is based on allegations made in respect of facts that occurred in an area remote from that of the Temple of Preah Vihear and, consequently, unrelated to the area covered by the request for interpretation;

44. Whereas, in proceedings on interpretation, the Court is called upon to clarify the meaning and the scope of what the Court decided with binding force in a judgment (Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia/Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402; Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 223, para. 56; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 328, para. 63); whereas Cambodia is seeking clarification of the meaning and the scope of what the Court decided with binding force in the 1962 Judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand); whereas, in its Application, Cambodia requests the Court to specify the meaning and scope of the operative clause of that Judgment in respect of the extent of its sovereignty in the area of the Temple (see paragraph 5 above); and whereas, in its request for the indication of provisional measures (see paragraph 11 above), Cambodia, pending the Court's final decision, is precisely seeking the protection of the rights to sovereignty over this area which it claims to derive from the operative clause of the 1962 Judgment;

45. Whereas the provisional measures sought thus aim to protect the rights that Cambodia invokes in its request for interpretation; and whereas the necessary link between the alleged rights and the measures requested is therefore established;

Risk of irreparable prejudice; urgency

46. Whereas the Court, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of the judicial proceedings (see, for example, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 328, para. 65; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, para. 63);

47. Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court has given its final decision (see, for example, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, para. 64); and whereas the Court must consider whether, in these proceedings, such a risk exists;

48. Whereas Cambodia refers to numerous armed incidents which allegedly took place as from 15 July 2008 along the frontier between the two States in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear after the Temple was included on the UNESCO World Heritage list; whereas these armed incidents allegedly caused damage to the Temple, as well as loss of human life and bodily injuries; whereas Cambodia points out that, in a letter dated 21 July 2008 and addressed to the President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations stated that his Government claimed an area "adjacent" to the Temple of Preah Vihear and indicated that the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand in that area was the subject of negotiations between the two States; whereas Cambodia also refers to armed incidents which are said to have taken place between the parties in the area of the Temple in October 2008 and on 2 and 3 April 2009; whereas it adds that armed incidents occurred again between the Parties in that area between 4 and 7 February 2011; whereas Cambodia notes that these incidents led, on its initiative, to a meeting of the Security Council on 14 February 2011, where the Security Council called for a permanent ceasefire to be established between the two parties and expressed its support for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (hereinafter "ASEAN") in its efforts to find a solution to the conflict; whereas Cambodia refers in this respect to the proposal by the Chair of ASEAN to send Indonesian observers into the field so as to ensure the said ceasefire, and alleges that this proposal failed because of the conditions laid down by Thailand for its acceptance; whereas Cambodia claims that further incidents took place from 22 April 2011, not only in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear, but also along the frontier near the Temples of Ta Moan/Ta Muen and Ta Krabei/Ta Kwai, situated approximately 150 km to the west of the Temple of Preah Vihear, while making it clear that these latest incidents are not included in its request for the indication of provisional measures; whereas it maintains that the incidents which took place in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear, and which are attributable to Thailand, have not only caused irreparable damage to the Temple itself, a UNESCO World Heritage site, but above all have resulted in the loss of human life, bodily injuries and the displacement of local people; and whereas Cambodia therefore requests the Court "to indicate provisional measures in order to stop any more destruction of the Temple once and for all, to prevent further casualties, and to preserve its rights over the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear";

49. Whereas Cambodia maintains that, while Thailand appears to be observing the oral ceasefire negotiated on 28 April 2011, several facts suggest that this situation is fragile and that there is a risk of aggravation of the dispute; and whereas it contends in particular that, since 28 April 2011, the conflict has not ceased but shifted to another frontier area, situated some 150 km to the west of the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

50. Whereas Cambodia alleges that, if its request were to be rejected, and if Thailand persisted in its conduct, the damage to the Temple of Preah Vihear, as well as human suffering and loss of life, would become worse; and that measures are urgently required, both to safeguard the rights of Cambodia and to avoid aggravation of the dispute;

51. Whereas, according to Thailand, the numerous armed incidents which have taken place in the area of the Temple were provoked by the Cambodian armed forces and caused loss of human life, bodily injuries, the displacement of local people, and material damage in Thailand's territory; whereas it claims that the Thai armed forces responded to these attacks "with restraint and proportionality", duly exercising Thailand's right to self-defence; whereas it observes in particular that, between 4 and 7 February 2011, armed incidents took place at several locations along the frontier or in Thai territory within a radius of approximately 10 km from the Temple of Preah Vihear; whereas it adds that similar incidents took place between 22 April and 3 May 2011 near the Temples of Ta Krabei/Ta Kwai and Ta Moan/Ta Muen, situated 150 km from the Temple of Preah Vihear, and observes that these temples, because of their distance from the Temple of Preah Vihear, are not, however, covered by the 1962 Judgment; whereas Thailand nevertheless acknowledges that, on 26 April 2011, a 20-minute exchange of fire took place between the two sides some 2 km from the Temple of Preah Vihear; and whereas it maintains that the oral ceasefire of 28 April 2011 concerns the sector of the Ta Krabei/Ta Kwai and Ta Moan/Ta Muen Temples, and not that of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

52. Whereas, according to Thailand, the only incidents that Cambodia can rely on for the purposes of a provisional measure are the incidents that took place in February 2011, "almost three months before the request for provisional measures was made", the exchange of fire on 26 April 2011, which resulted in no casualties, and the other incidents in April 2011 which occurred well beyond the area to which the request for interpretation relates; whereas Thailand further maintains that a team of Indonesian observers was created to help monitor the military situation between the two States in the border area; and whereas it concludes from the foregoing that there is no real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute;

53. Whereas, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court is only required to consider whether the circumstances brought to its attention call for the indication of provisional measures; whereas, in this case, the Court notes that it is apparent from the case file that incidents have occurred on various occasions between the Parties in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear; whereas it observes that, since 15 July 2008, armed clashes have taken place and have continued to take place in that area, in particular between 4 and 7 February 2011, leading to fatalities, injuries and the displacement of local inhabitants; whereas damage has been caused to the Temple and to the property associated with it; whereas the Court notes that, on 14 February 2011, the Security Council called for a permanent ceasefire to be established between the two Parties and expressed its support for ASEAN in seeking a solution to the conflict; whereas the Chair of ASEAN therefore proposed to the Parties that observers be deployed along their boundary, but whereas this proposal was not put into effect, however, because the Parties failed to agree on how it should be implemented; and whereas, in spite of these attempts to settle the dispute peacefully, there was a further exchange of fire between the Parties on 26 April 2011 in the area of the Temple;

54. Whereas the Court observes that the existence of a ceasefire "does not . . . deprive [it] of the rights and duties pertaining to it in the case brought before it" (Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 22, para. 37); and whereas it is therefore not obliged to establish, at this stage in the proceedings, whether the oral ceasefire negotiated between the Parties' military commanders on 28 April 2011 did or did not cover the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

55. Whereas the rights which Cambodia claims to hold under the terms of the 1962 Judgment in the area of the Temple might suffer irreparable prejudice resulting from the military activities in that area and, in particular, from the loss of life, bodily injuries and damage caused to the Temple and the property associated with it;

56. Whereas there are competing claims over the territory surrounding the Temple; whereas the situation in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear remains unstable and could deteriorate; whereas, because of the persistent tensions and absence of a settlement to the conflict, there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice being caused to the rights claimed by Cambodia; and whereas there is urgency;

57. Whereas, taking account of the conclusions it has reached above, the Court considers that it can, in this case, indicate provisional measures, as provided for in Article 41 of its Statute, and that the circumstances require it to do so;

58. Whereas the Court recalls that it has the power under its Statute to indicate measures that are in whole or in part other than those requested, or measures that are addressed to the party which has itself made the request, as Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court expressly states, and whereas it has already exerci ed this power on several occasions (see, for example, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, para. 76);

59. Whereas, when it is indicating provisional measures for the purpose of preserving specific rights, the Court, independently of the parties' requests, also possesses the power to indicate provisional measures with a view to preventing the aggravation or extension of the dispute whenever it considers that the circumstances so require (Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), pp. 22-23, para. 41; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Provisional Measures, Order of 1 July 2000, I.C.J. Reports 2000, p. 128, para. 44; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, para. 83);

60. Whereas the Court has considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by Cambodia; whereas it does not find, in the circumstances of the case, that the measures to be indicated must be the same as or limited to those sought by Cambodia; and whereas the Court, having considered the material before it, deems it appropriate to indicate measures addressed to both Parties;

61. Whereas the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear has been the scene of armed clashes between the Parties and whereas the Court has already found that such clashes may reoccur; whereas it is for the Court to ensure, in the context of these proceedings, that no irreparable damage is caused to persons or property in that area pending the delivery of its Judgment on the request for interpretation; whereas, moreover, in order to prevent irreparable damage from occurring, all armed forces should be provisionally excluded from a zone around the area of the Temple, without prejudice to the judgment which the Court will render on the request for interpretation submitted by Cambodia; and whereas, therefore, the Court considers it necessary, in order to protect the rights which are at issue in these proceedings, to define a zone which shall be kept provisionally free of all military personnel, without prejudice to normal administration, including the presence of non-military personnel necessary to ensure the security of persons and property;

62. Whereas this provisional demilitarized zone shall be delimited by straight lines connecting the following points, the co-ordinates of which are calculated on the basis of the WGS 84 system: point A, situated at latitude 14º 23' N and longitude 104º 41' E; point B, situated at latitude 14º 24' N and longitude 104º 38' 15" E; point C, situated at latitude 14º 25' N and longitude 104º 38' 40" E; and point D, situated at latitude 14º 25' N and longitude 104º 42' 20" E (see sketch-map below);

63. Whereas both Parties, in order to comply with this Order, shall withdraw all military personnel currently present in the zone as thus defined; whereas both Parties shall refrain not only from any military presence within that provisional demilitarized zone, but also from any armed activity directed at the said zone;


64. Whereas, in addition, both Parties shall continue the co-operation which they have entered into within ASEAN and, in particular, allow the observers appointed by that organization to have access to the provisional demilitarized zone;

65. Whereas it is not disputed that the Temple of Preah Vihear itself belongs to Cambodia; whereas Cambodia must, in all circumstances, have free access to the Temple and must be able to provide fresh supplies to its non-military personnel; and whereas Thailand must take all necessary measures in order not to obstruct such free and uninterrupted access;

66. Whereas the Court reminds the Parties that the Charter of the United Nations imposes an obligation on all Mem ber States of the United Nations to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations; whereas the Court further recalls that United Nations Member States are also obliged to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; and whereas both Parties are obliged, by the Charter and general international law, to respect these fundamental principles of international law;

67. Whereas the Court's orders "on provisional measures under Article 41 [of the Statute] have binding effect" (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 506, para. 109) and thus create international legal obligations with which both Parties are required to comply (see, for example, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 258, para. 263);

68. Whereas the decision given in the present proceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures in no way prejudges any question that the Court may have to deal with relating to the Request for interpretation;

69. For these reasons, THE COURT,

(A) Unanimously, Rejects the Kingdom of Thailand's request to remove the case introduced by the Kingdom of Cambodia on 28 April 2011 from the General List of the Court;

(B) Indicates the following provisional measures:

(1) By eleven votes to five, Both Parties shall immediately withdraw their military personnel currently present in the provisional demilitarized zone, as defined in paragraph 62 of the present Order, and refrain from any military presence within that zone and from any armed activity directed at that zone;

IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood; Judge ad hoc Guillaume;

AGAINST: President Owada; Judges Al-Khasawneh, Xue, Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Cot;

(2) By fifteen votes to one, Thailand shall not obstruct Cambodia's free access to the Temple of Preah Vihear or Cambodia's provision of fresh supplies to its non-military personnel in the Temple;

IN FAVOUR: President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Cot;

AGAINST: Judge Donoghue;

(3) By fifteen votes to one, Both Parties shall continue the co-operation which they have entered into within ASEAN and, in particular, allow the observers appointed by that organization to have access to the provisional demilitarized zone;

IN FAVOUR: President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Cot;

AGAINST: Judge Donoghue;

(4) By fifteen votes to one, Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve;

IN FAVOUR: President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Cot;

AGAINST: Judge Donoghue;

(C) By fifteen votes to one, Decides that each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with the above provisional measures;

IN FAVOUR: President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Cot;

AGAINST: Judge Donoghue;

(D) By fifteen votes to one, Decides that, until the Court has rendered its judgment on the request for interpretation, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject of this Order.

IN FAVOUR: President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Koroma, Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Cot;

AGAINST: Judge Donoghue.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this eighteenth day of July, two thousand and eleven, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, respectively.

(Signed) Hisashi OWADA,

President.

(Signed) Philippe COUVREUR,

Registrar.

President OWADA appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court; Judge KOROMA appends a declaration to the Order of the Court; Judge AL-KHASAWNEH appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court; Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE appends a separate opinion to the Order of the Court; Judges XUE and DONOGHUE append dissenting opinions to the Order of the Court; Judge ad hoc GUILLAUME appends a declaration to the Order of the Court;

Judge ad hoc COT appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court.

(Initialled) H. O.

(Initialled) Ph. C.

U.N. Court Orders Troops From Temple on Thai-Cambodian Border

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 08:11 AM PDT

July 18, 2011
By THOMAS FULLER
The New York Times

BANGKOK — The top judicial body of the United Nations on Monday sought to defuse tensions at a Southeast Asian flash point, ordering Cambodia and Thailand to withdraw troops from a disputed temple and establishing a demilitarized zone along their mountainous border.

The two countries have fought each other numerous times in recent years near Preah Vihear, an ancient hilltop temple that stirs nationalist sentiments in both countries.

The court order to "immediately withdraw" military personnel from around the temple was an international legal obligation "with which both Parties were required to comply," according to a statement released by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Judges at the United Nations court ruled, 11 to 5, in favor of the withdrawal and established a demilitarized zone approximately 4.5 miles by 2.5 miles.


Thailand's acting foreign minister, Kasit Piromya, told reporters in The Hague that the Thai government would comply with the order. "We are satisfied that the withdrawal of troops is applicable to both Cambodia and Thailand," he said, according to the Reuters news agency.

Cambodia's foreign minister, Hor Namhong, praised the decision, Reuters reported. "This map means there will be a permanent cease-fire," he said. "It will be tantamount to the cessation of aggression of Thailand against Cambodia."

Despite the ruling, a resolution to the conflict still seems far off.

The long-running border dispute has been poisoned by domestic politics in both Thailand and Cambodia. One political faction in Thailand accused the other of selling out to Cambodia, a historical rival.

Yet protests by Thai nationalists failed to gain traction and petered out earlier this month. And Suwit Khunkitti, a Thai government minister who had based a recent election campaign on Thailand's rights to the temple, failed to win a seat in the July 3 election.

Mr. Suwit, the acting minister for natural resources and the environment, said Monday that he disagreed with the verdict and that Thailand did not "have to follow it if it is a violation of the country's sovereignty."

The court on Monday also said it would pursue a "request for interpretation" on a previous judgment over the crucial question of who controls the temple and, possibly, the surrounding area. In the meantime, the court said, observers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations should be allowed into the demilitarized zone.

Thailand's July 3 election has held out hope for a détente between the two countries. The victory of the party allied to Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister, were welcomed by the Cambodian leader, Hun Sen, who once hired Mr. Thaksin as his economic adviser. But that election result has yet to be confirmed by Thailand's election commission and is being challenged in the courts.

The dispute over the temple has its roots in the period when French colonizers controlled what is modern-day Cambodia. In the early 1900s, French surveyors traced the border line along the watershed of the Dangrek mountain range, but deviated from the watershed at Preah Vihear, placing the temple inside Cambodia. It was an awkward demarcation because of the temple's location on a bluff more easily accessed from Thailand.

But Thailand's government made no protest at the time and used the French maps as their own, according to a judgment by the International Court of Justice in 1962. That judgment established that the temple should be inside Cambodian territory. But the ruling did not address the sovereignty of the land surrounding the temple, which is the subject of the ongoing dispute.

Thailand satisfied with World Court ruling on Thai-Cambodian border (sic?)

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 08:07 AM PDT

BANGKOK, July 18 (MCOT online news) -- Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya said Monday he was satisfied with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or World Court rulings as they apply to both Thailand and Cambodia, requiring that both countries withdraw troops from the disputed border area near Preah Vihear Temple.

Present at the ICJ, the highest UN court, in The Hague, the Netherlands to hear the World Court decision on the Cambodian border issues, he told a Bangkok-based media via teleconference that the provisional measures did not focus on one side but applied to both countries.

The Thai minister said that Thailand had demanded the Cambodia to withdraw its troops from Preah Vihear and hold bilateral talks under the existing cooperation frameworks. Mr Kasit said the court's order took a direction similar to Bangkok's stance.

"This is not who will get more benefit from the ruling, but Thailand has always wanted talks between both sides to find a joint solution," he said.


Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been informed about the rulings, said Mr Kasit, adding that the premier would meet with Defence Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan regarding the Thai- Cambodian General Border Committee (GBC) meeting.

French news agency Agence-France-Presse (AFP) reported Monday that the UN court ordered both Thailand and Cambodia to immediately withdraw their troops from the disputed area around Preah Vihear temple following the complaint by Phnom Penh filed in April seeking provisional measures on the withdrawal of Thai troops and the ban on Thai military activities from the area.

The court turned down Cambodia's demand for a unilateral Thai pullback, and Thailand's demand for Cambodia's request to be removed from the court's consideration was unanimously rejected.

Cambodia asked the court to clarify and interpret its ruling on Preah Vihear temple in 1962, in which the court ruled the ancient Hindu temple belonged to Cambodia but did not define the boundaries in the area surrounding the structure.

"Both parties must immediately withdraw their military personnel now present in the provisional demilitarised zone and refrain from any military presence within that zone," AFP quoted World Court President Judge Hisashi Owada who read the order at The Hague.

The court ordered Thailand and Cambodia to withdraw their troops from the newly defined demilitarised zone in a disputed portion of their border around the ancient temple.

"...there is an urgent need for the presence of all armed forces to be temporarily excluded from the provisional demilitarised zone around the area of the temple," the judge said.

The French news agency reported that the ICJ also ordered Thailand not to obstruct Cambodia's free access to the Preah Vihear complex or prevent Cambodia from taking fresh supplies to its non-military personnel there, while urging both countries to work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to reach an agreement to allow the regional bloc's observers to enter the disputed zone.

The two countries were also ordered to revive their stalled talks to resolve the conflicts.

Both sides must report development to the court until a decision on Cambodia's main request for interpretation of the 1962 order is finalized, which is expected to take the court several months.

Meanwhile, Thai Defence Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan commented after the ICJ read its decision that the army must discuss the matter with the foreign ministry first and is ready to follow its guidances.

When asked whether he will discuss the ruling with his Cambodian counterpart, Gen Prawit said he is ready to hold talks if asked by Cambodia.

"But I understand that Cambodia may wait after the new Thai government is formed," said Gen Prawit.

Army Region 2 commander Lt Gen Thawatchai Samutsakorn, who oversees the disputed border area, said troop withdrawal could not be done in the next few days as there are various levels of working steps.

Gen Thawatchai explained that a troop withdrawal cannot proceed immediately as it will take time for both Thailand and Cambodia.

"For Thailand, we must also wait for the formation of the new government and its direction regarding the case", the commander said, noting that any command is ordered step by step from the government to the army chief, who then instructs the operational level.

Following reports on the latest mobilisation of heavy arms by Cambodian troops near the Thai border, Gen Thawatchai urged the Thai public not to worry about the matter as it was normal practice of Cambodian troops and the army is always on alert to protect the kingdom's sovereignty.

UN court orders troop drawdown in Thai-Cambodia temple row

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 08:02 AM PDT

The UN ruling, a partial win for Cambodia, may also pave the way for negotiations on the longstanding Thai-Cambodia temple dispute.

July 18, 2011
By Simon Montlake, Correspondent
The Christian Science Monitor

Bangkok, Thailand
In a closely watched ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said Monday that Thailand and Cambodia should pull their troops from an ancient border temple where deadly clashes have flared in recent months.

The UN-affiliated court in The Hague called for a demilitarized zone to be set up around the temple, which belongs to Cambodia, as a way to reduce tensions. It also urged Thailand not to block access to the 11th century Hindu temple, Preah Vihear, which was awarded to Cambodia in a 1962 ruling that irked Thai nationalists. The temple lies on a hilltop easily accessible from the Thai side of the border.

The ruling is a partial victory for Cambodia, which sought help in April from the ICJ on what it called military aggression by Thailand. For its part, Thailand accuses Cambodia of provoking armed clashes along the border in order to force outside mediation, which Thailand opposes. Political analysts say both governments have fomented nationalism for their own ends.


The UN ruling may also pave the way for negotiations on the long-standing territorial dispute between Thailand and Cambodia.

To negotiate or not to negotiate
Ahead of Monday's verdict, a Thai military spokesman said troops wouldn't pull out immediately and struck a hawkish tone. "No matter what the ICJ's ruling is, troops of Army Region 2 will remain in the area [around Preah Vihear] to protect the land and sovereignty of our country," Col. Prawit Hukaew said, according to the Bangkok Post.

But Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, speaking to reporters at the court, said Thailand was satisfied with the verdict and wanted bilateral negotiations on the land dispute. "We need to talk to one another ... let's come to the negotiating table," he said. His Cambodian counterpart declined to comment, according to Reuters.

Kavi Chongkittavorn, a columnist for the Nation newspaper, said Cambodia would be disappointed that the ICJ didn't take a stronger line. "As it stands now, I think the decision will force both sides into negotiations," he says.

What's in a temple?
Until 2008, the temple lapsed in relative obscurity. Then, Thailand's opposition pounced on a government decision to support Cambodia's bid for a UN heritage award. Sovereignty over the temple became a rallying cry for right-wing protesters in Bangkok who helped topple an elected government loyal to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Mr. Thaksin's younger sister, Yingluck, is poised to become Thailand's next leader after a landslide victory in elections on July 3. Analysts say her administration may have a better chance of resolving the border crisis, as Thaksin has ties to Cambodian leader Hun Sen, who took a personal dislike to outgoing Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

In February, fierce clashes erupted near the temple, forcing the evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the border. In April, fighting broke out farther south along the poorly demarcated border.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to which both countries belong, has agreed to an Indonesian proposal to deploy unarmed military observers, but their arrival has been held up by legal wrangling. In the ruling, the ICJ said Thailand and Cambodia should cooperate with ASEAN observers and allow them to enter the demilitarized zone.

CCHR Media Comment - Reason rules the day in ICJ Order outlining provisiona​l measures

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 07:57 AM PDT

Media Comment – Phnom Penh, 18 July 2011

Reason rules the day in ICJ Order outlining provisional measures

The Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) today, 18 July 2011, welcomes the decision of the International Court of (ICJ) outlining provisional measures in the case concerning the interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 regarding Preah Vihear Temple (Cambodia v. Thailand). In an order dated today, the ICJ rejected a request from Thailand that the case introduced by Cambodia be removed from the General List and indicated various provisional measures, as follows:
  • Both Parties should immediately withdraw military personal currently present in a provisional demilitarized zone defined in the order surrounding the Temple;
  • In order to ensure no irreparable damage is caused to the Temple, the presence of all armed forces must be temporarily excluded from the provisional demilitarized zone;
  • Thailand should not obstruct Cambodia's free access to the Temple or prevent it from providing fresh supplies to its non-military personnel;
  • Cambodia and Thailand should continue their co-operation within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and, in particular, allow observers appointed by ASEAN to have access to the demilitarized zone;
  • Both Parties should refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court of make it more difficult to resolve.
Noting that its orders indicating provisional measures had binding effect and created international legal obligations, the ICJ ordered both Parties to inform the ICJ of its compliance with its orders.

In response to the order indicating provisional measures, Ou Virak, President of CCHR, a non-aligned, independent, non-governmental organization that works to promote and protect democracy and respect for human rights Cambodia, commented:

"Reason has at last ruled the day. The order creating the provisional demilitarized zone around Preah Vihear Temple will hopefully ensure an end to the bloodshed and mass displacement of civilians on either side of the border. The order has provided ASEAN with an opportunity to step in and prove its worth as a stabilizing force in the region and has given the Cambodian government and their newly elected counterparts in Thailand breathing space to resolve the border issue once and for all."

For more information, please contact CCHR President Ou Virak via telephone at +855 (0) 12 40 40 51 or e-mail at ouvirak@cchrcambodia.org

Please find this media comment attached in Khmer and English
--
The Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) is a non-aligned, independent, non-governmental organization that works to promote and protect democracy and respect for human rights throughout Cambodia. For more information, please visit www.cchrcambodia.org.


http://www.box.net/shared/d7zihkg5a5n2j8s6yr02


http://www.box.net/shared/l7gy5czk3bmozar3chjb

Sacrava's Political Cartoon: Mission Impossible

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 07:45 AM PDT

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

ICJ orders troops withdrawn

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 07:41 AM PDT

From left: Thailand's Ambassador to the Netherlands Virachai Plasai, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, counsel Donald McRae and former ambassador Asda Jayanama are seen in the courtroom on July 18, 2011 in the dispute over the ownership of Preah Vihear temple. (Photo REUTERS)
From right: Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Hor Namhong, Deputy Agent Var Kimhong, Secretary of State Long Visalo of Cambodia and their counsel Rodman Bundy are seen in the courtroom on July 18, 2011 in the dispute over the ownership of Preah Vihear temple. (Photo REUTERS)

18/07/2011
Bangkok Post
Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said in The Hague, the Netherlands, that he was satisfied with the court's ruling.
THE HAGUE - The International Court of Justice on Monday voted 11 to 5 to order both Thailand and Cambodia to withdraw their troops from the 4.6 square kilometre disputed area around the Preah Vihear temple to reduce military confrontation along their border.

The ruling was in response to Cambodia's petition to the ICJ on April 28 for an interpretation of the 1962 verdict awarding sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia.

The 1962 verdict says the ancient Hindu temple belongs to Cambodia, but the area around it has remained in dispute, causing frequent cross-border clashes between the two countries.

In the petition to the ICJ, Phnom Penh also asked the United Nations' highest court to issue provisional measures that include an immediate withdrawal of Thai troops from areas around the temple, a ban on all Thai military activity in the area, and that Thailand refrain from any act which could interfere with Cambodia's rights over the temple.


Thailand argued during oral testimony to the ICJ on May 30 and 31 that the two countries had no conflict over the scope and meaning of the 1962 verdict.

The Thai side said the court therefore has no jurisdiction to interpret its verdict, to which Thailand had fully complied with since it was issued in 1962.

Today, the ICJ first unanimously rejected Thailand's request for it to drop Cambodia's petition.

The court then agreed with a vote of 11- 5 to endorse provisional measures for Thailand and Cambodia to immediately withdraw their troops from the disputed area which is to be designated a provisional demilitarised zone, and to refrain from a military presence within the zone and from armed activity directed at it.

The court also voted 15 to 1 for both sides to continue their cooperation within Asean and allow observers to have access to the zone.

Lastly, the ICJ decided by a vote of 15 to 1 that the two countries in dispute shouold comply with the provisional measures issued today until it has completed consideration of Cambodia's petition for an intepretation of the 1962 verdict.

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said in The Hague, the Netherlands, that he was satisfied with the court's ruling.

Earlier today, Army Region 2 spokesman Prawit Hukaew said there would not be any immediate troop withdrawal from the disputed area, regardless of what the ICJ decision might be.

Col Prawit commented ahead of the ICJ's scheduled announcement at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

"No matter what the ICJ's ruling is, troops of Army Region 2 will remain in the area [around Preah Vihear] to protect the land and sovereignty of our country.

"The army will wait for instructions from Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha [the national army chief]," the spokesman said.

He said if the court ruled in favour of Cambodia and the Cambodian army attacked the Thai side, the Thai army would be ready to retaliate.

"The number of Thai troops in the area is adequate to deal with any situation that might occur along the Thai-Cambodian border," Col Prawit added.

ICJ's Map of Provisional Demilitarized Zone

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 02:44 AM PDT

ICJ Provisional Measures on Preah Vihear temple

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 02:38 AM PDT

Thailand, Cambodia ordered to withdraw troops

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 02:32 AM PDT

July 18, 2011
The Nation

The International Court of Justice Monday voted 9:5 to order both Thailand and Cambodia to withdraw their troops from the disputed plot around Preah Vihear Temple.

Praj Iampongsan, a Nation Channel reporter, reported from Hague that the ICJ would proceed with the case to interpret the 1962 ruling on the Preah Vihear temple. Pending the ruling, both countries are required to pull out their troops from the area.

He said the court rejected Thailand's request to throw out the case.

Should the Thai government decide to comply with the court order and withdraw the troops from the 4.5 disputed area, it would be seen favourable for Cambodia.


Without Thai troops deployed in the disputed area, Cambodia could proceed to develop Preah Vihear as a world heritage site without obstacle.

Military observers expect that the Thai government would never comply with the order or else Thailand could be seen as being the wrong side during the past two years.

Earlier, the second Army area commander declared that he would never withdraw troops from the disputed area as doing so would be tantamount to giving the land to Phnom Penh.

UN orders Thai, Cambodian troop withdrawal

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 02:22 AM PDT

Mon Jul 18 2011
9News (Australia)

The UN's highest court on Monday ordered Thailand and Cambodia to immediately withdraw their troops from a disputed area around an ancient temple on the border between the two Asian neighbours.

"Both parties should immediately withdraw their military personnel currently present in the provisional demilitarised zone and refrain from any military presence within that zone," said the order, read by International Court of Justice president Judge Hisashi Owada at a sitting in The Hague.

Cambodia in late April launched a bitter legal battle before the ICJ in which it asked for an interpretation of a 1962 ICJ ruling around the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple.

It also asked the court, while judges were pondering the request, to approve provisional measures including an immediate Thai troop withdrawal and a ban on all Thai military activity there.

Although Thailand do not dispute Cambodia's ownership of the temple, secured by the 1962 ruling, both Phnom Penh and Bangkok claim the 4.6-square-kilometre area surrounding the Khmer complex.

UN court orders Thai, Cambodia troops out of temple area [-A victory for Thailand?]

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 02:14 AM PDT

Reporting by Aaron Gray-Block

THE HAGUE, July 18 (Reuters) - The highest U.N. court ordered Thailand and Cambodia on Monday to pull their soldiers out of a newly defined demilitarised zone around a temple and to restart talks in order to resolve the decades-long conflict.

The recent fighting between Cambodia and Thailand has resulted in 18 deaths and forced the relocation of tens of thousands of villagers on both sides since February, when tensions flared over ancient Hindu temples.

In its ruling, the court said the situation "remains unstable" and "could deteriorate" as it defined a demilitarised zone around the temple and urged Thailand and Cambodia to engage in talks.

The court also ordered both states to allow observers from the Association of South East Asian Nations to enter the area.

UN court draws DMZ for Thai, Cambodia troops

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 02:11 AM PDT

Monday, July 18, 2011

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The U.N.'s highest court has ordered troops from both Thailand and Cambodia to immediately withdraw military forces from disputed areas around a World Heritage temple straddling their border.

The International Court of Justice was acting on Cambodia's request to order Thai troops out of the area, where at least 20 people have died in clashes since 2008.

But the court went beyond that request and drew a "provisional demilitarized zone" free of military and police from both countries.

It also called Monday on the two nations to allow ASEAN officers into the area to observe a cease-fire.

The court ruled in 1962 that the Preah Vihear temple is in Cambodian territory.

UN court orders Thai, Cambodia troops out of temple area

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 01:59 AM PDT

07.18.11
Reuters

The highest UN court ordered Thailand and Cambodia on Monday to pull their soldiers out of a newly defined demilitarised zone around a temple and to restart talks in order to resolve the decades-long conflict.

The recent fighting between Cambodia and Thailand has resulted in 18 deaths and forced the relocation of tens of thousands of villagers on both sides since February, when tensions flared over ancient Hindu temples.

[Thai] 2nd Army: No troop withdrawals

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 01:10 AM PDT

18/07/2011
Bangkok Post

There will not be any immediate troop withdrawal from the disputed area around Preah Vihear temple, regardless of the decision due today from the International Court of Justice, Army Region 2 spokesman Prawit Hukaew said on Monday.

Col Prawit commented ahead of the International Court of Justice's scheduled announcement at the Peace Palace in The Hague, due to start at 3pm Thailand time.

The ICJ will rule on Cambodia's request tthat it order Thai troops withdrawn from the disputed area around the ancient temple immediately and unconditionally.

"No matter what the ICJ's ruling is, troops of Army Region 2 will remain in the area [around Preah Vihear] to protect the land and sovereignty of our country.


"The army will wait for instructions from Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha [the national army chief]," the spokesman said.

He said if the court ruled in favour of Cambodia and the Cambodian army attacked the Thai side, the Thai army would be ready to retaliate.

"The number of Thai troops in the area is adequate to deal with any situation that might occur along the Thai-Cambodian border," Col Prawit added.

Keat Chhon said that he will take measures against corrupt officials at the Social Welfare ministry who lost more than $5 million

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 01:04 AM PDT

Keat Chhon
Ith Sam Heng

18 July 2011
By Meas Mony
The Free Press Magazine
Translated from Khmer by Soch
Click here to read original article in Khmer

On Monday 18, in front of members of Parliament, Keat Chhon, the minister of Economy and Finance, claimed that he will take measures against corrupt Social Welfare ministry officials for losing more than $5 million in retirement funds.

Keat Chhon – who was an advisor of KR leader Pol Pot – said that, currently, the Anti-Corruption Unit is taking legal measures against these officials.

Keat Chhon's claim came after the opposition party and the civil society stated that the corrupt officials who stole retirement funds should be brought to face legal charges. Two weeks ago, the ministry of Economy and Finance ordered Ith Sam Heng, the minister of Social Welfare, to pay back to the ministry of Economic and Finance more than $5 million of funds lost.

Cambodian Army deploys multiple-rocket launchers near border

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:53 AM PDT

File Photo
July 18, 2011
The Nation

Cambodian troops have moved five BM-21 multiple rocket launcher vehicles near the Thai border ahead of the International Court of Justice's decision on Cambodia's complaint against Thailand, a Thai military source said.

The source said the rocket launcher vehicles were deployed near Preah Vihear Temple.

The source said the exact location of the launchers had yet to be detected. He said the artillery unit would be able to detect the launchers if rockets are fired at Thailand.

Rong Chhun warns about leading a massive demonstration

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:43 AM PDT

18 July 2011
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Soch

Rong Chhun, President of the Cambodian Confederation of Unions (CCU), warns that he will lead an upcoming mass demonstration by workers in August if the government and factory workers continue to refuse to settle with the more than 4,000 workers from the June Textile Co., according to the orders issued by the arbitration council. The workers are demanding for a resolution on their severance and benefit compensations owed to them. During a press conference held in front of more than 300 factory workers at the June Textile Co. at the Sunway Hotel, Rong Chhun warned that worker forces from other factories will join in to support the June Textile workers during a mass demonstration in order to push the government and the factory owners to find a resolution for the workers if there is no immediate resolution on this issue.

Cambodia raises inflation forecast to 5.5 pct in 2011

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:42 AM PDT

PHNOM PENH, July 18 (Xinhua) -- Cambodia raised inflation rate forecast to 5.5 percent this year, up from its earlier prediction of maximum 5 percent, said the Minister of Finance Keat Chhon (pictured) on Monday.

"As the globe is challenging with high unemployment rates and high inflation rates, Cambodia, a small country with open economy, is obviously unable to escape from these impacts," he said during a meeting with the members of parliament on budget draft for 2012' s expenditure.

"We hope that the rate will decline to 5 percent in 2012," he said.


The soaring price of petroleum is the main cause fueling the high rise of inflation rate in Cambodia, since the start of the year, the price of gasoline increased by 10.6 percent to 1.38 U.S. dollars a liter, up from 1.25 U.S. dollars in January.

The government's revised inflation rate is still lower than that forecast by the International Monetary Fund at 6.5 percent, but it is higher than the World Bank at 5 percent and the same as that of the Asian Development Bank.

Meanwhile, Keat Chhon said that the country's revised GDP (Gross Domestic Products) for 2011 is 6.1 percent and for 2012 is 6. 5 percent.

Closing Order of Case 002 against Senior KR Leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:20 AM PDT

In preparation for the start of trial hearings beginning on 27 June 2011 of Case 002 against the surviving Khmer Rouge senior leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith, KI Media is starting a new series in posting installations of the public document of the Closing Order of Case 002.  The Closing Order of the Co-Investigating Judges forms the basic document from which all the parties (Co-Prosecutors, Co-Lead Lawyers for all civil parties, Defense Lawyers) will be making their arguments before the Trial Chamber judges (one Cambodian President, 2 Cambodian Judges, 2 UN judges).  Up until now, the hearings involving these four surviving senior Khmer Rouge leaders have been in the Pre-Trial Chamber over issues of pre-trial detention and jurisdictional issues.  Beginning in June 2011, the Trial Chamber will hear the substantive arguments over the criminal charges (e.g. genocide, crimes against humanity, penal code of 1956).  Available in Khmer and French.  Contact the ECCC for a free copy.
CLOSING ORDER
of Co-Investigating Judges You Bunleng and Marcel Lemonde, 15 September 2010
Trapeang Thma Dam Worksite1331
Functioning

Working and Living Conditions
324.            Thousands of people were made to participate in the construction of Trapeang Thma.1372 One former worker estimates the figure at approximately 15,0001373 whilst another states "it was the entire Sector 5, combined with people in the cooperatives".1314 Other witnesses talk of "thousands" or of "tens of thousands" of workers participating in the construction of the dam.1375 The Chinese press report on the visit of a Chinese delegation puts the figure at 20,000 workers1376 and similarly a CPK Telegram (reporting on a visit to the dam by Yugoslavian journalists) also puts the figure at 20,000.1377
325.            The people working at Trapeang Thma came from the villages of the districts of Sector 5 of the Northwest Zone, including Thma Puok District, Phnom Srok District, Serei Saophan District and Preah Net Preah District.1378 The workers also included "new people" who had been moved from Phnom Penh and from Siem Reap.
326.           Workers comprised men, women and children;1381 and were organised into work units. The working units each comprised approximately 10 people forming part of larger platoons, companies and battalions, comprising 30, 100 and 300 people respectively.1382 The "mobile units" contained "middle aged people".1383 Certain units were of mixed sex; in others, the workers were organised by sex but there were no differences in the assigned tasks.1384 Workers in the mobile units were required to build the dam, dig canals, build irrigation systems, grow and transplant rice.1385 The "children's units" comprised 13 to 17 year olds.1386 The children in the children's units were separated from their families and made to live together with their unit members.1387 Furthermore, there were "Special Case Units" where those considered to be avoiding work or of having an "ideological disease" were placed for observation and reeducation.1388 The "Special Case Unit" had the highest work quotas1389 and those whom it was considered could not be reeducated in the Unit would disappear and never be seen again.1390
327.            The dam was built almost exclusively by manual labour,1391 with quotas from 1 cubic metre up to 3.5 cubic metres of earth to dig per day per worker.1392 Some machinery appears to have been used, but only for secondary tasks, such as tractors to assist in leveling the ground.1393
328.           Although it may have varied in different working units, working hours at Trapeang Thma were approximately 7am to 11am and then from 1pm until 5pm.1394 Some witnesses also refer to working hours during the nightime, from about 7pm until 10pm or later especially when quotas had not been met.1395 Some units started work earlier in the morning with one witness stating that they started at dawn.1396 No rest or breaks were allowed before the assigned task was completed.1397 Workers who completed their quotas would then be given extra quotas to complete.1398 Although some witnesses state that there was no punishment inflicted for those who could not meet their quotas,1399 it is more likely that workers were punished,1400 either physically1401 or with the reduction of food rations.1402 Other workers who did not meet their quotas would be sent to reeducation or refashioning meetings1403 or to the "Special Case Unit".1404
329.           Workers were not allowed to stop and rest during working hours.1405 Most of the witnesses say they were forbidden to talk with each other.1406 Short breaks to drink or urinate were allowed,1407 but monitors and spies1408 at the site would note and report every "lazy" worker, thus people did not dare to ask for breaks.1409 Leave days were conceded only when children's parents were sick.1410
330.           Workers had to live close to the site in communal halls, some sleeping up to 600 people.1411 They were not provided with sleeping mats, blankets, pillows or hammocks, which they had to make by themselves from rice sacks and were often required to sleep on the ground.1412 Men and women who were not married had to live separately.1413
331.           Although a small number of witnesses state that there was enough to eat,1414 food was generally insufficient.1415 Some witnesses state they "drank water to fill ourselves" or "walked around looking for leaves to eat in place of food".1416 Occasionally dried fish or meat were provided;1417 nonetheless, even when this food was provided it was insufficient for the workers.1418 Water for the workers came from nearby muddy ponds.1419 No one dared complain about the food rations for fear of being killed.1420 Workers at the dam died of starvation and of exhaustion directly at the work place while carrying the earth.
332.           Hygiene was totally lacking.1423 The muddy water that was taken from the ponds was not boiled.1424 These appalling unhygienic conditions caused many of the workers to become ill with dysentery,1425 cholera, malaria, etc. Food rations for sick people were reduced.1426 There were untrained medics who had no knowledge and who had been chosen at random.1427 They walked around the site providing sick persons with the same herbal medicine, which resembled rabbit droppings.1428 Children would be recruited to be sent to the social affairs department for two weeks to return to Trapeang Thma as medics for their respective units.1429 Given these conditions, many people died due to illness1430 with some family lines almost dying out entirely.1431
333.            "New people" were subjected to harsher working conditions, such as larger working quotas or unjustified punishments.1432 CPK soldiers and cadres would collect biographies of workers at the site in order to identify those to be later arrested or killed.1433
334.            Some witnesses give evidence of witnessing or participating in marriage ceremonies at Trapeang Thma, often with scores of couples being married in mass ceremonies.1434 One witness states that the couples were forced to marry,1435 and others that marriages would have to be approved by unit chairmen, and workers would be killed for failing to seek permission.1436
335.            The evidence of the majority of the witnesses, with two exceptions,1437 also strongly supports that there was no schooling for the children.1438

Yale University - Stakes in Faith and Globalization: Tony Blair

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:10 AM PDT

Faith and Globalization course description at Yale University with Tony Blair Faith Foundation

The impact of religious faith is profound in a world where political, economic, and social spheres are increasingly interconnected. Intentional and sustained reflection on the crucial issues of faith and globalization can lead to the kind of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence that life in the 21st century demands.

Yale, in collaboration with the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, launched the Faith and Globalization Initiative in the Fall of 2008 as a three-year effort to conduct dialogue as a way of considering these essential issues. The website will explore a variety of topics and issues －in the classroom, in formal lectures and informal conversation, and through research, speeches, conferences, and the Internet.






 

Measures needed to curb gambling in Cambodian casinos [... for Viet gamblers; Will Hanoi punish Hun Xen?]

Posted: 18 Jul 2011 12:00 AM PDT

July, 18 2011
VNS

HCM CITY — Viet Nam needs to develop strict regulations to forbid Vietnamese gambling abroad and create severe sanctions for people who organise or influence others who do so, said an official.

"Many families have gone bankrupt or sold their property to cover gambling losses in Cambodia," said Mai Van Huynh, chairman of Ha Tien People's Committee.

The number of robbery and swindling cases has grown rapidly.

Local authorities know that Vietnamese people gamble in Cambodian casinos but Vietnamese law cannot be applied to those citizens who gamble or organise gambling outside of Viet Nam's territory, Huynh said.


The country has not developed sanctions to handle people who organise or incite others to gamble abroad, he added.

After casinos near Prey Chark bordergate in Kampot Province in Cambodia opened, the number of tourists to the border town of Ha Tien in Kien Giang Province has increased.

Despite this, the town has not reaped any benefits from the increasing tourist trade, which has infringed on public order.

Local authorities have implemented several measures, including increasing residents' awareness through meetings and having police closely monitor gamblers to prevent them from committing an offence.

"The number of local residents going to Cambodia to gamble has fallen slightly, but the number of people from other places travelling through Ha Tien to gamble in Cambodia has increased," Huynh said.

According to reports, the southern province of Kien Giang has around 500 residents who usually gamble in Cambodia.

Forty of them have gone bankrupt, some have committed robbery, and some have even committed suicide.

Vietnamese steelmakers scale back production as consumption falls

Posted: 17 Jul 2011 11:53 PM PDT

Monday, 18 Jul 2011
Sourced from Vietnam News

Vietnam News reported that the domestic steel industry is cutting back on production in a big way as it faces unsold stockpiles and struggles to increase exports because it is not competitive enough. Its problems are compounded by increasing imports of cheaper steel products.

The construction season is nearing its peak, but instead of increasing capacity, steel factories nation wide are scaling back production, leading to fiercer competition.

The Pomina Steel Mill is among the companies which have been functioning at 50% of its production capacity for a few months due to low demand.

The Viet Nam Steel Corporation (VNSteel) is facing a similar situation with sales down 50% in the last few months, forcing it to decrease production and prevent excessive stockpiles. Smaller companies in the domestic market have also been experiencing dull business.


According to the Viet Nam Steel Association, while leading steel corporations and companies have been cutting their capacities by as much as 50%, smaller firms in the field have been running at 30% to 40% of their designed capacities, while some have stopped production altogether.

The association says Viet Nam produced 2.21 million tonnes of steel in the first five months of the year, a year-on-year increase of 281,000 tonnes or 14%. Total consumption was estimated at 2.14 million tonnes, up 18% against the same period last year.

The country had about 320,000 tonnes of finished steel products in stock in May and 520,000 tonnes of steel billet (or scrap iron) for production in June. During the first six months of the year, over 3 million tonnes of steel products and materials were imported into the country.

The current stock of steel, including imports, could meet domestic market demand till the end of the third quarter of this year, the director of a steel production company said on condition of anonymity.

Officials from VNSteel and Pomina Steel both said the decrease in demand was because of low consumption which, in turn, was caused largely by prolonged inflation and increased interest rates. Decree 11 on cutting public investment was another factor in the low demand for steel products.

Meanwhile, the situation of excessive production was getting worse with a number of new projects with capacities of between 250,000 to 500,000 tonnes per year set to be put into operation this year. The total capacity of the new factories is expected to exceed 2 million tonnes a year.

Many companies have been trying to export their products to deal with the situation, but are facing challenges posed by policies as well as international competition.

Mr Do Duy Thai, general director of Pomina Steel, which has been exporting its products to Cambodia and Laos, said the export value was still modest, especially at this time. He said that to be able to export to Cambodia and Laos, the products had to be priced very competitively, which was a disadvantage for the Vietnamese steel industry.

Leave a Reply

If you have some guts to join or have any secret to share, you can get it published directly to this blog by using this address meaning once you send your article to this email, it will soon appear in this blog after verifying that it is not just spam!